Copy right:
©Government of Nepal, Ministry of Environment , Science and Technology,
Singhadurbar, Kathmandu
Cover photo:
Sagar Rimal (Flower photo’s name), Balendra Deo (Map of Nepal)
Published by:
Government of Nepal, Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology,
Singhadurbar, Kathmandu
Printed by:
National Capacity Needs Self Assessment for Global Environment
Management Project (NCSA)
MoEST/UNDP/GEF
Printed at:
Sigma General Offset Press, Sanepa, Lalitpur
Tel: 5554029
NATIONAL CAPACITY SELF-ASSESSMENT FOR GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
NEPAL
THEMATIC ASSESSMENT REPORT : BIODIVERSITY
Government of Nepal
Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACAP
Annapurna Conservation Area Project
BISEP-ST
Biodiversity Sector Program for the Siwaliks and Tarai
CBD
Convention on Biological Diversity
CBR
Community Biodiversity Registration/ Register
CBO
Community Based Organization
CBS
Central Bureau of Statistics
CFM
Collaborative Forest Management
CITES
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora
COP
Conference of Parties
DDC
District Development Committee
DFO
District Forest Office/Officer
DOFRS
Department of Forests Research and SurveyDepartment
FECOFUN
Federation of Community Forest Users in Nepal
FUG
Forest User Group
FRISP
Forest Resource Information Strengthening Project
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GIS
Geographic Information System
GMO
Genetically Modified Organism
GON
Government of Nepal
GTI
Global Taxonomic Initiative
ICIMOD
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
INGO
International Nongovernment Organization
IUCN
The World Conservation Union
JAFTA
Japan Forest Technology Association
LIBIRD
Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development
LRMP
Land Resources Mapping Project
MDG
Millennium Development Goals
MOAC
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
MOCTA
Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation
MOEST
Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology
MOFSC
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation
NARC
Nepal Agriculture Research Council
NBCC
National Biodiversity Coordination Committee
NBS
Nepal Biodiversity Strategy
NBSIP
Nepal Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan
NCSA
National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment
NFI
National Forest Inventory
NGO
Nongovernment Organization
NPC
National Planning Commission
NTFP
Non-timber Forest Product
NTNC
National Trust for Nature Conservation
SDAN
Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal
TAL
Tarai Arc Landscape
TRIPS
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
TU
Tribhuban University
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
VDC
Village Development Committee
WCMC
World Conservation Monitoring Center
WRI
World Resource Institute
WTLCP
Western Tarai Landscape Conservation Project
WTO
World Trade Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
Page
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-4
1.1 Biodiversity and Its Significance
1
1.2 Biodiversity Conservation: A Matter of Global Concern
1
1.3 Convention on Biological Diversity
2
1.4 Nepal in the CBD
2
1.5 National Capacity Needs Self Assessment: Rationale, Objectives and Process
4
1.6 Thematic Assessment Methodology
4
Chapter 2: Status of Biodiversity and Its Management in Nepal
5-32
2.1 Country Background
5
2.2 Brief Overview of Nepal’s Biodiversity
7
2.3 National Policy and Legal Framework for Biodiversity Management
8
2.4 Institutions Involved in Biodiversity Management
13
2.5 Approaches to In-Situ Conservation
17
2.6 Approaches to Ex-Situ Conservation
24
2.7 Management Outcomes
25
Chapter 3: Capacity Issues, Strengths, Constraints and Needs
33-62
3.1 National Sustainable Development Policy and Strategy
33
3.2 Policy and Legal Framework
34
3.3 Implementation of Policies, Plans and Programs
36
3.4 Identification and Monitoring of Biodiversity
38
3.5 In-situ Conservation
42
3.6 Management and Control of Invasive Alien Species
46
3.7 Ex-situ Conservation
48
3.8 Biosafety Management
49
3.9 Preservation of Traditional Knowledge
51
3.10 Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing
51
3.11 Education, Awareness and Public Participation
53
3.12 Database Development, Management and Information Exchange
55
3.13 Capacity of Local Agencies in Biodiversity Management
56
3.14 Capacity of CBOs and NGOs in Biodiversity Management
58
3.15 Other Issues
59
3.16 Cross-thematic Issues
61
Chapter 4: Prioritization of National Capacity Building for Effective Management of Biodiversity
63-67
References
68-71
Appendices
72-75
Appendix 1.1: Composition of the Thematic Working Group on Biodiversity
72
Appendix 2.1: Forest Types of Nepal
73
Appendix 2.2: Protected Areas of Nepal
74
List of Tables
Table No. Title
Page no.
2.1
Major documents defining Nepal’s sustainable development framework and priorities
2.2
Major strategies, plans and policies related to biodiversity management in Nepal
10
2.3
Major Acts, regulations and guideline related to biodiversity management in Nepal
11
2.4
Advisory bodies related to biodiversity mangement in Nepal
13
2.5
National level government institutions involved in the management of biodivesity in
Nepal
14
2.6
MainI/NGOs involved in the management of biodiversity in Nepal
15
2.7
Main community based organizations involved in the management of biodiversity in
Nepal
16
Changes in forest and shrub cover of Nepal over time
26
2.8
9
List of Figures
Figure No.
Title
Page
2.1
Physiographic zones of Nepal
2.2
Protected areas of Nepal
19
2.3
Growth of protected area in Nepal
28
2.4
Changes in rhino population in Chitwan National Park
29
5
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
Chapter I
Introduction
1.1 Biodiversity and Its Significance
The term biodiversity is generally used to refer to all aspects of variability evident within the living world,
including diversity within and between individuals, populations, species, communities, and ecosystems. It is
the combination of life forms and their interactions with one another, and with the physical environment that
has made the earth habitable for humans. In general, biodiversity is highest in and around the equator and it
continuously decreases as we move towards the poles.
Biodiversity and natural ecosystems make overwhelming contributions to human life and well-being because
ecosystems provide the basic necessities of life, offer protection from natural disasters and disease, and are the
foundation for human culture. In Nepal, biological diversity is a crucial component in the livelihood of many
people who depend on the diversified plants and animals to meet their nutritional, medicinal and energy
needs.
1.2 Biodiversity Conservation: A Matter of Global Concern
The rapid loss of biodiversity during the last few decades has negatively affected ecosystems’ ability to meet
basic human needs and also made them more vulnerable to perturbations (WRI, 2005). Extinction of species
is the most serious aspect of this loss. It is estimated that the species extinction rate in the world over the past
few hundred years has been up to a thousand times higher than the natural rate due mainly to human activities.
According to one estimate, up to 50 percent of species within well-studied groups such as amphibians, birds
or mammals are threatened with extinction, and the situation is deteriorating (IUCN, 2006a). Similarly, the
genetic diversity of cultivated and domesticated species is also under threat. For example, an estimated one
third of all domesticated animal breeds in the world are presently threatened with extinction (GreenFacts,
2007).
Land use change, mainly for agricultural expansion, overexploitations, habitat fragmentation, introduction/
intrusion of invasive alien species, are other major threats for genetic diversity of wild species. Ecological
fragility, coupled with unstable environments, poor management of forests and other natural resources,
inappropriate farming practices, and poaching of flora and fauna for trade are some other primary threats to
biodiversity in less-developed mountainous countries, like Nepal. Overloading of nutrients to water bodies
and excessive use of pesticides and insecticides by farmers are some of the major threats related to agriculture
diversity. Climate change is another major emerging threat whose role in biodiversity change is not yet fully
known.
The high rate of biodiversity loss has been a matter of great concern among conservation scientists, especially
since the late 1980s. The concern has been increased also by the fact that our knowledge of biodiversity is
June 2008
1
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
incomplete. Deep concern over the rapid loss of biodiversity and the recognition of its important role in
supporting human life motivated the global community to take several initiatives aimed at conservation of
biodiversity in the world. This concern led to the creation of important multilateral environmental conventions,
including the World Heritage Convention, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora, the Ramsar Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity. In addition to
these major conventions, there have been several other treaties, agreements and associations at multilateral
or bilateral levels. Through the Convention on Biological Diversity and other mechanisms, biodiversity has
now become a matter of increasing concern and the subject of many national and international policies and
regulations.
1.3 Convention on Biological Diversity
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), created in 1992, is one of the most broadly subscribed
international environmental treaties in the world. It is a legally binding global treaty that encompasses three
complementary objectives: (i) conservation of biodiversity, (ii) sustainable use of its components, and (iii) fair
and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources. The other important issues
raised by the CBD include: access to genetic resources and benefit sharing, impact assessment, benefit sharing
of research and technology transfer, and financial resources and mechanisms to achieve conservation goals.
The Convention can also be considered as the foundation for global partnerships between the developing
and developed nations for sustainable development. Since the opening of the Convention for signature at the
Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, a total of 190 Parties (189 countries and the European Commission)
have already signed the CBD.
1.4 Nepal in the CBD
Nepal is one of the first countries that signed the CBD during the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro on 12
June 1992, ratified it on 23 November 1993, and became a Party to the Convention on 21 February 1994.
The Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MOFSC), as the national focal point to the Convention, has
been providing overall coordination of national activities under the CBD. Several other ministries (including
MOAC, MOEST), departments, non-governmental organizations, community based organizations, academic
institutions and other agencies are involved in the implementation of the CBD in Nepal.
1.4.1
(i)
Major Obligations of Nepal as a Party to the CBD
Development of national strategies, plans or programs for the conservation and sustainable use of
biological diversity.
(ii) Integration, as far as possible and as appropriate, the conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programs and policies.
(iii) Identification and monitoring of the component of biological diversity and maintain the data for the
purpose of in-situ and ex-situ conservation and sustainable use.
(iv) In-situ conservation of biodiversity, including establishment of system of protected area, promotion of
the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and maintenance of viable population of species in their
natural habitats, and prevention of alien species’ introduction.
2
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
(v) Ex-situ conservation of component of biological diversity and establishment of facility for ex-situ
conservation and research on plant, animals and micro organisms.
(vi) Sustainable use of components of biodiversity through its integration at national decision making and
encouragement for cooperation between government and private sectors.
(vii) Environmental Impact Assessment of proposed development project that is likely to cause adverse effects
on biodiversity.
(viii) Use of the country’s sovereign authority to provide access to genetic resources for environmentally sound
use and benefit sharing.
(ix) Facilitation in access and transfer of technology for conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity through relevant legislative measures.
(x) Protection and promotion of the rights of communities, farmers and the indigenous peoples vis-a-vis
their biological resources and knowledge systems.
Under the Biodiversity 2010 Target adopted by the CBD Conference of Parties (COP), Nepal is also obliged
to a more effective and coherent implementation of the three objectives of the CBD in order to achieve a
significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. Moreover, as a signatory to the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety (a supplementary agreement to the CBD), Nepal is required to consider several points
while assessing the risks related to transfer and handling of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) resulting
from the application of biotechnology.
1.4.2 Opportunities of Nepal as a Party to the CBD
(i)
Several provisions in the CBD Articles and COP decisions provide developing countries with
opportunities to acquire necessary financial resources and technology for effective implementation of
the CBD. Nepal, as a least developed country Party to the Convention, can take full advantage of these
provisions for generating necessary financial resources for effective implementation of the CBD. Some
of the specific provisions of the CBD that Nepal can take advantage from are as follows.
(a)
Article 20 of the CBD gives special consideration to developing countries in funding the
implementation of the CBD. The Article clearly states that such financial resources and transfer
of technology will take fully into account the fact that economic and social development and
eradication of poverty are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.
(b) Under Decision 27.7 of the COP-7, Nepal is entitled to get financial support from developed
countries for effective implementation of the program of work on mountain biological diversity.
(c)
Decision 27.15 of the COP-7 provides opportunity to further enhance the provision of additional
financial resources and transfer of technology to implement the program of work on mountain
biological diversity.
(d) As per the CBD COP’s emphasis at the 2004 Conference, Nepal as a least developed country is
entitled to get adequate and timely support for the implementation of activities to achieve and
monitor progress towards the CBD goals and Biodiversity 2010 Targets.
June 2008
3
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
(ii) The CBD (Article 15) asserts that a given country must have the right of disposal over its own biological
diversity. This means that an appropriate share of potential profits ensuing from the use of these resources
is to be assured. Nepal’s unique physiographic condition coupled with the climatic diversity provides
multitudes of habitats for diverse organisms, including high altitude herbs and animals. These plants and
animals species may contain unique genes for human welfare in future and could be valuable assets for
the country’s economy. In this context, Nepal could immensely benefit from proper implementation of
this CBD provision.
(iii) The ongoing community biodiversity documentation program could be an important initiative in
registering traditional knowledge related to biological resources and establishing right over such
knowledge and innovations as envisaged by the CBD.
(iv) Implementation of the Convention has been an important mechanism towards generating inter-sectoral
cooperation for conservation and sustainable use of country’s biological resources.
1.5 National Capacity Needs Self Assessment: Rationale, Objectives and Process
Nepal has fully adopted, at least in theory, the concept of environmentally sustainable development. While
the country has been progressive in its participation to international treaties and agreements and formulating
environment-friendly policies and strategies, its limited capacity continues to be a major impediment in
implementing the policies and fully realizing the sustainable development goals and objectives. It is in this
context, the National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment (NCSA) Project has been undertaken with financial
support from the Global Environment Facility and UNDP.
The primary goal of the NCSA is to identify, through a country-driven consultative process, priorities and
needs for capacity building to protect the global environment. Specific objectives of this component of the
NCSA project are to: (i) conduct a comprehensive assessment of capacity building issues, constraints, and
needs at the systemic, institutional and individual levels within the thematic area of biodiversity, with particular
attention to national obligations to the CBD, (ii) identify the capacity development priorities related to the
theme, and (iii) recommend capacity development actions to address the identified gaps.
1.6 Thematic Assessment Methodology
The thematic assessment is the second major step in the NCSA process following the thematic stocktaking.
The assessment has been conducted from a broad-based consultative and participatory process, involving all
key stakeholders to the extent possible. Specifically, it is based on the analysis of the information collected
through extensive review of the relevant literature, series of consultations, and collection of expert opinions.
The task is under the responsibility of a sixteen-member Thematic Working Group on Biodiversity (Appendix
1.1). The process was facilitated and supported by an independent consultant.
During the preparation of the report, four separate focus group discussions were conducted to solicit specific
information from local agency representatives, university faculty members, officials in and under the Ministry
of Forest and Soil Conservation, and NARC scientists. Informal interviews with many key stakeholders were
useful in securing important insights and views on capacity issues and needs for effective implementation of
the CBD in the country. Overall coordination and facilitation was provided by the NCSA Project office.
4
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
Chapter II
Status of Biodiversity and Its Management
in Nepal
2.1 Country Background
Nepal is a mountaineous country situated in the central part of the Himalayas between 26022’ and 30027’ N
latitudes and 80004’ and 88012’ E longitudes, covering an area 147,181 sq. km (CBS, 2007a). The country
can be divided into five distinct physiographic zones, including the Tarai, Chure hills (also known as the
Siwaliks), Mid-Mountains, High Mountains, and High Himal (LRMP, 1986; Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: Physiographic zones of Nepal
The Tarai plain makes up less than one-third of the total area but has the largest cultivated area, economically
valuable forests, and dense human population. The rest of the topography is rugged made up of hills, mountains
and inner-mountain valleys. The Chure zone consists of steep hills of unstable geomorphology. The foothills
between the Tarai and the Chure hills sustain a narrow but continuous belt of valuable tropical deciduous
forest dominated by Shorea robusta.
The Mid-Mountains has sub-tropical to temperate monsoonal climate and is characterized by intensive
farming on hillside terraces. The zone has the greatest diversity of ecosystems and species in Nepal due to the
great variety of terrain types and climatic zones. The High Himal zone, located above 4,000 m, comprises subalpine and alpine climates and associated vegetation types. Above 5,500 m, the Himalayas are covered with
perpetual snow and no vegetation. The zone also includes a few dry valleys and treeless plateaus in western
Nepal.
June 2008
5
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
Photo by Ambika Gautam
Around 21 percent of the country’s total land area is under cultivation. Forest and shrubs (including degraded
forest) combined cover the largest part of the land area (i.e. 39.6%). The Middle Mountain zone has the
highest forest cover (34.6% of the total forested land) and ecosystem diversity. The rest of the land cover
consists of grasslands (11.5%) and uncultivated areas (7%; LRMP, 1986).
A glimpse of the mountain topography and land use in central Nepal
Nepal had a population of 23.2 million in 2001 with an average density of 157.7 per sq. km., which is
estimated to have grown to 26.4 million in 2007. Around 48.4 percent of the population lives in the Terai,
44.3 percent in the hills and Mid-Mountain districts, and 7.3 percent in High Mountains. The population
density varies substantially across the physiographic zones with a general decrease from the south to the
north. The population is growing with an average annual rate of 2.27 percent (CBS, 2007b). Majority of the
people live in rural mountain areas with fragile physiography and low productivity thereby creating a very
strong poverty-environment-health and vulnerability nexus. The country ranks 142nd out of 177 in the latest
Human Development Index (UNDP, 2007).
Nepalese economy is very much dependent on the use of natural resources, including the arable land, forests,
and water. Over 60 percent of the country’s economically active population is dependent on agriculture.
Forest is an integral component of the subsistence agriculture practiced by the majority of rural population in
the country. Many rural families substantially depend on Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) for meeting
their food and healthcare requirements. Many NTFPs, particularly the medicinal and aromatic plants, are also
important source of cash income for thousands of rural families.
The high demand for agricultural land and overexploitation has led to considerable deforestation and
degradation of forest cover during the last few decades. For example, the country’s forest cover declined from
37 percent in the late 1970s to 29 percent in the early 1990s (DOFRS/FRISP, 1999). Increasing intensification
coupled with inadequate and imbalanced application of fertilizers, has led to degradation of agricultural
lands.
6
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
2.2 Brief Overview of Nepal’s Biodiversity
Nepal possesses a disproportionately rich diversity of flora and fauna at ecosystem, species, and genetic
levels. A total of 118 ecosystems and 75 vegetation types have been recognized in the country. The majority
of the ecosystems are reported to be found in the Mid-Mountains (52) and High Mountain (38), regions
(Dobremez, 1976). The forest ecosystems of the country, which have been classified into 35 forest types by
Stainton (1972), are of international importance both in view of the number of globally threatened wildlife
and floral elements as well as the diversity of ecosystems represented within these areas (Bhuju et al., 2007).
Rangeland ecosystems, comprising of grasslands, pastures, scrublands and forests, and wetland ecosystems,
comprising of both the natural and man-made, are other important ecosystems found in the country.
Nepal also has a high degree of agro-ecological diversity. The country’s major agro-ecosystems consists of
rice, maize, wheat, millet and potatoes as the principal crops followed by sugarcane, jute, cotton, tea, barley,
legumes, vegetables and fruit (MOFSC, 2002). There are differences in traditional cropping and animal
husbandry systems across the country along with the variations in climatic and physiographic conditions.
These traditional farming systems, which use local indigenous knowledge and experiences, have great role in
maintaining the agricultural diversity in the country. Diversity of horticultural systems is another important
component of agro-ecosystem, which is not well documented in Nepal.
Nepal harbors around three percent and one percent of the world’s floral and faunal species, respectively. This
includes over three percent of Angiosperms, five percent of Gymnosperms, six percent of Bryophytes, and
nearly five percent of Pteridophytes. The country also holds proportionately high number of faunal species,
including 181 species (4.5% of the world’s total) mammals, and 861 species (9.5%) of birds, 123 species of
reptiles (1.9%), 182 species of fishes (1%), 50 species of amphibians (1.2%), 661 species of butterflies (0.6%)
and 3,958 (3.6%) of moths.
Over 400 species of agro-horticultural crops are believed to be found in Nepal of which 250 species of plants
are believed to be currently under cultivation. Over 500 species wild relatives of cultivated flowering plants,
including about 120 wild relatives of the commonly cultivated food plants, are estimated to exist in the
country (Shrestha and Shrestha, 1999). The list includes at least five wild species of rice, 10 wild relatives
of wheat and 38 wild relatives of grain legume. The high agricultural biodiversity (both crop and animal) of
the country is largely associated with the hills and mountains (MOFSC, 2002). The country’s wetlands that
harbor about 25 percent of the country’s biodiversity including 172 species of major wetland plants and 193
species of wetland-dependent birds are other important reservoirs of species diversity (IUCN, 1996).
The knowledge of genetic diversity of plants is poor in Nepal. The available information indicates that a broad
genetic base of livestock breeds exists in the country. This includes about 24 breeds of indigenous genotypes
of cattle (such as yak, lulu, kirko, achhame, lime and parkote), many indigenous breeds of goats (such as
chyangra, bhyanglung, sinhal and khari) and sheep (such as bhyanglung, baruwal, dorel and kage).
The country’s unique geography with rapid change in altitudinal gradient and associated variability in the
eco-climatic conditions is the most important local factor contributing to the rich biological diversity in the
country. Other important climatic factors influencing biodiversity and the composition of flora and fauna in
June 2008
7
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
the country include rainfall, winter snowfall, temperature, and aspect. Besides these local factors, the country’s
standing at the crossroads of two major biogeographic regions of the world (the Indo-Malayan in the south
and the Palearctic in the north) has made Nepal a mixing place of species originating in both the regions
(Stainton, 1972).
A total of 399 flowering plants and 160 animal species are considered endemic to Nepal. Similarly, eight
species of fish, 29 species of butterflies, nine species of amphibians, 108 species of spiders, two species of birds
and one species of mammal are reported to be endemic to the country (Shrestha and Joshi, 1996). Reported
endemism of higher species is relatively low as compared to invertabrates.
Several plant and animal species in the country are considered endangered, threatened, or rare. Thirtyfour plant species from Nepal are listed in the IUCN Red List. The list includes several valuable medicinal
and aromatic plants, including Aconitum bisma, Alstonia scholaris, Ophicordyceps sinensis, Dactylorhiza
hatagirea, Neo-picrorhiza scrophulariifolia, Podophylum hexandrum, and Raulfia serpentina are endangered
in the country (IUCN, 2006a).
A total of 59 mammals and 34 fish species are considered as as threatened animals (BPP, 1995a). Similarly, an
alarming proportion (i.e. 16%) of bird species of Nepal’s is considered threatened and around 72 bird species
are thought to be critically threatened or endangered (Baral and Inskipp, 2004). Moreover, some 56 species of
mammals (31% of the total reported species), 226 species of birds (27%), 25 species of reptiles (25%), nine
species of amphibians (21%), 35 species of fishes (19%), and 142 species of butterflies (22%) are believed to
be vulnerable through habitat destruction (MOFSC, 2002).
Several indigenous cattle breeds are now at risk of extinction in the country. Among them, pure siri have
become extinct and lulu and achhame cattle are on the verge of extinction (Neupane and Pokhrel, 2005). At
least one breed of buffalo (i.e. lime) is speculated to be endangered and two sheep breeds (lampuchhre and
kage) are identified to be at risk (MOFSC, 2002).
A number of Nepalese species, including 270 species of animals (65 species in Appendix I, 142 in Appendix II
and 63 in Appendix III), and 122 species of plants (5 in Appendix I and 117 in Appendix II) are listed under
various appendices of the CITES (UNEP-WCMC, 2008).
Biological diversity in Nepal is closely linked to the people’s livelihoods. Diversity of crops and animals is
particularly vital to the country’s marginalized mountain communities for maintaining their food security.
Millions of rural people directly depend on forests for meeting their daily subsistence livelihoods requirements.
Livelihoods of many ethnic groups are directly dependent on wetlands. The country’s reservoirs of biodiversity
including, agricultural lands, wetlands, forests, and protected areas, are also directly related to the overall
economic well-being of the country.
2.3 National Policy and Legal Framework for Biodiversity Management
2.3.1
National sustainable development framework and priorities
Nepal’s sustainable development framework is highly influenced by the country’s commitment to achieving
the internationally agreed development goals, including those contained in the United Nations Millennium
8
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
Declaration, Agenda 21 and other major United Nations conferences and international agreements since
1992. The country has given highest priority on the two important development agenda suggested by the
World Summit on Sustainable Development, including poverty eradication and protection and management
of the natural resource base for economic and social development. A list of the major documents defining
Nepal’s current development framework and priorities with a brief outline of biodiversity-related provisions
in each is presented in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Major documents defining Nepal’s sustainable development framework and priorities
Document
Poverty Reduction
Strategy in the Tenth FiveYear Plan (2002-2007)
Brief outline of relevant provisions
•
•
•
•
Sustainable forest and watershed management and biodiversity
conservation through public participation to help economic activities
and enhance livelihood opportunities.
Biodiversity to be at the center during conservation, promotion,
management and utilization of the forest resources.
Landscape approach to biodiversity conservation.
Integrated conservation and development of rare and endangered plants
and herbal species.
Sustainable Development
Agenda for Nepal (2003)
•
Environmental conservation an integral component of poverty alleviation
and sustainable economic growth.
Interim Constitution of
Nepal (2007)
•
Priority to prevent environmental degradation due to development
activities.
Special arrangement for the protection of rare wildlife species.
Attention to be given for conservation and sustainable use of forest, plant
resources, and biodiversity and equitable sharing of benefits arising from
the management of these resources.
•
•
Three-Year Interim Plan
(2007-2010)
•
•
•
•
•
Conservation, development and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity.
Protection of indigenous knowledge and technologies related to
conservation and equitable distribution of benefits from agro-genetic
diversity.
Adoption and promotion of participatory approach in forest
management.
Promotion of forest certification.
Acceleration of biodiversity registration as a priority program.
A central component of Nepal’s national strategy towards meeting the goal of sustainable development is to
empower local bodies and community based user groups to manage their natural resources and certain basic
services related to them by themselves. The government’s role, in many cases, has become more supportive and
facilitative providing technological support and occasional financial assistance (MOPE, 2002).
2.3.2
Strategies, plans and policies
Nepal has come a long way since a systematic effort to conserve its unique landscape and rich biological
diversity started around the middle of the last century. In the process, the country also acceded to a number of
international conventions and agreements. A list of major strategies, plans and policies guiding the conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity in Nepal is presented in Table 2.2.
June 2008
9
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
Table 2.2: Major strategies, plans and policies related to biodiversity management in Nepal
Strategy/Plan/Policy
Brief outline
Cross-sectoral
National Conservation Strategy
(1988)
•
Comprehensive approach to be taken in order to maintain
biological diversity.
Nepal Biodiversity Strategy (2002)
and Nepal Biodiversity Strategy
Implementation Plan (2006-2010)
•
Adoption of a more holistic approach in conservation of
biodiversity and sustainable use of biological resources through
implementation of a number of cross-sectoral as well as sectorwise strategies for the management of habitat, species and genetic
diversity.
The Plan has recommended 13 priority projects.
•
National Wetlands Policy (2003)
•
Stresses for active participation of local communities in the
management of wetlands and their watershed areas.
National Action Program on Land
Degradation and Desertification
(2004)
•
Includes main programs in forests, soil and water conservation,
pastures, mountains, food security and poverty alleviation, early
warning system and cross-sectoral areas.
Science and Technology Policy
(2005)
•
Sustainable use of natural resources through the use of science
and technology.
Need of education, research, training, and development in various
sectors including agriculture, forest, water resource, environment,
and biotechnology.
•
Biotechnology Policy (2006)
•
Use of biotechnology to help reduce poverty and to conserve the
environment.
National Biosafety Framework
(2007)
•
Protection of biodiversity, human health and environment from
adverse effects of modern biotechnology and GMOs.
National Clean Development
Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol
(2007)
•
Has developed indicators for: (i) maintaining sustainability of
local ecological functions, and (ii) maintaining genetic, species,
and ecosystem diversity and not permitting any genetic erosion.
•
Community and private forestry the largest among the six primary
forestry programs.
All accessible forests in the hills to be handed over to local
communities to the extent that they were willing and able to
manage.
Forest User Groups the appropriate local management bodies
responsible for the protection, development, and sustainable
utilization of local forests.
Sectoral
Master Plan for the Forestry Sector
(1989)
•
•
Agriculture Perspective Plan (1995)
•
Increasing the level of resource availability and the efficiency of
resource use in agricultural development.
Forestry Sector Policy (2000)
•
Contiguous large blocks of forests in the tarai and inner-tarai are to
be managed as national forest under a collaborative management
arrangement while setting aside barren lands, shrublands, and
isolated forest patches for handing over as community forests.
Biodiversity conservation through an ecosystem-based landscape
approach.
•
10
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
Strategy/Plan/Policy
Water Resources Strategy (2002) and
National Water Plan (2005)
Brief outline
•
•
•
•
Environmental and ecological considerations to be integrated at
all levels of water resources development process.
Priority to be given to conservation of biodiversity, endemic, rare
and endangered species and habitats in planning, developing and
managing water resources.
Ecosystem approach to watershed management.
Increased environmental awareness, local knowledge and public
participation are essential for sustainable development of water
resources.
National Agricultural Policy (2004)
•
Conservation, promotion and utilization of natural resources,
environment and biodiversity through conservation oriented
farming system and encouraging in-situ conservation of biological
diversity.
Herbs and Non- Timber Forest
Products Policy (2006)
•
Establishing Nepal as a storehouse of medicinal plants and other
NTFPs by 2020.
Rhino Conservation Action Plan
(2006-2011)
•
Outlines short- and long-term strategies for the conservation of
Rhionocerus unicornis.
Agro-biodiversity Policy (2007)
•
Aims at addressing the issue of rights on agricultural genetic
resources.
Promotion of conservation and use of agro-biodiversity.
•
2.3.3
Acts, regulations and guidelines
A number of acts, regulations and guidelines are directly or indirectly related to conservation and sustainable
use of biodiversity in Nepal (Table 2.3).
Table 2.3: Major Acts, regulations and guidelines related to biodiversity management in Nepal
Act/Regulation/Guidelines
Brief outline
Cross-sectoral
Plant Protection Act (2007)
•
Prohibition on import of any plant or plant parts from any
country without prior approval of the government.
Soil and Water Conservation Act
(1982)
•
The government can declare any area as the protected watershed
and specify the type of conservation activities that can be
implemented in such areas.
King Mahendra Trust for Nature
Conservation Act (1983)
•
Includes pprovisions for: (i) the protection, development and
management of wildlife and other natural resources, (ii) making
necessary arrangements for the development of national parks
and wildlife reserves, and (iii) conducting scientific studies and
research on wildlife and other natural resources.
Seed Act (1988)
•
Relates to formulation and implementation of seed policy,
regulating seed quality, approval and registration of new seeds,
determining seed standards etc.
June 2008
11
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
Environment Protection Act (1997)
and Environment Protection
Regulations (1997)
•
The government can declare and maintain any place of extreme
importance from viewpoint of environment protection, as an
environment protection area.
Conduction of EIA a mandatory step for implementation of
development projects.
•
Local Self-Governance Act (1999)
and Local Self Governance
Regulations (1999)
•
Give each district council, VDC and municipality several
responsibilities and authority with regard to biodiversity, forest
and environment.
Biosafety Guidelines (2005)
•
GMO to be released step by step only after assessing the potential
adverse effects it causes and making sure that it will not have
adverse effects on human health and the environment.
Aquatic Animals Protection Act
(1961 with amendment in 1998)
•
Ban on introduction of poison, electric current and explosives
in water body for the purpose of catching or killing aquatic
animals.
National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation Act (1973; with
four amendments) and National
Parks and Wildlife Conservation
Regulations (1974; with
amendments)
•
Basis for establishment and management of national parks
and wildlife reserves for the conservation of wildlife and their
habitat.
Protection and proper management of the sites of special scientific
and environmental importance.
Identification and listing of protected plant and animal species.
Nepal Agriculture Research Council
Act (1991)
•
Basis for the establishment of Nepal Agriculture Research Council
- the main agency involved in conducting agricultural research.
Water Resources Act (1992)
•
Protection of water sources from pollution.
Forest Act (1993) and Forest
Regulations (1995)
•
•
•
Provisions for management of different categories of forests.
Strengthening of FUGs in forest management.
The government can delineate part of national forest with special
scientific, environmental and cultural importance as protected
forest.
Buffer Zone Management
Regulations (1996) and Buffer Zone
Management Guidelines (1999)
•
Requirement of a work plan for the management of buffer zone
areas.
Provision for buffer zone community forest.
Specification of activities that are prohibited within the buffer
zone.
Community Forestry Guidelines
(1996 with revision in 2002)
•
Provides a framework and operational guideline for implementation
of the Community Forestry program
Leasehold Forestry Guidelines
(2002)
•
Provides a framework and operational guideline for implementation
of the Leasehold Forestry program
Sectoral
Collaborative Forest Management
Directives (2003)
12
•
•
•
•
•
Provides a framework for implementation of the CFM
program.
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
2.4 Institutions Involved in Biodiversity Management
The institutions involved in biodiversity management in Nepal can be grouped into the advisory bodies,
government institutions, non-government organizations, community based organizations, academic
institutions, local bodies, and professional and civil society groups. A brief outline of the roles, responsibilities,
and activities of the institutions is presented in Table 2.4 through Table 2.7 and the following few sections.
2.4.1
Advisory bodies
The Environment Protection Council established in 1993 under the chairmanship of Prime Minister is a
high level advisory body directly related to biodiversity conservation. The council comprising ministers and
experts is mandated to advise the government on environmental affairs and coordinate all activities related to
environmental management including biodiversity.
More recently, a National Biodiversity Coordination Committee has been established under the Minister of
Forests and Soil Conservation and with high level representation from the relevant government ministries,
private sectors, and donors with the objective of mainstreaming all biodiversity programmes in the country.
There are some other advisory bodies established at the national and the district levels (Table 2.4).
Table 2.4 Advisory bodies related to biodiversity management in Nepal
Advisory body
Roles and responsibilities
Environment Protection Council
(Chaired by the Prime Minister)
•
•
Advise the government on environmental affairs.
Coordination of all activities related to environmental
management including biodiversity.
National Biodiversity Coordination
Committee (Headed by Minister,
MOFSC)
•
•
Mainstreaming of all biodiversity programs in the country.
Separate sub- committees on Forests and Protected areas, Agrobiodiversity, Biosecurity, Genetic Resources, and Sustainable
Use of Biodiversity have been formed under the NBCC.
National Biosafety Coordination
Committee
(Headed by Secretary, MOFSC)
•
Decision-making on biosafety proposals related to GMOs.
Parliament Committees
•
Play important roles in law- making process related to
environment and biodiversity.
District Biodiversity Coordination
Committee (Headed by the DDC
chairperson)
•
•
Coordination of local level programs/ projects.
Raising awareness among stakeholders, especially the local and
indigenous communities.
2.4.2
Government institutions
Several government ministries, departments and councils are directly or indirectly involved in biodiversity
management in Nepal. A list of main institutions, along with their roles, responsibilities and key activities is
presented in Table 2.5.
June 2008
13
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
Table 2.5 National level government institutions involved in the management of biodiversity in Nepal
Institution
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation
Roles, responsibilities and activities
•
•
•
•
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
•
Formulation and implementation of policies and programs related
to the conservation and sustainable use of agro-biodiversity.
Ministry of Environment, Science and
Technology
•
Promotion of environmentally sustainable economic development
through implementation of the Environment Protection Act (1996)
and Environment Protection Regulations (1997).
National Planning Commission
•
Advice the government ministries and central departments on
matters related to: (i) preparation of periodic plans, programs,
and projects, (ii) conduction of feasibility studies and initiation of
master plans of large projects, and (iii) acceptance of foreign aids.
Nepal Academy of Science and
Technology
•
Advancement of science and technology for all-round development
of the nation.
Preservation and further modernization of indigenous
technologies.
Promotion of research in science and technology.
Identification and facilitation of appropriate technology transfer.
•
•
•
Department of Forest
•
•
Department of National Parks and
Wildlife Conservation
•
•
14
National focal point for the CBD and National Clearing House
Mechanism for CBD.
Formulation and implementation of policies and programs for
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the
country.
Keeping records of biodiversity related activities, and communicating
with the CBD Secretariat and other conventions related to
biodiversity.
Has been implementing the TAL, WTLCP, and BISEP-ST projects/
programs.
Sustainable management, utilization, protection and development
of forests outside the protected areas.
Has been implementing the community forestry and leasehold
forestry programs together with local forest user groups.
Management of protected areas (except Annapurna and Manaslu
conservation areas).
Implementation of the buffer zone management program together
with local buffer zone management councils.
Department of Plant Resources
•
Research and development of plant resources.
Department of Forest Research and
Survey
•
Contribution to conservation, management and sustainable
utilization of forest resources through improved technologies and
updated forest resource information base.
Department of Soil Conservation and
Watershed Management
•
Conservation and management of watershed resources.
Department of Agriculture
•
Implementation of agro-biodiversity related strategies, polices, and
plans.
Department of Livestock Services
•
Implementation of agro-biodiversity related strategies, polices, and
plans.
Nepal Agriculture Research Council
•
Mandated to undertake, coordinate, monitor and evaluate
agricultural research activities in the country and also to assist the
government in formulation of agricultural policies and strategies.
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
2.4.3
Non-Government Organizations
Numerous non-government organizations are working in the field of environment and biodiversity in Nepal.
Some of the main NGOs operating at the national level and their main activities are listed in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6: Main I/NGOs involved in the management of biodiversity in Nepal
Organizations
National Trust for Nature
Conservation
Major activities
•
•
IUCN Nepal
•
•
•
WWF Nepal
•
•
International Centre for
Integrated Mountain
Development
•
•
•
•
Conservation and management of Annapurna and Manaslu Conservation Areas
with community participation.
Has undertaken over 100 small and large projects on nature conservation,
biodiversity protection, natural resource management and sustainable rural
development since its establishment in 1982.
Assistance to the government in formulation of conservation strategies, EIArelated policies and environmental laws and other capacity-building initiatives.
Biodiversity conservation through implementation of five area-specific field
projects.
Management of selected wetlands.
Technical and financial supports to the MOFSC for implementation of some
landscape level and transboundary conservation projects including the Tarai Arc
Landscape and Kangchenjunga Conservation Area.
Supports to DNPWC in rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis) and tiger (Panthera tigris
tigris) conservation.
Transboundary biodiversity management in the Kanchenjunga Landscape with
cooperation of local communities and relevant government agencies.
Development and transfer of GIS and remote sensing technologies for use in
natural resources management.
Sharing of conservation related information, achievements and lessons with experts
and policy makers through organization of visits and workshops.
Other activities focused on integrated mountain development.
Federation of Community
Forest Users in Nepal
•
Works as an advocacy and lobbying organization to protect the rights of community
forest users and contributes to the development of community forestry.
Nepal Forum of
Environmental Journalists
•
Advocacy, lobbying, public awareness and policy pressure on issues related to
biodiversity and environmental management.
Runs regular audio-visual programs in national electronic media, including a
weekly popular television program called the aankhijhyal. These activities have
been crucial in creating and raising environmental awareness among the general
public.
•
Local Initiatives for
Biodiversity, Research and
Development
2.4.4
•
In-situ (i.e. on-farm) conservation of agricultural biodiversity in selected sites.
Community based organizations
Local forest user groups formed under the community forestry programme and leasehold forestry programme,
buffer zone committees, agricultural groups, and water users’ committees are the main community based
organizations that are directly or indirectly involved in the management of biodiversity in the country
(Table 2.7).
June 2008
15
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
Table 2.7 Main community based organizations involved in the management of biodiversity in Nepal
Organizations
Community Forest User
Groups
Major activities
•
•
14,337 registered Forest User Groups (comprising of 1.65 million households)
are managing 1.22 million ha. of designated community forest land (about
20.5% of the country’s forest area), mostly in the middle hills.
Major activities include forest protection, development, maintenance, and
utilization.
Leasehold Forest User
Groups
•
3,417 leasehold forestry groups comprising of 28,132 households below the
poverty line, are managing 17,170 ha. of degraded forest land across the
country with focus on forest restoration and poverty alleviation.
Collaborative Forest
Management Groups
•
Biodiversity conservation and equitable benefit sharing through people's
participation and local incentives in eight tarai and inner-tarai districts.
Protection of natural regeneration; establishment, protection and maintenance
of forest plantations; fire protection; and NTFPs management for income
generation are the major activities.
•
Buffer Zone
Management Groups
•
•
2.4.5
Co-management (with the DNPWC) of buffer zones of selected national parks
and wildlife reserves.
Participatory forest management, livestock and poultry farming, fishery and
nursery management and operation, vegetable farming, fruit plantation, herbal
farming, and veterinary care are the main activities.
Academic institutions
National universities, particularly the Tribhuvan University (TU), have been playing crucial roles in producing
trained manpower required for the management of biodiversity in the country. The TU departments of
Botany, Zoology and Environmental Science, and the Institute of Forestry, Pokhara and the Institute of
Agriculture and Animal Sciences, Rampur under the university regularly offer graduate and undergraduate
courses directly or indirectly related to biodiversity and environment. The departments and institutes also
have their own regular research programs, conducted mainly by doctoral and masters level students as part of
the requirements for getting the degree. The TU Central Department of Botany, in collaboration with several
Asian and European universities (including Bergen University, Norway), is gearing up to start a four-semester
M. Sc. program in “Biodiversity and Environmental Management” from March 2008.
Separate courses on biodiversity have been included in the undergraduate and graduate levels courses offered
by the Kathmandu and Purwanchal Universities and several private colleges affiliated to them. Biodiversity
conservation has also been a part of environmental education at the school level. Introductory chapters on
biodiversity have been incorporated in secondary education curricula relating to health, population and
environment.
2.4.6
Local bodies
Local Self-Governance Act (1999) and Local Self Governance Regulations (1999) give each local agency
(including DDC, VDC and municipality) the following responsibility and authority with regard to
biodiversity: (a) afforestation of barren land, hills, steppe and steep land and public land, (b) preparation of
programs giving due consideration to forests, vegetation, biological diversity and soil conservation, and (c)
preparation and implementation of various programs on environmental protection.
16
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
2.4.7
Professional and civil society groups
Several other NGOs, volunteer and professional society organizations are, directly or indirectly, involved
in the management of biodiversity in Nepal. Nepal Foresters’ Association, Ecological Society, Women in
Environment Nepal, Save the Environment Foundation, Nepal Rangers’ Association, and Wetland Friends of
Nepal are some examples of such groups.
2.5 Approaches to In-situ Conservation
For the purpose of focused attention for management, the government has categorized the country’s biological
diversity into the following broad groups and designed management accordingly (MOFSC, 2002).
2.5.1
Forests
Forests of Nepal, which range from the tropical forests to the alpine scrubs, are crucially important for
maintaining ecological balance well as meeting livelihood requirements of a vast majority of the people. The
forests are also of international importance both in view of the number of globally threatened wildlife and
floral elements as well as the diversity of ecosystems represented within these areas (MOFSC, 2002).
Stainton (1972) classified Nepal’s forests into 35 types grouped into ten major categories, including tropical,
subtropical broad-leaved, subtropical conifer, lower temperate broad-leaved, lower temperate mixed broadleaved, upper temperate broadleaved, upper temperate mixed broadleaved, temperate coniferous, sub-alpine
and alpine scrub forests. A brief description of each of the forest types is presented in Appendix 2.1.
Nepal has witnessed substantial shifts in forest management approaches since the beginning of the twentieth
century when serious public concern regarding use of the country’s forest resources began. Currently, the
Department of Forest has the responsibility to look after all the forests that are not under the protected area
system. Various NGOs, INGOs, civil society groups and forest user groups have been involved in conservation
and sustainable use forest biodiversity in the country. The country’s national forests are being managed under
the following main programs.
Community Forestry
Since the formulation and implementation of the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector in 1989, the “community
and private forestry” program has remained the largest and most prioritized of all the forestry programs in
Nepal. Under the community forestry program, community members, who are traditional users of a particular
patch of forest and wish to take part in the management and utilization of the forest under the community
forestry, become part of a Forest User Group (FUG). According to the Forest Act of 1993, each FUG is
authorized to make rules related to the governance and management of the community forest and the FUG
itself. Rules crafted by the FUGs become operational after receiving approval from the concerned district
forest officer. In order to facilitate the approval, technical staff members from the concerned district forest
office assist the FUG in drafting the proposal. Subsequently, a government-controlled forest becomes a
community forest to be managed according to a mutually-agreed forest management plan.
Once the forest becomes a community forest, all subsequent resource management decisions are the
responsibility of the FUG. Every household within a FUG has equal rights and responsibility in managing
June 2008
17
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
their community forest. Each FUG elects a committee (usually unanimously) to carry out duties authorized
by the FUG. Protection of the forest is done through FUG cooperation.
The community forestry program has been expanded rapidly after the implementation of the Forest Act of
1993 in 1995, which simplified the forest handover procedure. By the end of 2007, a total of 14,337 registered
Forest User Groups (FUGs), including 1.65 million households, already existed in the country managing 1.22
m. ha. of designated community forest land (about 20.5% of the country’s forest area), mostly in the middle
hills (DOF, 2007a).
Leasehold Forestry
The leasehold forestry program is jointly implemented by forestry and agricultural line agencies with rural
financing banks and agricultural research agency since 1992 with initial supports from Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations and International Fund for Agricultural Development. Each lease group is
composed of a small group (5-10) of local people living below the poverty line who have organized themselves
into a group to manage and use degraded forest land handed over to them by the district forest office. By the
end of 2007, a total of 17,170 ha of forest have been leased to 3,417 leasehold forestry groups, benefiting
28,132 households under this program (DOF, 2007b). The focus of the program is on forest restoration and
poverty alleviation.
Collaborative Forest Management
The Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, with financial and technical supports from the Netherlands
Government through SNV Nepal, has implemented the Biodiversity Sector Program for the Siwaliks and
Tarai (BISEP-ST) project in eight Tarai and inner-Tarai districts (Bara, Parsa, Rautahat, Makwanpur,
Chitwan, Sarlahi, Mahottari, and Dhanusha) under the. The stated objective of the program is to promote a
self sustaining forestry in the working area for biodiversity conservation and equitable benefit sharing through
people’s participation and local incentives. The program also aims at strengthening forestry sector institutions
at various levels. CFM is essentially a partnership between the local people, local government (i.e. DDC) and
the central government.
Collaborative Forest Management (CFM) is one of the important components of the project. CFM
is a partnership between the local people, local bodies (DDC, VDCs), and the central government. The
implementation mechanism involves a policy-making CFM Group comprising of the ward representatives,
an executive CFM Committee formed from within the CFM Group, and a CFM Implementation Unit to
support the CFM Committee in day-to-day activities. The CFM Committee is responsible for implementing
the CFM Scheme (comprises of CFM constitution and management plan developed for the given CFM Unit)
on behalf of the CFM Group. The allocation of a government forest for CFM is to be guided by the District
Forestry Sector Plan prepared under the leadership of the District Forest Coordination Committee headed by
the DDC President.
Some specific activities of the CFM include: (i) protection of natural regeneration, (ii) establishment, protection
and maintenance of forest plantations, (iii) fire protection, and (iv) support to Non-Timber forest products
management for income generation in community forests, leasehold forests, and collaborative forests (BISEPST, 2005). The activities are implemented through a CFM group and CFM committee at the local level.
18
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
National Forest Management
Forests that are not covered by the above programs are directly under the control of the Department of Forest
through 74 District Forest Offices, 92 Ilaka Forest Offices and 698 Range Posts under it, which are scattered
all over the country. These forests are largely open-access and usually without any scientific management,
except for occasional collection of dead trees by the DFO or the Timber Corporation of Nepal.
2.5.2
Rangelands
Rangelands in Nepal comprise of grasslands, pastures, scrublands and forests that are distributed all over
the country ranging from the subtropical savanna in the tarai to the alpine and sub-alpine grasslands in the
high mountain region covering about 1.75 m. ha (11.5% of the total land area). The rangelands are rich in
biodiversity, including diversity of economically important medicinal and aromatic plants, and are the main
feed resource for traditional livestock in many parts of the country.
Despite being important resources, the high-altitude rangelands of Nepal are some of the least studies and
most neglected resources. The general remoteness and isolation, harsh climatic conditions and the scattered
nature of the small agro-pastoral and pastoral communities are some of the factors that make development
and sustainable management of rangelands not a priority of the government (Pariyar, 1998).
Historically, indigenous rangeland management systems were common in many high altitude areas. In those
systems, the rangelands were opened for grazing for a limited period every year as fixed by the local community
leader. Transhumance is another common indigenous rangeland management system that is commonly
practiced in those areas. The indigenous systems, which were developed under conditions of relatively vast
resources, sparse human population and low livestock pressure, are however becoming less and less effective
in recent years because of a substantial increase in grazing pressure (Yonzan, 1998).
2.5.3
Protected areas
The protected area system in Nepal covers around 2.9 m. ha. (19.4% of the country’s total land area) and
includes nine national parks, three wildlife reserve, one hunting reserve, three conservation areas, and eleven
buffer zones (Figure 2.2; Appendix 2.2).
Figure 2.2: Protected Area System in Nepal
June 2008
19
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
These protected areas are the key ‘units’ for in-situ conservation of the country’s outstanding assemblages of
plants, animals, and ecosystems. Some of these protected areas are of international significance. For instance,
Sagarmatha National Park and Chitwan National Park have been listed as the World Heritage Sites in 1979
and 1984, respectively for their typical natural, cultural and landscape characteristics.
The protected areas are being managed under three types of management modalities. The nine national parks,
three wildlife reserves and the Dhorpatan hunting reserve are exclusively managed by the government under
a conventional top-down approach. The DNPWC is solely responsible for technical, administrative and legal
aspects of the management intervention in these PAs and protection responsibility is given to the Nepal Army.
Use of the biological and other natural resources inside the national parks and wildlife reserves is strictly
prohibited, except for occasional opening of the areas for collection of selected non-timber forest products by
the local people. In some cases (e.g. in Sagarmatha), use of alternative sources of energy (mainly kerosene) is
being promoted by the DNPWC.
Conservation areas are either managed by the government or by the national statutory NGO, under different
type of participatory approaches. The Annapurna and Manaslu conservation areas are managed by the National
Trust for Nature Conservation (a national NGO established under a separate Act) under a multiple use
policy. The Trust has established local institutions to promote economically viable and ecologically sustainable
activities in and around the conservation areas. Under the initiative, local users are managing locally available
resources such as forests, grasslands, alternate sources of energy, and local tourism for enhancing their livelihood
opportunities. Promotion and management of mountain tourism for local community development is one of
the unique and successful initiatives of the NTNC under which a number of effective conservation measures
were planned and successfully implemented with local support (Bajracharya et al., 2006).
The Kangchenjunga Conservation Area is under a different type of participatory management system
implemented by the DNPWC with technical and financial supports from WWF Nepal. The DNPWC has
implemented an integrated approach to conservation and development in parts of this conservation area (i.e.
in Lelep, Wolangchung Gola, Tapethok and Yamphudin VDCs) through the Kangchenjunga Conservation
Area Project initiated in March 1998. The emphasis of the project is on strengthening the capacity of
local communities to improve their livelihood while maintaining the biological diversity of the area. The
project has been implementing its programs in partnership with community based organizations such as the
Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Management Council, seven user committees, 44 user groups and 32
mother groups, established with the help of the project (WWF, 2007a).
The buffer zones, which are created around selected national parks to ease the biotic pressure on core areas and
to promote sustainable management of natural resources, are managed through a locally elected management
council. The council is authorized to receive up to 50 percent of the total revenue collected by the protected area
in a fiscal year for supporting the livelihood of the local people or conservation of the local forest resources.
Nepal’s protected areas have for long been one of the most important attractions for tourists visiting the
country due to pristine mountain environments and rich wildlife, many of which are unique to Nepal. For
example, of the total 275,468 tourists who visited Nepal in 2002, 36.1 percent visited different protected
areas (MOCTCA, 2004). Realizing the vast tourism potential, ecotourism has been made an integral part of
20
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
the protected area management in Nepal. The program is being implemented with the objective of promoting
symbiotic relationship between tourism and the environment, with a particular focus on uplifting the local
economy.
2.5.4
Wetlands
Photo by Ambika Gautam
There are many different types of wetlands in Nepal, including river systems, lakes, swamps, ponds, reservoirs,
glacial lakes, and paddy fields. These wetlands are biologically diverse and provide a wide range of goods and
services as well as income-generating opportunities for the local people. Many ethnic groups are directly
dependent on wetlands for their livelihoods.
Bishazari tal in Chitwan (a Ramsar site)
Despite their high conservation and use values, wetlands have generally remained a neglected resource in
Nepal until recently. More recently, however, there has been a substantial increase in interest on wetlands
and some concrete measures have been taken towards the sustainable management of at least some of the
important wetlands. The formulation of the National Wetlands Policy in 2003 and declaration of four more
wetlands of international importance as Ramsar sites in 2007 are some evidence of increasing importance
given towards conservation and sustainable use of wetlands in the country.
At least two wetland-specific programs have been implemented very recently. First, Ministry of Environment,
Science and Technology has launched a lake protection program to clean and maintain some important lakes
in Janakpur and Pokhara areas in 2007. Second, the government and IUCN Nepal have recently started
joint implementation of a five-year (2006-2011) project “Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in
Nepal” funded by the UNDP-GEF. The project has started sustainable management of two wetlands sites
of international importance, including the Koshitappu Wildlife Reserve in eastern Nepal and Ghodaghodi
June 2008
21
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
lake complex in western Nepal. The project also aims at building capacity and improving the legal and policy
frameworks for an ecosystem approach to the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands in Nepal (GON/
UNDP-GEF, 2007).
2.5.5
Agriculture
Agriculture is one of the main land uses in Nepal. Around 3.2 million hectares (i.e. 21% of the total land
area of the country) was under cultivation in 1986 and the coverage might have further increased over the
years. The diverse climatic and topographic conditions in the country has favored for maximum diversity of
agricultural crops, their wild relatives, and animal species. For example, an estimated 120 wild relatives of the
commonly cultivated food plants are found in the country (Shrestha and Shrestha, 1999).
Traditional farming systems that use local indigenous knowledge and experiences are the predominant type
of agriculture management systems in Nepal and have great role in maintaining the agricultural diversity.
Moreover, the government and a few non-government agencies have started some specific programs aimed at
in-situ conservation of agro-biodiversity.
On-farm Conservation of Agricultural Biodiversity project, implemented by the Nepal Agricultural Research
Council, Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development and International Plant Genetic
Resources Institute since 1997, is one of the unique initiatives for in-situ conservation of agricultural
biodiversity in Nepal. Some specific activities under this project include: (i) assessing and demonstrating
local crop diversity, (ii) deploying new diversity to farmers through “diversity kits”, (iii) consolidating
communities’ role in management of agricultural biodiversity through Community Biodiversity Register,
(iv) helping establishment and management of community seed bank, (v) empowering local communities to
manage agricultural biodiversity, (vi) participatory plant breeding, (vii) participatory landrace enhancement,
(viii) value addition of local crop diversity, ( ix) traveling seminar to influence policy, (x) sensitizing farming
communities through rural poetry journey, (xi) rural radio program, (xii) multi-stakeholder partnership
approach to on-farm agro-biodiversity management, and (xiii) intensive data plot for understanding farmer’s
decisions on management of agricultural biodiversity on-farm (Sthapit et al., 2006).
The Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives has launched an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program
in the country to further promote farmers’ use of traditional botanical pesticides in crop protection. IPM
has now been endorsed as the national policy and the government is in the process of establishing a National
Steering Committee for the effective implementation of the program.
A pilot project on “Conservation and Management of Pollinators for Sustainable Agriculture through an
Ecosystem Approach” is being implemented by the Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Rampur Chitwan with
financial supports from FAO. The project is mainly focused on: (i) survey and needs assessment of crops
pollination, (ii) preparation of participatory training sessions, (iii) development of database for pollination
information and management system, and (iv) preparation of draft management plan and inception report
(Jha et al., 2005). A full-fledged project on the same theme is reportedly going to be started from the first
quarter of 2008 with FAO support.
22
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
2.5.6
Mountain
With over 80 percent of land being in the hills and mountains, Nepal has given a special status to this crossdisciplinary category of biological diversity. An important feature of the mountain biodiversity of Nepal is the
number of different levels of biological organisation above the species level - genera, families, phyla, habitats,
and ecosystems - indicating high levels of beta diversity (MOFSC, 2002).
Some of the national biodiversity management initiatives are directly or indirectly contributing towards
achieving the CBD COP-7 (decision VII/27) purpose of program work on mountain biodiversity and
the CBD goals. The establishment of network of protected areas in the mountain regions and successful
implementation of community based forest management programs are some examples of such initiatives.
The Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation has started a mountain landscape management program in
Nepal part of the “Sacred Himalayan Landscape” area that extends from Langtang National Park in central
Nepal through the Kangchenjunga region in India to the Toorsa Strict Nature Reserve in western Bhutan,
covering an area of over 39,000 sq. km. The focus of the initiative is safeguarding the cultural treasures and
biophysical environment with enhancement of livelihoods of the mountain people (MOFSC, 2006b).
The Kangchenjunga Landscape Project implemented by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development (ICIMOD), in collaboration with various agencies and communities, in eastern Nepal
(Kangchenjunga Conservation Area) along with some parts of eastern India, western Bhutan and China,
is another important initiative aimed at sustainable management of mountain biodiversity. The focus of
the project is reestablishing connectivity between protected areas across the landscape through planning,
establishment and management of biodiversity corridors. The project is financially supported by the MacArthur
Foundation and GTZ and is complimented by several other projects (Sharma and Chettri, 2005).
2.5.7
Other in-situ conservation initiatives
Tarai Arc Landscape Management Program
The Tarai Arc Landscape (TAL) Management Program, implemented by the Ministry of Forests and Soil
Conservation in western Tarai, is one of the first landscape-level programs in Asia involving a very large
geographical area (west of the Bagmati river to India’s Yamuna River) and implementing a wide variety of
measures to promote conservation along with the well being of the local people. The program’s activities
in Nepal are focused in the protected areas and their buffer zones, corridors, and bottlenecks within the
landscape (MOFSC, 2006c).
Western Tarai Landscape Conservation Project
The Western Tarai Landscape Conservation Project (WTLCP) is another important landscape management
initiative of the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. The project has been implemented in three western
Tarai districts of Bardia, Kailali and Kanchanpur since 2005 with the goal of safeguarding the biological
wealth and vital ecological functions of the area. Major focus of WTLCP lies on the biodiversity conservation
at ecosystem level both on protected and productive areas by involving local institution (WTCLP, 2006).
Several other government agencies, local bodies, NGO, and international development partners are involved
in the implementation of the project.
June 2008
23
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
Critical Ecosystem Conservation
WWF Nepal, with financial support from the global Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, has implemented
a project in southern, central and eastern Nepal (plus Bhutan and northeastern India) with the objective
of strengthening the role of communities and local groups in biodiversity conservation and restoration in
key sites and landscapes. The activities are implemented through nongovernmental and civil society groups
(WWF, 2007b).
2.6 Approaches to Ex-Situ Conservation
Ex-situ conservation of biodiversity is gradually being developed in the country. The current ex-situ conservation
programs consist mainly of the following.
2.6.1
Central Zoo
The Central Zoo established in Jawalakhel, Lalitpur is one of the pioneer efforts towards ex-situ conservation
of wild animals. Currently, the zoo has 31 species of mammals, 60 species of birds, 8 species of reptiles, and
18 species of fishes, including some endangered species. The zoo, being managed by the National Trust for
Nature Conservation, is also being promoted as a center of excellence for ex-situ conservation of endangered
wildlife species and for promoting conservation education among students and other urban dwellers.
2.6.2
National botanical garden and national herbarium
The Department of Plant Resources (DPR) has established a national botanical garden and a national
herbarium and plant laboratory in Godawari, Lalitpur, and a natural products research laboratory in Thapathali,
Kathmandu. Beside these central-level establishments, some of the district level plant resource offices under
the DPR have established small (1-5 ha.) botanical gardens with the objectives of contributing to the research
and development of indigenous plants.
2.6.3
In-vitro propagation of plant species
In-vitro conservation of plant germplasm through tissue culture technology, which is being carrying out by
the Biotechnology Section of the National Herbarium and Plant Laboratory under the DPR, is another good
initiative for ex-situ conservation of valuable plant species in the country. So far, the section has carried out
in-vitro propagation of over 100 species of plants including trees, orchids, fruits, vegetables, medicinal and
aromatic plants and bamboo species. Few of the cultured plant species have been established in the field and
few horticultural species have been distributed to farmers (MOFSC, 2006a).
2.6.4
Genetic seed house
The Genetic Seed House established by the Agriculture Botany Division of the Nepal Agriculture Research
Council in the council office complex in Khumaltar, Lalitpur is an important initiative aimed at ex situ
conservation of valuable and disappearing crop’s seeds. So far, the seed house has collected and stored over
10,700 types of seeds, mostly of cereals, pulses, millets, pseudocereals, vegetables, and oil seeds, collected from
various parts of the country (pers. comm. with relevant officials).
24
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
2.7 Management Outcomes
A number of successes have been recorded over the years in the protection and management of biological
resources and their diversity, particularly with regard to protected ecosystems and species, community forestry,
agrobiodiversity and mountain biodiversity. The following are the major outcomes of the country’s efforts
towards conservation and sustainable use biodiversity as envisaged by the CBD.
2.7.1
Implementation of national sustainable development strategy and its impacts
The national strategy of empowering local bodies and community based user groups to manage their
natural resources to meet the dual goals of conservation and sustainable development is being successfully
implemented, especially in the management of the forestry sector. The community forestry, leasehold
forestry, and collaborative forest management programs, the buffer zone management program, participatory
management of conservation areas, and user group based management of soil conservation and watershed
management program are some evidence of implementation of this strategy in the management of forestry
sector. The impacts of these programs towards meeting the above goals have been generally positive.
Despite the high priority given by the national strategies and plans and some achievements in participatory
management of forest resources, no substantial progress has been made in reducing the wide-spread poverty
in Nepal. The country still faces a great deal of poverty. For example, a vast majority of the population still
depends on subsistence agriculture. The average per capita GDP is just about USD 339 per year (UNDP,
2007). Eco-tourism is one of the most important sources of income for local people living in biodiversity-rich
countryside, but recent political turmoil has caused a drop in travel to those areas for safety concerns.
The overall achievements towards conservation of biodiversity and environment are also not so encouraging.
For example, there has been a continuous loss and degradation of forests in the Tarai, inner-Tarai and
Chure regions. The improvement in forest condition in some areas, particularly the Mid-Mountains after
implementation of the participatory forestry programs, is not enough to offset the deforestation and forest
degradation in the Tarai and Chure. The excessive pressure on forests, mainly for meeting the fuelwood
demand, remains unchanged because biofuels still remain the most important source of energy in the country,
accounting for about 80 percent of the total energy consumed.
2.7.2
National-level planning and policy-making
Nepal has instituted several policies and plans to address the growing environmental concerns. At the national
level, provisions of the CBD and the policy decisions of the COPs are translated into actions through the
formulation and implementation of the Nepal Biodiversity Strategy (2002) and Nepal Biodiversity Strategy
Implementation Plan (2006-2011). The NBS and NBSIP, however, have set no specific targets towards
achieving the CBD objectives and the 2010 Biodiversity Target.
There are a number of other cross-sectoral and sectoral strategies, policies and programs that have set some
targets towards achieving the CBD objectives. For example, the Herbs and Non- Timber Forest Products
June 2008
25
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
Policy (2006) has targeted for establishing Nepal as a storehouse of medicinal plants and other NTFPs by
2020. The National Water Plan (2005) targets a full-scale implementation of environmental protection and
management projects in all priority watersheds and aquatic ecosystems by 2017, and adequate water quality
for aquatic habitat, including fish, human consumption and recreation is to be ensured in all rivers and lakes
by 2027.
Nepal’s Tenth Five-Year Plan (2002-2007) also contains some goals and targets related to biodiversity. The
plan provides opportunities to maintain habitats, and/or reduce population decline of important species.
Community participation, public awareness, and promotion of ecotourism constitute some of the important
issues being raised in the plan. The Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal is another national policy
document that has set a 15 year timeframe for making significant progress towards achieving the environmental
and developmental goals.
Internationally, Nepal has ratified major environment-related treaties, agreements or conventions, including
the CBD, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Ramsar
Convention, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change and United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification.
2.7.3
Conservation of ecosystem and habitat
There is a general lack of information on the impact of different forestry programs discussed above on the extent
and quality of wild habitats. Detail mapping of forest resources for the entire country was carried out only for
two periods. The first detailed mapping was carried out by the Land Resources Mapping Project (LRMP). The
second and latest national level forest survey was conducted by the Department of Forest Research and Survey
(DOFRS) between 1987 and 1998, with assistance from the Forest Resource Information System Project
(FRISP) funded by the government of Finland. The survey, named the National Forest Inventory (NFI),
took 1994 as the reference year. Comparison of NFI results with the LRMP shows that the forest area in the
country decreased by 24 percent over a period of 15 years (1979-1994), by an annual rate of 1.6 percent, and
the area under shrubs increased by 126 percent during the same period (Table 2.8).
Table 2.8: Changes in forest and shrub cover of Nepal over time
Category
26
1978-1979 (LRMP)
1994 (NFI)
% Change, 1979-1994
Area
(000 ha)
%
Area (000
ha)
%
Total
Annual
Forest
5,617
38.0
4,269
29.0
-24.0
-1.6
Shrub
690
4.7
1,560
10.6
+126.0
+8.4
Total
6,307
42.7
5,829
39.6
-7.6
-0.5
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
The high increase of shrubland while the forest area was decreasing gives clear evidence of high rates of forest
degradation over the period, although the total loss of forested area was not substantial. The survey reports
did not discuss the factors causing deforestation and there is considerable disagreement among researchers on
this issue (see Gautam et al., 2004).
Japan Forest Technology Association estimates, which are based on digital analysis of satellite images, show
19.9 percent and 9.3 percent increase in agriculture and forest (including shrubs) areas, respectively, in between
1986 and 2000 (JAFTA, 2001 cited in ADB/ICIMOD, 2006). According FAO (2005), Nepal’s deforestation
rates during 1990-2000 and 2000-2005 were 2.1 percent and 1.4 percent per year, respectively.
While most of the past studies presented a gloomy picture of deforestation in the country, a few recent
studies conducted in relatively small areas in the Mid-Mountains show improving forest conditions after
the implementation of the community forestry program (e.g. Schereier et al., 1994, Virgo and Subba, 1994,
Jackson et al., 1998). The findings of a remote sensing and GIS based study conducted recently in a mountain
watershed in central Nepal corroborate these findings and show that forest cover in the watershed increased
by about 15 percent between 1976 and 2000, mainly by the regeneration of shrublands and grasslands into
high forests (Gautam et al., 2003). Moreover, the community forestry program has helped strengthen natural
resources governance, livelihood enhancement, and equitable sharing of benefits among the rural populations
(Collett et al., 1996).
It is widely perceived that the high rates of deforestation continue in the Tarai because of low success of the
community forestry program and lack of scientific management of government-controlled forests. How the
relatively new Collaborative Forest Management Program has been contributing to changes in extent and
quality of the Tarai and inner-Tarai forests is not well known.
In addition to coverage, patchiness (related to connectivity and fragmentation) is another important aspects
determining quality of ecosystems and habitats, which has not been researched well in Nepal. Finding of a
recent study (i.e. Gautam et al., 2003) conducted in a watershed in central Nepal indicated a decrease in the
number of forest patches by above 50 percent in between 1976 and 2000 indicating an improvement in forest
habitat after implementation of the community forestry program in the area. This was probably happened due
to merging of smaller forest patches through forest regeneration and/or plantation establishment on degraded
sites previously separating two or more forest patches. But the finding of the same study that the shape of the
forest patches became more irregular in the latter periods does not allow drawing firm conclusion on whether
the quality of the forest habitat indeed improved over the years.
Commercialization of agriculture and expansion of high-yielding crop varieties, weak policy and regulatory
framework, indiscriminate use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, changes in cropping patterns and land use
practices due to changes in farmers’ priorities, population growth and technological advancement are causing
deterioration of agro-ecosystems (Upreti and Upreti, 2002; Bardsley, 2003).
Quality of Nepal’s aquatic ecosystems has been substantially deteriorated over the years. Direct discharge of
industrial effluent to river systems, and draining of household wastes to nearby rivers and streams by urban
dwellers (particularly Kathmanduities) are the two major sources of water pollution in the country. Quality
June 2008
27
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
of wetland ecosystems has been deteriorated from encroachment for cultivation, overharvesting of wetland
resources, industrial pollution, agricultural runoff, siltation, groundwater extraction using high-powered
pumps, and the introduction of exotic and invasive species into wetland ecosystems (MOFSC, 2002).
2.7.4
Coverage of protected areas
There has been a substantial expansion of the protected area network in Nepal over the last three decades. The
first national park (i.e. Chitwan National Park), covering an area of 93,200 ha. (0.6% of the country’s total
area), was established in 1973. By 1991, the size of the protected area grew to 1,245,000 ha. (8.5%) and now
it covers about 2.9 million ha. (19.7% of country’s total area; Figure 2.3). Declaration of conservation areas
and buffer zones were the major reasons behind the rapid increase in protected area since the early 1990s.
Figure 2.3: Growth of protected area in Nepal
2.7.5
Conservation of threatened species
There has not been regular monitoring of most of the threatened species in Nepal. One of the regularly
monitored endangered species is the greater one-horned Asian rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis) that inhabits the
Chitwan and Bardia national parks. Comparison of the available information obtained from various sources
on rhino population in the Chitwan National Park shows that the number of rhinos in the park decreased
rapidly and continuously between 1950 and 1966. The trend was reversed after 1966 and there was a steady
increase in the population until 2000. The population decreased rapidly in between 2000 and 2006 but
increased during 2006- 2008 (Figure 2.4).
28
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
Figure 2.4: Changes in rhino population in Chitwan National Park
The statistics indicate that despite strong commitment and continuous efforts, the government has not been
successful in controlling the high rate of loss of the endangered species in one of its prime habitats. At least
104 rhinos were killed by poachers during 2000-2006 (IUCN, 2006b). Increased human-wildlife conflict and
loss or modifications of rhino habitat in and around the national park are believed to be other major factors
contributing to the rapid decline of rhino population in the park. This unprecedented rate of decline in rhino
population in recent years has emerged as the major conservation issue in the country.
Alarmed by the rapid loss of the endangered wildlife species, concerned authorities are trying their level best
to contain the problem through formulation of new action plan aimed at expanding the rhino habitat and
improving rhino-human relationship through buffer zone development and conservation education, among
others (DNPWC, 2006). The plan also vows to involve the local residents in the conversation of rhino and
its habitat. Similarly, various local groups have recently come up with a joint declaration to make the rhino
conservation efforts effective through coordination and cooperation among all stakeholders. Implementation
status of the government plan and the local initiative, however, is unclear.
Several other plant and animal species are considered threatened in the country due mainly to habitat
destruction but how their status has been changing over the years has not been well documented.
2.7.6
Trends in genetic diversity of domesticated animals, cultivated plants and fish stocks
The knowledge of genetic diversity is poor in Nepal. Genetic analyses of very few studies, mainly domesticated
species and populations held in zoo or botanic gardens, have been conducted using modern techniques. The
available information indicates that status of some indigenous breeds of cattle is declining in the country. For
example, pure siri is believed to have become extinct in recent years and lulu and achhame cattle are on the
verge of extinction (Neupane and Pokhrel, 2005). At least one breed of buffalo (i.e. lime) is speculated to be
endangered and two sheep breeds (lampuchhre and kage) are identified to be at risk (MOFSC, 2002).
June 2008
29
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
2.7.7
Area of forest, agriculture and aquaculture ecosystems under sustainable management
With the exception of a very few Forest Stewardship Council certified community forests in central Nepal,
there has not been any research or initiative to evaluate the sustainability of any of the forest, agriculture or
aquaculture management systems in Nepal. It is generally perceived that the participatory forest management
systems are more sustainable approaches as compared to direct control by the government. This perception
has been supported by the findings of several studies, which have shown that the community based forestry
programs have been successful, particularly in the Mid-Mountains, in improving forest cover, strengthening
natural resources governance, livelihood enhancement, and equitable sharing of benefits among the rural
populations (e.g. Virgo and Subba, 1994; Gautam et al., 2003). In this context, the 1.22 m. ha (about 20.5
percent of the country’s forest area) community forest areas being managed by 14,337 registered Forest User
Groups across the country and the 17,170 ha forest under the management of 3,417 leasehold forestry
groups can be considered as being under sustainable management.
The Collaborative Forest Management (CFM) which is being tested in BISEP-ST districts has played an
important role in institutional development, particularly towards enhancing cooperation among relevant
district-level agencies under the leadership of respective district development committees. The biological,
social, and economic impacts of the CFM program is yet to be thoroughly investigated.
There have been some noticeable achievements from the participatory management of conservation areas.
For example, the approaches taken in Annapurna and Kanchenjungha conservation areas have been largely
successful in implementing the concept of balancing conservation with sustainable development as envisioned
by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 (Sharma and Wells, 1996).
2.7.8
Extent of invasion by alien species
Habitat degradation due to encroachment by invasive alien species, particularly Mikania micrantha, Lantana
camara, Parthenium hysterophorus, has substantially increased in recent years. The problem is reported to be
especially severe in the Chitwan National Park and other protected areas in central and eastern Tarai. Icornia
crasip (locally known as jalakumbhi) has been emerged as a major problem in several wetland ecosystems,
including the famous Phewa Lake in Phokara.
2.7.9
Conservation and sustainable management of wetlands
The formulation of the National Wetlands Policy in 2003 and declaration of eight wetlands of international
importance as Ramsar sites are some of the major achievements towards conservation and sustainable
management of wetlands in the country. Some of the Ramsar sites (e.g. Koshitappu and Jagadishpur) have
special significance also for conservation of migratory birds (particularly waterfowls). Recent implementation
of the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal project, and the lake protection program
launched by the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology can be considered other good initiatives
towards sustainable management of country’s wetlands. How successful the projects will be in meeting their
objectives is, however, not yet clear.
30
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
2.7.10
Other outcomes
Status of traditional knowledge, innovations, and practices
Activities are initiated to document traditional knowledge, skill, technique and practices in collaboration
with international and national NGOs. Recently, the government with IUCN collaboration has started
documenting biological resources and associated traditional knowledge in some areas under “Community
Biodiversity Registration” (CBR) initiative. The CBR is a farmer’s information database record kept in a
register by community based organizations for keeping inventory of biodiversity and traditional knowledge
and monitoring local crop diversity for the community benefits and needs (Sthapit and Quek, 2005).
In order to facilitate documentation of traditional knowledge, skill, technique and practices and to
institutionalize biodiversity documentation process at the local level, District Biodiversity Committees had
been established in 10 districts in 2004 and early 2005 (more are expected to be established in all 75 districts).
Some NGOs and research and educational institutions are also involved in similar activities. By the end of
2007, 28 Community Biodiversity Registers (CBR) have been prepared, but awaiting formal recognition.
Status of access and benefit sharing
A Bill on Access to Genetic Resources and its regulation is being drafted by the MOFSC. The bill has provisions
for the conservation of genetic resources, biodiversity documentation including traditional knowledge, knowhow, practices and innovations. It also has provisions related to access to genetic resources and benefit sharing
with the local people. Commercial and other uses of genetic resources and materials are being regulated, to
some extent, through administrative measures.
Taxonomic capacity building
The Department of Plant Resources, as the national GTI focal point, has recently submitted (through the
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation) a proposal to the GEF on taxonomic capacity building in the
country.
Communication, education and public-awareness
Progress towards achieving a better understanding of the importance of biodiversity and of the CBD, leading
to broader engagement across society in implementation, as aimed by the Biodiversity 2010 Target, is mixed.
Several communication, education and public-awareness programs have been implemented by government
and non-government agencies and academic institutions and some progress have been made but these efforts
are not sufficient. Additional efforts are required especially to engage key actors and stakeholders to integrate
biodiversity concerns into sectors outside the environment.
There is an increased awareness and media support for conservation in recent years. Public information
programs are aired regularly from television and radio stations. A number of feature articles and news are
regularly published in local newspapers. Public awareness is also being promoted in various celebrations such
June 2008
31
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
as the Biodiversity Day, Environment Day, and Wetland Day etc. Increased access to the Internet resources,
particularly by younger generation, is in rise in urban areas.
Biodiversity is being increasingly incorporated in academic curricula at all levels. Separate graduate and
under graduate courses on biodiversity, forestry, wildlife, and environmental science have been introduced
by universities. This has substantially increased the availability of trained manpower within the country.
There has also been increased exposure to new technologies and exchange of information with international
stakeholders through participation in international conferences by academicians and policy-makers.
32
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
Chapter III
Capacity Issues, Strengths, Constraints
and Needs
Nepal faces many conservation and development challenges resulting mainly from underdevelopment, years of
political unrest and turmoil. Severe poverty, high rates of population growth, poor governance and weak infrastructure
have contributed to constant pressure and degradation of the country’s forests and biodiversity. The following are
the major capacity issues, strengths, constraints and needs related to biodiversity management in Nepal.
3.1 National Sustainable Development Policy and Strategy
3.1.1
Strength
The national sustainable development framework is highly supportive of environmental conservation.
3.1.2
Constraints
Systemic level
(i)
There is a lack of coherent strategy to effectively communicate the value of biodiversity and impact of its loss
(ii) Lack of clarity on the linkage between biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation
Environmental degradation and poverty are actually intertwined in Nepal. The rapidly deteriorating
environmental and natural resource base has contributed to poverty, as people find it more and more
difficult to meet their basic resource needs in a sustainable manner. The high poverty incidence therefore
implies that there will be continued pressure on the natural resource base leading to further degradation
of forests, land and water resources. The national sustainable development policy acknowledges the
necessity for integrating environmental conservation with poverty alleviation but fails to clearly spell
out as how best this goal can be achieved.
(iii) Lack of strategy to activate local bodies for biodiversity conservation
Biodiversity conservation is usually not a priority of local bodies and, as a result, there is no any initiative
in conserving biodiversity by them. The DDCs, VDCs, and municipalities’ role so far has been to
passively respond to the policies, plans and strategies of the central government. Part of reason behind
is that the local leaders often do not have much knowledge about biodiversity and lack understanding
of the strategic position of biodiversity.
June 2008
33
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
3.1.3
Needs
Systemic level
(i)
Development of a coherent strategy to effectively communicate the value of biodiversity and impact of
its loss
There is a need of a coherent strategy to effectively communicate the impact of biodiversity loss. Particular
attention should be paid to the impacts of the current rates of biodiversity loss on ecosystem goods and
services and on human well-being, and establishing links with the relevant MDGs and SDAN targets.
Indicators could be a useful means to simplify and quantify complex scientific information for policylevel audiences.
Cross levels
(ii) Linking biodiversity with poverty reduction
Linking biodiversity with poverty reduction through more effective mainstreaming of forestry, fisheries
and agricultural biodiversity conservation with the wider development agenda is essential for ensuring
sustainability of biodiversity management in a country like Nepal.
(iii) Involving local governments in biodiversity conservation
Activating the DDCs, VDCs, and municipalities through appropriate mechanisms is essential for
increasing overall effectiveness of biodiversity conservation. How this can be best done is a subject of
research.
3.2 Policy and Legal Framework
3.2.1
Strength
Nepal is one of the most progressive developing countries in terms of formulating environmental policy and
legislations. Starting from preparation of the National Conservation Strategy in 1988, a series of conservation
polices and strategies have been formulated and Acts and Regulations promulgated. All the policies, laws and
regulations are, generally, oriented towards achieving the CBD goals and reflect the country’s commitment of
balancing economic development with environmental conservation (please see Chapter II).
3.2.2
Constraints
Systemic level
(i)
Lack of harmony and connection among biodiversity related policies and legislations
There is no adequate connection/relation between/among individual policies and laws. Individual
ministries and departments often work in isolation while formulating policies, laws and regulations and
consider only the resource under their jurisdiction while doing so regardless of whether these acts and
regulations would do any good to conservation of other resources. As a result, it is very hard for various
laws and regulations to get connected or harmonized.
34
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
(ii) Policy and legislative gaps
(a) Nepal does not have any legislation related to: (1) acquisition of genetic resources and benefit sharing,
(2) acquisition of traditional knowledge, farmers’ innovations and benefit sharing, (3) prevention of
invasive alien species, and (4) implementation of the National Biosafety Framework (2007).
(b) There is a lack of clear policy, plan and strategy for sustainable management of rangelands.
(c) There is no policy and legislation to deal with the issue of Intellectual Property Rights
The World Trade Organisation through its Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS) agreement urges to register and patent biological diversity and associated property rights in
order to fully obtain benefits in near future. This has not happened yet in Nepal due to lack of policy
and legislation.
(d) The prevailing policy measures seem to be inadequate to reverse the trend of forest loss in the Tarai,
inner-Tarai and Chure. The community forestry has been far less successful in the tarai compared to the
hills. The experience with the collaborative approach is also not encouraging.
(e) The Environment Protection Act (1997), which provided basis for establishment of the Environment
Protection Council as a statutory body, is silent about the composition, authority and functions of the
Council.
(iii) Conflicting policies and legislations
There are several conflicting provisions between some policies and legislations. For example, Forest Act
(1993) and Forestry Sector Policy (2000) have different and contradictory provisions with regard to
forest management strategies for the Tarai and inner-Tarai. Provisions in the Local Self-Governance Act
(1999) contradict with several other Acts, including forest, environment, and national park and wildlife
conservation.
(iv) Mismatch between policy and legislation
In some cases, policy is not matched or supported by legislative arrangement. For example, a policy on
domestication of wild animals exists but it has not been implemented due to absence of related Act.
(v)
Outdated legislation
Some articles of the National Park and Wildlife Conservation Act promulgated in 1973 have already
become outdated and are not suitable to the demands for development of the protected areas in the
changed political and social context of the country. The government’s recent attempts to establish some
new protected areas using the provision of the above Act have been fiercely opposed by promoters of the
community forestry, including the FECOFUN.
June 2008
35
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
Cross-levels
(vi) Little thought is given to the interest of stakeholders while formulating policies
Most of the policies, laws and regulations were prepared by the government administration without or
little participation of other stakeholders and thus give little consideration to the rights and obligations
of other stakeholders. One of the outcomes of this process is that the policies and strategies are oriented
more towards fulfillment of administrative requirements rather than scientific management.
3.2.3
Needs
Systemic level
(i)
Consolidation of the legislation
Consolidation and harmonization of biodiversity related policies and legislations to conserve biodiversity
at ecosystem, species and genetic levels is necessary. This includes harmonizing the conflicting policies
and legislations.
(ii) Filling up the policy and legislative gaps
There is a need for expediting the process of making law for conservation of genetic resources and
benefit sharing, and filling the existing policy and legislative gaps in the other fields.
3.3 Implementation of Policies, Plans and Programs
Nepal has prepared several sound policies and legislations for managing natural resources in general and
biodiversity conservation in particular. The country, however, is very weak in enforcement/implementation
of laws, policies, plans and programs. As a result, implementation of biodiversity-related policies and plans,
including the National Biodiversity Strategy and the Sustainable Development Agenda, is poor in Nepal.
3.3.1
Constraints
Systemic level
(i)
Lack of a comprehensive system for sustainable management of biodiversity
There is no single institutional framework for management of biodiversity in Nepal. The functions of
management are scattered in a number of government ministries and departments without any unified
supervision and management mechanism. In many cases, division of management responsibilities
between agencies is unclear.
Institutional level
(ii)
Passiveness of advisory bodies
The Environment Protection Council chaired by the Prime Minister, which is supposed to provide
overall coordination of all biodiversity related activities in the country, has not been able to fulfil
36
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
its responsibilities adequately. One of the reasons behind this passiveness could be the lack of legal
basis for conducting the activities. The other advisory bodies, including the recently formed National
Biodiversity Coordination Committee and District Biodiversity Coordination Committee, also have
generally remained passive.
(iii) Lack of monitoring and evaluation system
There is no any mechanism for supervising implementation of biodiversity-related policies, laws and
plans in the country. After promulgating a law or releasing a decision, the government seldom follows
up and supervises their implementation or evaluates the effect. As a result, it usually depends on reports
from the lower levels government offices to know the status of implementation and compiles national
reports accordingly when required.
(iv) Lack of or inadequate inter-agency cooperation and complement
There is a general lack of cooperative attitude among the relevant agencies, particularly the government
agencies, in implementation of biodiversity related polices, plans and programs. Every ministry or
department always wants to expand its own scope of functions or domain of authority, instead of
offering mutual support and attaches importance only to those policies, plans and programs constituted
under its own leadership.
Cross levels
(v) Inadequate law-enforcing capacity and lack of mechanisms and capacities to translate the strategies into
action
The government departments, which are responsible for implementation of policies and legislations, are
severely constrained by lack of financial resources. Moreover, the low morale among the government
staff has affected their law-enforcing capacities. Excessive pressure from political leaders could be another
factor for the weak enforcement. NGOs and CBOs, on the other hand, generally have no knowledge
or understanding of the laws and their sense of law observing is very weak. As a result, quite a number
of good policies, plans and laws (e.g. Environment Protection Act, 1997) are not well-enforced or
implemented or even implemented, not done so thoroughly. Another important factor contributing to
the weak enforcement is the existence of conflicting provisions between policies and legislations.
(vi) Inadequate capacity of the focal ministry
The Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, as the CBD focal point, has been active in formulating
biodiversity related strategies, polices and legislations as required. This is, however, not enough to
effectively lead the country towards achieving the CBD goals. The ministry is severely constrained by its
inadequate capacity required for overall coordination, execution of policies and plans, and monitoring
of relevant activities of other agencies.
In particular, the MOFSC seems to be weak in analysis and identification of the country’s opportunities
under different bilateral and multilateral mechanisms and processes and negotiation in international
June 2008
37
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
forums. For example, despite a high possibility of getting financial and technological supports from
developed countries for effective implementation of the program of work on mountain biodiversity
under Decision 27.7 and 27.15 of the CBD COP-7, there has been a little or no work towards utilizing
this opportunity.
3.3.2
Needs
Systemic level
(i)
Enhancement of national coordination mechanism
Institutional level
(ii) Increasing interagency cooperation
One of the mechanisms for this could be to strengthen and activate the five thematic sub-committees
under the NBCC through devolution of the CBD-related authority, responsibilities, and opportunities
to them.
(iii) Setting up monitoring and evaluation mechanism
Establishing an effective system and mechanism for monitoring and evaluation of implementation of
biodiversity related policies, plans and projects is essential. Such a system should also have a provision
for social or public (i.e. local people, relevant scientists, media etc) monitoring.
Cross levels
(iv) Enhancement of capacity of the CBD focal ministry and National Biodiversity Unit is essential. A
separate CBD cell with competent staff and facilities needs to be established under the Environment
Division of the MOFSC.
(v) Enhancement of law enforcement and program implementation capacity of government departments is
needed.
3.4 Identification and Monitoring of Biodiversity
There is a general gap of knowledge related to biodiversity in Nepal, except for forest ecosystems, which are
relatively well-known. In particular, there is a serious gap in knowledge related to agro-biodiversity, species and
genetic resources. Although, there are separate government agencies for forestry and agriculture research (i.e.
DOFRS and NARC, respectively) they are severely constrained by the research fund and manpower. Moreover,
planning of the limited research activities of the agencies are not usually tied up with the requirements of
its “clients” (i.e. other departments). In other words, the research (particularly forestry) is usually not needbased.
Another group of research institutions include universities and colleges. There are several colleges of life
sciences under the four universities (Tribhuwan, Kathmandu, Purwanchal, and Pokhara). Some of the
universities (e.g. Tribhuwan) have quite a good pool of competent faculty members for conducting quality
38
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
research but they hardly get any regular fund for research. Moreover, the limited research programs of these
academic institutions are oriented towards basic theoretical research and the research findings are usually not
applied in biodiversity management by relevant government departments.
3.4.1
Constraints
Institutional level
(i)
Inadequate research funds, monitoring programs, equipment and facilities
The state has invested too little funds in research on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity,
which restrains the research from going in-depth of the issue. The government and universities research
programs are severely constrained by lack or inadequacy of research funds, equipment, and logistics. As a
result, there is no regular program to monitor biodiversity changes in the country. Government research
offices occasionally conduct mostly applied type of research, which are far from being sufficient.
University graduate courses are heavily inclined towards delivering conventional theoretical knowledge
and research is limited to those conducted by individual students as part of meeting the requirements
for the degree and occasional research by very small proportion of the faculty members.
Lack of or inadequate basic facilities for field monitoring, sound methodologies for monitoring of
various resources, scientific instruments and equipment, data processing facilities, inter-departmental
information exchange and sharing platforms are other constraints. Inadequate research management
capacity hinders the research findings to be applied.
Individual level
(ii) Lack of or inadequacy of competent research professionals
Nepal has quite a rich base of skilled field researchers who are familiar with their area, and have excellent
field skills in biological and social research. However, to conduct broad scale and in-depth analysis of
ecosystems and habitats, familiarity with remote sensing and GIS technologies and other quantitative
methods is essential: and this component is in general significantly lacking in the country. Another
serious problem is the lack of professionals in the field of biotechnology and molecular biology. “Brain
draining” of human resources due to prolonged political instability coupled with lack of incentives has
also contributed to the problem.
Cross levels
(iii) Lack of comprehensive guides on floral and faunal species
This has severely constrained the national capacity of studying and documenting floral and faunal
species and understanding the status of threatened species in the country.
(iv) Lack of time-series data/information on biodiversity
There is a serious lack of comparable, time-serious data/information required for assessing/measuring
June 2008
39
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
overtime change in biodiversity, particularly outside protected areas. This situation has been a bottleneck
towards knowing the impacts of various forest management programs on extent and quality of forest
and rangeland habitats. Lack of rigorousness and institutionalization of the resource survey is another
important constraint.
(v) Lack of biodiversity indicators
Most of the country’s biodiversity remains outside the protected areas. Measuring/estimating the change
in biodiversity of these areas is constrained also by the lack of indicators.
(vi) Inadequate transfer/acquisition of technology
Article 16 of the CBD stresses for transfer of technology by developed countries to developing countries
(mainly in lieu of offer of genetic resources by developing countries to developed countries). But after
so many years of adoption of the CBD, no breakthrough has been observed in technology transfer/
acquisition. One of the reasons behind is that the developing countries like Nepal are not well-prepared
or have not yet fully studied or defined what technologies they need to acquire from developed countries
or even have no idea when and where the genetic resources they offer can be used. General reluctance
(or sometimes even setting up obstacles) of developed countries to transfer technologies in a simplified
manner is another barrier related to this issue.
(vii) Constraints in completing biodiversity registration
Documentation of country’s biodiversity is in preliminary stage. Internalizing it as a regular government
program has been difficult because of lack of capacity (both financial and human resources) of the
government as well as science-based standard method for doing so.
3.4.2
Needs
Institutional level
(i)
Establishment of system/programs/projects for regular monitoring of biodiversity
Monitoring and assessment of biodiversity resources should be an ongoing process because it is essential
for designing and implementing sustainable biodiversity management programs. This requires increased
fund allocation for research, and design and implementation of rigorous research programs. Support from
bilateral and multilateral international funding mechanisms is crucial for successful implementation of
research programs/projects.
(ii) Application of research findings in policy making, management planning and decision making
Government research departments and universities should build up close relations with related
government agencies and need to transform their research findings to the decision-makers and
implementing agencies in forms that are applicable to policy making, management planning, and
decision making.
40
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
(iii) Setting up mechanisms for exchange and sharing of research findings
Communications between/among biodiversity-related government and non-government agencies
should be intensified with the objectives of exchanging views on setting-up of research projects, learning
from others’ strong points to offset one’s weakness, sharing research findings, and reducing redundancies
and wastage of scarce resources.
(iv) Getting prepared for and acquiring necessary technology from developed countries as provisioned in
the CBD is needed. This may require a preparatory research.
(v) Intensification of institutional capacity building
Research capacity of relevant institutions (e.g. government research departments and universities) to
conduct research in various dimensions of biodiversity management should be enhanced.
(vi) Enhancement of capacities of the DNPWC and protected area offices
Protected areas are the main repositories of biodiversity. The professional staff involved in the management
of the protected areas should be equipped with minimum level of technical knowledge and facilities to
assess the current status and monitor changes in condition of bio-resources within their territories.
Cross levels
(vii) Development of biodiversity indicators
There is a need for indicators to measure biodiversity and suitability of habitats, both across the whole
landscapes as well as specific habitats. This requirement is more significant for measuring biodiversity
change in forests outside protected areas and agricultural landscapes. The NTNC has recently developed
criteria and indicators for assessing biodiversity change in conservation areas, which is a good step
forward that needs to be updated for use in other protected areas.
(viii) Creation of multi-disciplinary research platforms
The research on biodiversity involves a number of fields. It is essential to set up multi-disciplinary
research platforms at various levels and dynamic monitoring bases devoted to research on biodiversity.
Establishment of experimental centers oriented to evaluation of and research on genetic resources and
threatened and economically valuable species is another necessity.
(ix) Enhancement of national research capacity
(a) Setting up an efficient research program demands for capable and dedicated group of research
professionals and facilities. The government, with supports from its development partners, should
make serious efforts to attract top-grade young scientists in research organizations, equip them with
required knowledge and skills through degree programs and short trainings, and provide them with
high standard of working condition.
June 2008
41
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
(b) The existing set up and facilities in selected national universities should be upgraded with priority to
make them center of excellence in research.
(c) As the first step towards enhancing national research capacity, the government should build up a
professional research task force of relevant experts to work as advisory body.
(d) Acquiring data collection, processing and information exchange equipment for resources
investigation and monitoring and establishment of long-term research stations/plots should be an
important component of the capacity building initiative.
Individual level
(x) Training and developing new pool of competent research professionals in required fields
Creation of a new pool of competent research professionals, especially in the field of biotechnology,
molecular biology, GIS and remote sensing technologies is urgently needed to fill the gap in research
capacity in these important fields.
3.5 In-situ Conservation
(i)
Habitat loss and degradation
Loss and degradation of habitats due to planned conversion of forest to other land uses, including
infrastructure development as well as small-scale conversion of forestland to agriculture by farmers
adjacent to forest areas, and habitat degradation due to overharvest of biological resources (mainly
fuelwood and fodder), non-sustainable extraction of NTFPs, fire, intrusion and rapid expansion of
invasive alien species, pollution of water bodies are the major problems related to in-situ conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity in Nepal.
(ii) Human-wildlife conflict
Human-wildlife conflict is wide-spread in and around the protected areas, particularly in the Tarai,
and relates to crop and livestock depredation by wild animals. Every year, wild animals, especially wild
boars, elephants, rhinos, deers, monkeys, and wild buffalos destroy hundreds of tons of crops across
the country, inflicting immense misery on the local farmers. Livestock depredation by predator species,
especially tigers and leopards is also common. Occasionally, humans are also killed by big wild animals.
Local villagers occasionally resort to retribution killing in the form of hunting, trapping and poisoning
of wildlife species; such activities are likely to increase should the conflict is not resolved amicably.
The DNPWC, in collaboration with the newly formed buffer zone management councils, is trying to
resolve the problem through a system of awareness and cash compensation but the efforts have not yet
proved to be effective.
(iii) Wildlife poaching
Illegal hunting and trade of valuable wildlife species is prevalent, especially in the lowland areas. Rhino,
tiger, and yarchagumba (Cordyceps sinensis) are some of the species that are especially at risk from
42
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
poaching. The killing of at least 104 rhinos by poachers in the Chitwan National park alone during
200-2006 exemplifies the severity of the problem. A porous international border both in the north
and south, very high price of wildlife parts and products in international markets, inadequate law
enforcement, and general lack of knowledge of the legal consequences of poaching are considered as the
major factors contributing to this problem.
(v) Debate over appropriate management approach for protected areas
A debate has been started in recent years on who should be involved in the governance and management
of protected areas. Experience has shown that local communities, if given governance responsibility
and authority, can satisfactorily implement conservation activities with higher level of flexibility and
responsiveness. Moreover, public support may be higher for such an approach (as exemplified by the
Kanchenjunga Conservation Area Management). However, some serious issues/concerns are acting as
barriers for a complete devolution of management responsibility and authority to local communities.
Some of such concerns are: (a) possible variations in interest between communities and the government
with regard to conserving species, (b) communities often prioritize the community needs rather than
biodiversity conservation thus hampering the biodiversity conservation objectives (e.g. biodiversity
is, generally, an ignored aspect in the management of community forests), (c) communities might
face challenge in bringing the key stakeholders (including park managers) together, and (d) financial
sustainability.
(v) Lack of scientific management of forests under direct control of the Department of Forest
The government-managed forests are largely open access without any forest development and
maintenance activities. Lack of scientific management and weak enforcement of laws have led to a
continuous degradation and loss of these forests.
(vi) Tourism vs. conservation
Some protected areas (e.g. Chitwan National Park and Annapurna Conservation Area) are under stress
from high concentrations of tourists. Large amount of garbage has been reported in high mountain
protected areas (e.g. Sagarmatha). Balancing conservation with economic benefits has been emerged as
a major issue in those protected areas.
3.5.1
Strength
Models of good management practices exist in the country. The community forestry program, ACAP,
Kangchenjunga Conservation Area Management are some examples. Lessons learnt from these programs/
projects can be replicated to other areas/programs.
3.5.2
Constraints
Systemic level
(i)
Lack of clear strategy, policy, and program for sustainable management of rangelands
Absent or unclear land tenure and clearly defined grazing rights have resulted to uncontrolled and
June 2008
43
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
heavy grazing in high altitude rangelands, thereby causing degradation and/or important changes in the
composition of the plant and animal populations in these important ecosystems. There is a clear lack of
strategy, policy and program to address this issue.
(ii) Under-representation of the Mid-Mountain region in the current protected area system
The Mid-Mountain physiographic region, which covers 30 percent of the country’s total area and has
the highest ecosystem diversity among all the five regions, is severely under-represented by the protected
area systems of the country. Currently, the region includes two small national parks (Shivapuri and part
of Khaptad) comprising of only around 1.2 percent of the country’s total protected area.
Cross levels
(iii) Inadequate funds, technology and human resources
Lack of or inadequate funds, technology and human resources are the main reasons behind inadequate
implementation and enforcement of the policies and plans related to in-situ conservation of biodiversity.
There is a general problem of under-funding protected area management programs/programs, which
has hampered meeting development and maintenance objectives. Many protected areas are located in
remote poverty-stricken regions where working conditions are very poor. The management in those
areas still use old outdated basic facilities and primitive means for resources maintenance due mainly to
lack of funds to improve them. There is a little resource available for scientific research and monitoring.
The situation is even worse in the Department of Forest and district forest offices.
Some protected areas, district forest offices, district agricultural and livestock offices though having
satisfactory institutional frameworks, are speculated to be severely under-staffed. For example, the DFO
is severely constrained by inadequate staff required for smooth implementation of different forestry
programs. In the hills and mountains, the staff members are mostly engaged in community and leasehold
forestry programs thereby leaving the government-managed forest virtually open access with no activity
for biodiversity conservation.
(iv) Problems with in-situ conservation of wild relatives of agricultural plants
The work of in-situ conservation of agricultural wild plants began in Nepal only very recently. NARC,
LIBIRD and International Plant Genetic Resources Institute have been jointly implementing In-situ
Conservation of Agricultural Biodiversity On-farm Project since 1997 in three eco-sites representing
high, mid and low altitude regions. The activities of the project are mainly related to protection of wild
crop relatives, like wild rice. The sites, however, are usually very small in size and few in number and the
effort is inadequate to conserve the rich diversity of wild relatives of agricultural plants in the country.
3.5.3
Needs
Systemic level
(i)
44
Formulation of necessary strategy, policy, and programs required for in-situ conservation of wild relatives
of agricultural plants and high altitude rangelands is necessary.
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
(ii) Formulation of necessary legislation required to balance conservation, local needs, and economic gains
through tourism development in the protected areas is necessary.
Institutional level
(iii) Increased investment in conservation and management of forests and protected areas
It is necessary to increase investment in forest conservation and development/maintenance of protected
areas, particularly in remote poverty-stricken areas so as to improve their management and living
conditions. Aid from international society and the GEF financial mechanism can be important sources
for generating required funds.
(iv) Introduction of participatory management models wherever feasible
Encouraging participation of local communities in the management of protected areas, strengthening
and harmonizing park-people relations, helping local people alleviate poverty by introducing incomegenerating programs/projects, and/or setting up compensation funds to compensate local people
economically for the losses they suffer from wild animals should be considered.
Individual level
(v) Enhancement of technical knowledge and skills of protected area employees
This involves paying special attention to attract professionals with high educational background to
work for the relevant agencies (such as DNPWC and NTNC); providing opportunities for outstanding
professionals and managers to get required training abroad; and incorporating regional experiences and
lessons in the management.
Cross levels
(v) Establishment of more protected areas in the Mid-Mountain physiographic region. Phulchoki and
Tinjure-Milke-Jaljale forest areas could be some of the potential sites to start with. The management
modalities for such areas should take into consideration of conservation as well as local livelihood
requirements.
(vi) Conduction of research on efficient management of government-managed forests
Considering the lack of success of several past attempts of the government for scientific management
and also the imminent future changes in the national governance structure, there is a need for an
extensive research on possible alternative management modalities for the forests that are directly under
the control of the Department of Forest.
3.5.4
(i)
Opportunities
There is a possibility of gaining long-term economic support from international community for
biodiversity conservation in community-managed forests if contribution of these forests on carbon
sequestration can be highlighted and related to the Kyoto Protocol.
June 2008
45
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
(ii) There has been an increased interest and involvement of NGOs and donors in biodiversity conservation.
The Community Environment Awareness and Management project implemented in Kavrepalanchok,
Nawalparasi, Palpa and Sindhupalchok under the Canadian support; Public-Private Partnership initiative
of the UNDP; and the FINNIDA-supported Strengthening of Environmental Administration project
in Dharan-Biratnagar corridor are some examples. There is a possibility of further expansion of such
activities in future.
3.6 Management and Control of Invasive Alien Species
Photo by Ambika Gautam
Habitat degradation due to encroachment by invasive alien species (e.g. Mikania micrantha, Lantana camara,
Parthenium hysterophorus) is a major issue in some areas. The problem is reported to be especially severe in
the Chitwan National Park and other protected areas in central and eastern Tarai due to invasion of Mikania
micrantha in recent years.
Mikania micrantha near Chitwan National Park (December 2007)
3.6.1 Constraints
Systemic level
(i)
Lack of legislation, strategy and action plan
There is no any special law or regulations for preventing introduction and control of invasive alien
species, except for the plant quarantine law. The current quarantine law is mainly concerned with
organisms that may bring harm to agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry and fishery, but not much
attention is given to those invasive alien species that may pose potential threats to ecosystems and
biodiversity. The government also has no any strategy or action plan or comprehensive precautionary
measure for prevention and control of invasive alien species.
46
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
Cross levels
(ii) Inadequate quarantine and detecting capacity
The custom and the quarantine departments lack adequate capacity for controlling introduction of
alien species in the country, and do not have a sound inspection and quarantine system to follow up. As
a result, they are unable to prevent invasive alien species from entering the country.
(iii) Lack of research
There has been no any research on the mode of propagation, extent, and control of invasive alien species
in Nepal.
3.6.2 Needs
Systemic level
(i)
There is a need to prepare separate legislation, strategy and action plan for control and management of
invasive alien species.
Cross levels
(ii) Enhancing the quarantine and detecting capacity of the custom and quarantine departments through
appropriate facilities, training and incentive measures is needed.
(iii) Conducting a countrywide survey on distribution, spatial extent and damage by invasive alien species
A countrywide survey on invasive alien species should be carried out as soon as possible to find out the
types, quantity, distribution and hazards and trends of various invasive alien species (including plants,
animals and microbes). The large amount of funding required for such a survey should be generated
from internal as well as external sources. The government can also seek supports from the Global
Invasive Species Network.
(iv) Conducting research on control of invasive alien species and their utilization
There is an urgent need for an integrated research on invasive alien species with a focus on identifying
the species at gene and species level, its population, community, and ecosystem characteristics and
mechanisms of controlling it. Another important objective of the research should be to understand and
possibly benefit from the species’ strong adaptability, rapid growth, and high biomass characteristics of
the invasive species.
(v) Seting up invasive alien species early warning and monitoring systems
The key to preventing and controlling invasive alien species is to study ways to prevent invasive alien
species entering in the country or to destroy them at the very early stage of introduction through a
sound monitoring and early response system. For intentionally introduced exotic species, it is essential
to perform risk assessment and put in place effective risk management measures.
June 2008
47
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
3.7 Ex-situ Conservation
3.7.1 Constraints
Systemic Level
(i)
Lack of a national vision, goal and program for ex-situ conservation
There is no clear national vision, goal and comprehensive program for promoting ex-situ conservation
in Nepal. The current efforts are too little and pursued at random by different agencies.
Institutional Level
(ii) Inadequate ex-situ conservation facilities and efforts
Although Nepal has put some efforts towards ex-situ conservation of wild animals, plants and scattered
collection and protection of agricultural crop and medicinal plants germplasm resources, these efforts
are far from sufficient.
(iii) Low research and management capacity
Botanic gardens and zoos can be important sites for biological research. But due to lack of clear program
and capacity, there has not been much work towards this end. The only zoo in Jawalakhel and the
botanical garden in Godawari do not have scientific research as one of their major tasks.
(iv) Failure to recognize the role of ex-situ conservation facilities in public education and awareness
Except for some randomized events, there is no systematic effort to promote the ex-situ conservation
sites for public education and center for increasing public awareness.
3.7.2 Needs
Systemic Level
(i)
Designing and implementing a national program for ex-situ conservation of biodiversity
It is necessary to have a broad national vision, goal and comprehensive program with a clear coordination,
and monitoring mechanisms in place to promote ex-situ conservation of biodiversity in the country.
Such a program should have a clear knowledge of national requirements regarding ex-situ conservation
and approach to be taken for meeting the requirements.
Cross Levels
(ii) Expanding ex-situ conservation efforts and facilities for wild species
There is a need for establishing new botanical gardens, zoos, and aquaria in all physiographic and
development regions. Moreover, setting up small-size facilities for ex-situ protection of rare and
endangered species in areas of their respective native habitats may be required for concentrated
preservation of protected local species. It is also advisable establishing safari parks and breeding centers
for wildlife species of particular importance.
48
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
(iii) Expanding and consolidating germplasm storage facilities for ex-situ conservation of indigenous crops
and livestock
A complete, requirement-based national conservation system should be established for ex-situ
conservation of valuable crops and livestock species found in the country. Development of such a
system should be based on sound research. Research should also be conducted to develop new and
useful varieties by making use of available genes and distributing the improved varieties to farmers
through implementation of appropriate programs and projects.
(iv) Enhancing research and management capacity
To take optimum advantage from the expanded ex-situ conservation program and successful
implementation of the above activities, it is necessary to enhance the research and management capacities
of relevant institutions and professionals.
(v) Establishing facilities to promote public education and awareness
One important component of the expansion of ex-situ conservation facilities should be to construct
exhibition areas, halls or auditoria in botanical gardens, zoos and aquaria for popularization of common
scientific knowledge of biodiversity among the visiting general public and students.
3.8 Biosafety Management
Establishment and effective enforcement of adequate biosafety measures is a serious issue in Nepal. Lack of
this has led to the concern that GMOs potentially outcross with wild relatives, which could alter the plant
populations and loss of gene pool.
3.8.1 Constraints
Systemic Level
(i)
Lack of or inadequate legislation
Although, the government has prepared and implemented the National Biosafety Framework since last
year, the legislative and regulatory system for effective application of the precautionary measures to avoid
risk is still lacking.
Cross Levels
(ii) Inadequate capacity for biosafety research and inspection of GMOs
Effective implementation of the CBD Biosafety Protocol requires collection of all scientific facts related
to the subject matter, which in turn depends on scientific research. Inadequate research capacity (in
terms of human resource and facility) is a major barrier in effective implementation of the National
Biosafety Framework (2007) and making satisfactory progress of GMO risk assessment.
June 2008
49
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
(iii) Weak basic facilities for detecting and monitoring GMOs
The precautionary principle suggested by the CBD with regard to GMOs calls for adoption of
precautionary measures to avoid risks before full scientific evidence is obtained so as to reduce possible
harm from GMOs. However, inadequate facilities coupled with lack of technical capacity have severely
undermined Nepal’s efforts towards GMO risk assessment and management. Lack of a complete
monitoring system and sound detecting means are other important factors limiting the country’s
capacity in assessing GMOs-related risks.
(iv) Lack of public awareness and participation
Risks and safety measures associated with GMOs and products are directly and closely related to health
of the consumers. The general public, therefore, is entitled to have thorough information about the
biological products it is eating so that the people can make rationale choice. Currently, however, the
public does not know much about GMOs or have much sense of biosafety. Lack of people’s participation
in the process of GMO-related decision-making is one of the reasons behind this situation.
3.8.2 Needs
Systemic Level
(i)
Formulation of necessary act, regulations, and guidelines required to effectively implement the National
Biosafety Framework.
Cross Levels
(ii) Enhancing capacity of law enforcement agencies and professionals
(iii) Conduction of research on GMOs and biosafety
Research on GMOs and biosafety measures should be immediately started to assess associated risks
with scientific basis. This calls for financial and technical supports from the government and donors.
Actually, Nepal as a least developed country is entitled to get financial support from developed countries
to carry out research and for constitution of technical standards and criteria essential for management
of GMOs under the CBD.
(iv) Setting up GMO risk monitoring systems
The first step towards this should be to establish a national GMO biosafety verification center with full
authority and technical capacity.
(v) Increasing publicity, education and awareness on GMOs
There is necessity to start informing the general public, through proper media, about GMOs and
biotechnology followed by educating them about the risks associated with GMOs and their prevention.
Also required is to involve the public, to the extent possible, in decision-making process related to
introduction of biotechnology.
50
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
3.9 Preservation of Traditional Knowledge
Nepal is disproportionately rich in diversity of indigenous communities and associated culture and traditional
knowledge. The wide range of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of local farmers, including
traditional agricultural production patterns, livestock breeding and cultivation techniques and living styles are
very useful in conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Despite this, no systematic effort to investigate,
collate and catalogue this knowledge, innovations, practices and cultures have made.
The recently initiated biodiversity documentation is a good start but the program is severely constrained by
lack of legislation, coordination mechanism and human resource to implement the program nationwide.
3.9.1 Constraint
Systemic Level
(i) Lack of legislation
It is not clear which agency is responsible for coordinating the biodiversity registration activity, and compiling
and keeping the records at the national level. A draft bill on this matter is currently under revision by
the MOFSC.
Cross Levels
(ii) Inadequate capacity for investigation and cataloguing of traditional knowledge is the major constraint in
implementing the CBD requirement.
3.9.2 Needs
Systemic Level
(i) Fomulation and enforcement of necessary legislation
Cross Levels
(ii) It is important to carry out a nationwide survey of traditional knowledge, establishing a system of
evaluation criteria, specifying the scope of traditional knowledge and having the findings catalogued
systematically.
3.10
Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing
(i) The CBD has recognized the sovereignty of the states on their natural resources and has acknowledged
that the access to genetic resources rests on the national government. This provision has not been well
implemented in Nepal.
(ii) Article 8j of the CBD focuses on the special role of indigenous peoples and their knowledge, both in the
creation of and the future preservation and use of genetic resources. Simultaneously, the article specifies
that, when such knowledge is used, the indigenous peoples and local communities who have brought
forth this knowledge are to share in the profits and benefits attained from such use. In the absence of
June 2008
51
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
a clear mechanism to implement it, the provision has led to a contention between the government
and indigenous communities in Nepal. This is one of the main reasons causing unnecessary delay in
finalizing the genetic resources bill by the government.
(iii) Issue related to the WTO-TRIPS Agreement
There is no any provision related to access and benefit sharing in the WTO-TRIPS Agreement. This
has led to the risk of biopiracy by multinational companies, denying communities of their rights to
compensation. Moreover, farming communities who have been relying on farm-saved seed to continue
their profession and maintain their livelihoods are likely to face restrictions in the use of this practice in the
long run due to life form patenting as well as the mandatory requirement to provide protection to plant
varieties. These two issues combined, may shrink the livelihood options of the poor and marginalized
farmers and indigenous communities.
3.10.1 Constraints
Systemic Level
(i)
Lack of legislation concerning acquisition of genetic resources and benefit sharing has been a barrier to
effectively manage import and export, and access and benefit sharing of genetic resources in multilateral
or bilateral international systems.
(ii) Lack of mechanism to share the profits and benefits from use of genetic resources with the indigenous
peoples and local communities who have brought forth the knowledge in the creation of and the future
preservation and use of genetic resources.
Cross Levels
(iii) Incomplete knowledge of genetic resources
3.10.2 Needs
Systemic Level
(i)
Legislation required for addressing the issue of access to genetic resources and benefit sharing should
be formulated as soon as possible. Such a legislation should also incorporate provisions suggested by
the “Bonn Guidelines for Acquisition of Genetic Resources and Equal Sharing of Benefit from their
Exploitation” and other international systems.
(ii) Establishment of mechanism to share the profits and benefits from use of genetic resources with the
indigenous peoples and local communities who have brought forth the knowledge in the creation of
and the future preservation and use of genetic resources.
Cross Levels
(iii) Investigation of genetic resources on unknown taxa, particularly of threatened and economically valuable
species, is necessary.
52
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
3.11 Education, Awareness and Public Participation
3.11.1 Strengths
(i)
The government has shown a strong commitment to make public aware on biodiversity and seek for
active participation of the local communities. Integration of public awareness and communication in
almost all the biodiversity conservation programs/projects is an evidence of such commitment. The
projects produce and distribute brochures and information sheets, organize seminar and interaction
meetings.
(ii) There is an increased awareness and media support for conservation. Public information programs are
aired regularly from television and radio stations. A number of feature articles and news are regularly
published in local newspapers. Public awareness is also being promoted in various celebrations such
as the Biodiversity Day, Environment Day, and Wetland Day etc. Increased access to the Internet
resources, particularly by younger generation, is in rise in urban areas.
(iii) Biodiversity is being increasingly incorporated in academic curricula at all levels. Separate graduate
and under graduate courses on biodiversity, forestry, wildlife, and environmental science have been
introduced by universities. Moreover, various competitions are organized regularly and prizes are
distributed to create interests of school children in biodiversity conservation.
3.11.2 Constraints
Individual Level
(i)
The term “biodiversity” is generally unfamiliar among the general public
Although, the understanding of the concept has substantially increased in recent years, it is mostly limited
to urban areas and particularly in younger masses. A vast majority of the rural population, particularly
in remote rural areas, is still unaware of the concept and rationale for biodiversity conservation. This
situation has hampered effective implementation of biodiversity related policies and programs.
(ii) High level policy and decision makers are not so familiar with the concept of biodiversity
Although all of the current national development framework and strategic documents have made
mention of the term biodiversity, the senior level decision makers and political leaders who approve
these strategies hardly have a clear idea of biodiversity and its conservation significance.
Cross Levels
(iii) Inadequate participation of local communities in protected area management
It is now generally acknowledged that if the local inhabitants of the protected areas do not support
establishment of the protected area and cooperate with the government agencies in its management,
it is impossible to realize the objectives of the protected area. Realizing this, some initiatives aimed
at involving the locals in the management of protected areas have been started in the country. The
exemplary works of the NTNC in Annapurna Conservation Area, and of the DNPWC and WWF
June 2008
53
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
in Kangchengjungha Conservation Area are excellent examples of people’s involvement in protected
area management. These efforts, however, are not enough. Most of the country’s protected areas
still remain practically separated from the people, resulting high level of people-park conflicts. The
recently established buffer zone councils have not been so effective in bridging the gap between park
administration and the local people.
(iv) Inadequate participation of the public in decision-making
Although, a large number of government policy decisions are directly related to the vital interests of
the people, opportunities and channels to incorporate their concerns and voices in the policy process
usually do not exist. There has been a rising trend of public participation in Nepal in more recent years
but this is happening mostly at random and inadequately. So far, there is no clear mechanism for public
participation in decision-making.
3.11.3 Needs
Systemic Level
(i)
Formulation and implementation of biodiversity publicity and education plans and programs
The National Biodiversity Coordination Committee should come up with a clear policy and plan for
implementation of effective publicity and extension activities. Organizing audio and video programs on
biodiversity theme and broadcasting them through the media, opening up special biodiversity sections/
columns in popular newspapers, more extensive celebration of annual biodiversity events (such as
International Biodiversity Day, World Wetland Day) should be part of the plans and programs.
Cross levels
(ii) Setting up professional teams to carry out publicity and education at the grassroots level
Setting up professional teams to carry out publicity and education at the grassroots level (e.g. zoo, botanical
gardens, protected areas, community forests) could be another effective approach for increasing
awareness. University students, NGOs could be mobilized as voluntary groups for organizing such
events.
(iii) Publication
Compiling and publishing biodiversity-related books, journals, magazines, and reading material could
be another important way to disseminate biodiversity knowledge, especially among school and college
students.
(iv) Exploring and establishing mechanism for public participation
Establishing an effective mechanism for mobilizing, guiding, and supporting public participation in
conservation of biodiversity and building up public participation systems such as mass information and
complaints systems, public hearings, systems for public participation in biodiversity impact assessment,
news and public opinion supervising system is necessary.
54
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
3.12
Database Development, Management and Information Exchange
(i)
Knowledge management related to biodiversity is very poor, due mainly to frequent transfers and nonexistence of information in office along with such transfers. This has directly and negatively affected
the functioning of relevant government agencies, including the National Biodiversity Unit under the
MOFSC.
(ii) Knowledge of genetic diversity, particularly of plants, is poor in Nepal. This is due to a general lack
of necessary facilities and human resources on scientific research on genetic resources using modern
technologies.
3.12.1 Strengths
There has been increased exposure of policy-makers and professionals to new technologies and exchange of
information with international stakeholders through participation in international conferences.
3.12.2 Constraints
Cross Levels
(i)
Lack of a comprehensive database on biodiversity
Lack of a comprehensive database on biodiversity is one of the most serious constraints in achieving an
integrated planning and policy making for conservation and sustainable use of the country’s biodiversity.
Currently, some government and non-government offices have their own database of variable sizes and
types, which is hardly available for others. Moreover, lack of integrated planning, variations in formats
of data and technical norms from agencies to agencies and even from research team to research team
have posed a serious obstacle for data sharing and information exchange.
(ii) Inadequate data management capacity
Construction and management of a national database on a complex theme like biodiversity that
encompasses several disciplines, requires a high level of technical knowledge on relevant software,
database as well as on the subject matter, which is currently lacking.
(iii) Absence of a data/information sharing platform
Although several organizations have their own database on biodiversity, the data are usually not accessible
by others. Only a few data (e.g. ICIMOD’s GIS Portal) are available in the internet. As creation and
maintenance of a database calls for a large sum of investment and involves ownership of the material and
intellectual property rights, generally the owner of the database is not willing to put its own databases
on the Internet for sharing. As a result, channels for data/information sharing between institutions do
not exist. Similar is the situation with regard to cross-country data/information sharing.
June 2008
55
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
3.12.3 Needs
Systemic Level
(i)
Formulation of a national plan for collection, management and utilization of biodiversity data.
Cross Levels
(ii) Creation and management of a central biodiversity database and information management system
It is essential to immediately start a dialogue among relevant stakeholders (government ministries
and departments, universities, NGOs) on the modality and format of central biodiversity database.
This should be followed by creation of the database and a national network system for biodiversity
information sharing.
(iii) Establishment of a data/information sharing system
It is also necessary to establish a system for integration and coordination (e.g. cataloguing, networking)
of all the existing biodiversity databases so as to make this information fully available for utilization and
sharing. Based on the assessment of the existing databases, it is also necessary to identify gaps and study
and establish new databases and information systems.
3.13
Capacity of Local Agencies for Biodiversity Management
Lack of awareness, limited financial and institutional capacities, authority and human resources to plan and
implement biodiversity management programs are some of the main issues related biodiversity management
by local agencies.
3.13.1 Constraints
Institutional Level
(i)
Financial difficulties
riority of the local agencies is on infrastructure development and other economic activities, where limited
financial resources are used. This has resulted in lack of fund and inadequate attention to biodiversity
conservation.
(ii) Shortage of human resources
Because of poorer working condition and less opportunities in rural areas, individuals with higher
educational qualifications, senior professionals and experts are mostly concentrated in Kathmandu and
other large cities. This has created shortage of professionals in countryside, especially in remote districts
and areas.
(iii) Incomplete institutional framework at the local level
The environmental protection departments usually do not have organizations at the VDC and
municipality level. This has left a gap in technical capacity of these local agencies in matters related to
biodiversity.
56
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
Cross levels
(iv) Limited authority and management capacities of the local agencies
The local agencies (i.e. DDCs, VDCs and municipalities) do not have enough legal authority in matters
related to biodiversity. Conflict in policies and laws (e.g. between Local Self Governance Act of 1997 and
Forest Act of 1993) and poor coordination between local and central government agencies is another
problem that has hampered biodiversity conservation in the field.
(v) Local governments lack initiatives in biodiversity conservation
As mentioned above, local governments are keen on economic development, quick success and instant
benefits and lack initiative in biodiversity conservation. Environmental protection often has to follow
the needs of economic development without any initiative.
3.13.2 Needs
Institutional Level
(i)
Formation and Activation of the District Biodiversity Coordination Committees
The NBS has a provision of establishing biodiversity coordination committees at the district level.
Accordingly, such committees have already been formed in 10 districts but, so far, they have remained
largely inactive due mainly to lack of awareness of its members, lack of financial resources and technical
capacity. The committees’ should be formed in all districts and activated through enhancement of their
financial and technical capacities.
(ii) Setting up a biodiversity planning and coordination mechanism at VDCs and municipalities
A biodiversity coordination committee under the VDC or municipality chair should be established in
each VDC and municipality.
Cross levels
(iii) Local agencies need to build up their own policy, plan and strategy for conservation and sustainable use
of biodiversity within their territories rather than just relying on the central government. Such a policy,
plans and strategies should be integrated with their development agenda.
(iv) The government should support local agencies financially and technically
The central government should help the local agencies with their capacity building by implementing
capacity building projects and should also share part of the financial burdens required for planning and
implementation of biodiversity conservation activities. Some of such capacity building projects can be
implemented through the DDC and VDC associations.
June 2008
57
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
3.14
Capacity of CBOs and NGOs in Biodiversity Management
Lack of awareness, technical and financial capacities of CBOs, mainstreaming NGOs’ works with national
priorities and monitoring of their activities are some of the issues and challenges.
3.14.1
Constraints
Insitutional Level
(i)
INGOs do not have direct communication with the government at the political level
Many of the INGOs operating in the country have enough financial and human resources but they
are sometimes constrained by their inability to directly put their idea and agenda to the highest level of
decision making. Generally, INGOs would find it hard to balance their relationship with government
departments.
(ii) NGOs are spatially restricted to small areas, too many, but usually lack financial resources
National and local NGOs are usually constrained by the lack of funds and face difficulties in raising
funds by themselves. Moreover, they do not normally have any formal mechanism to hold dialogue
with the government and their activities and suggestions can hardly be able to draw the government’s
attention.
Cross Levels
(iii) CBOs lack technical and financial capacity
CBOs, including most of the community FUGs and buffer zone councils are severely constrained by
lack of technical capacity to formulate and implement biodiversity management plans and programs.
Moreover, lack of financial resources has barred them from hiring technical professionals.
3.14.2
Needs
Cross Levels
(i)
Enhancement of technical and financial capacities of CBOs
It is essential to enhance technical capacity of the CBOs through activities like short trainings and onsite demonstrations. While extending technical and financial supports, the government should give
priority to those CBOs who do not have their own financial resources.
(ii) Enabling national NGOs to raise funds
The government should provide NGOs with policies, enabling them to raise funds and break away from
reliance on foreign donations so as to ensure normal operations. The government should also provide
channels for NGOs to improve communication with related governmental agencies. The NGOs, on
the other hand, should intensify their contact with mainstream scientists to seek for more scientific
support.
58
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
(iii) Improvement in communication between/among NGOs and CBOs
CBOs and I/NGOs should set up platforms to intensify communication and network contacts with
other CBOs, INGOs and NGOs.
3.15
Other Issues
3.15.1 Community based forest management
(i)
The community forestry program has been largely successful in improving forest cover thereby
contributing to biodiversity conservation but there are indications that the biological conservation
could be taking place at the cost of the benefits sacrificed by local communities. Taking account of the
needs and aspirations of poorer and socially disadvantaged sections of the community to ensure their
equitable access and control over the forest resources has been emerged as a challenge.
(ii) The community forestry program has been far less successful in the Tarai and High Mountain regions
as compared to the Middle Mountains.
(iii) Several anomalies and misconduct by community Forest User Groups (FUGs) have been reported from
the field, particularly in the Tarai (see Baral and Subedi, 2000), thereby putting a question mark in the
long-term sustainability of the program.
(iv) The new (i.e. 2000) policy of collaborative forest management that has limited the expansion of
community forestry in only barren lands, shrublands, and isolated forest patches in the Tarai and innerTarai, has led to a new policy debate in recent years concerning the suitability of the Tarai forests for
community management. This has also caused a serious contention between the community forestry
and collaborative forest management at all levels.
(v) Lack of formal legal status for leasehold forestry groups and uncertainties over the transfer and inheritance
of leasehold rights has raised question about the long-term sustainability of the program.
(vi) Technical capacity of local communities and relevant government and non-government agencies for
multiple use forest management is questionable. Non-consideration to shrubs and herbal species in
assessment and management planning of community forests is one example that substantiates this
speculation.
3.15.2 Sustainable Use of Components of Biodiversity
Under Article 10 of the CBD, Nepal is required to integrate sustainable use of biological diversity at national
decision making and encourage cooperation between government and private sectors to develop sustainable
use of biological resources. This requirement has adequately addressed by the policies and plans but their
implementation outcomes are not positive. This is evidenced by the continuous loss and degradation of
forest, rangeland, and wetland habitats due mainly to excessive harvest of biological resources.
June 2008
59
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
3.15.3 Sharpening Conflict between Conservation and Development
The government has tried to take advantage of potential resources in some protected areas (e.g. Chitwan
National Park) to develop tourism and other economic activities and even to attract investment and business
in order to solve financial problems. However, improper exploitation and development has hindered
realization of the protected area’s original goal of biodiversity conservation.
3.15.4 Balancing Production and Conservation Needs in Agriculture Sector
(i)
Soil is one of the most diverse environments of the universe. Loss of soil organic matter and/or
application of large quantity of inorganic fertilizers for increased food production have led to reduced
soil fertility, decreased soil-plant relationships and pollution of water bodies (NPC/MOPE, 2003).
Solving this problem, where food demand is rapidly increasing to feed the ever growing population,
is a major issue.
(ii) Introduction of high-yielding varieties of crops and animals has led to increase in food production but
it might have caused decrease in diversity. In this context, balancing the diversity of biodiversity-rich
agricultural systems (which often have relatively low yields) with higher yields from introduced highyielding varieties is another important issue related to conservation of agrobiodiversity, which needs
to be addressed.
3.15.5 Undervaluation of Biodiversity Products
When biodiversity resources are valued, generally, only quantifiable benefits are taken into account and
the market does not capture the other (ecological, social) benefits. Even when markets exist, prices may
not reflect the real value. The government is unable to provide the necessary adjustment or influence due
mainly to the absence of adequate information; ultimately leading to policy failure. This is one of the major
reasons behind the wide-spread poverty in areas with rich agro-biodiversity.
3.15.6 Political Dispute
Lack of political consensus on the approach to be taken for addressing the issue of forest area encroachment
in the Tarai and inner-Tarai districts has made the forest department’s efforts of stopping forest area
encroachments ineffective.
3.15.7 Impact Assessment
As per the CBD Article 14, Parties are obliged to introduce the system of Environmental Impact Assessment
on proposed projects that are likely to cause adverse effects on biological diversity.
As a move towards fulfilling this requirement, Nepal has formulated the Environment Protection Act
(1997) and Environment Protection Regulations (1997). But the inadequate enforcement of the Act
60
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
and regulations has severely hampered the objective of eliminating and mitigating potential threats to
biodiversity from economic development.
3.15.8 Management of Forests and Protected Areas in the Changed Political Context
What will be the governance structure for forests and protected areas if the country adopts a federal system
of governance in near future is unclear.
3.15.9 Linkage between climate change and biodiversity
Nepal’s inherent vulnerability to natural disasters such as landslides and flash floods is expected to substantially
increase due to global climate change, which in turn can affect biodiversity. Scientists are already warning
the possibility of glacier lake outbursts in the Himalayas. Vulnerability to climate change induced disasters
could be a serious threat to many sectors, including agriculture and associated biodiversity. These all are,
however, only speculations. The role of biodiversity in climate change mitigation (or impact of climate
change on biodiversity) is not well known. As a result, there is a lack of capacity and/or preparedness to
deal with the issue.
3.15.10 Political intervention
There exists a wide perception among the stakeholders that there is unnecessary and excessive political
intervention in the government offices. Frequent transfers, non-experts taking up the key positions, nonrealization of the importance of training opportunities (more inclined towards monetary benefits) were
presented as some manifestations of such interventions.
3.15.11 Rights vs. accountability and responsibility
Awareness in the civil society is generally high (and increasing) for the right but low with regard to
accountability and responsibility.
3.16
Cross-thematic Issues
•
Impacts of climate change
•
Resources management approach - existing conventional or ecosystem based as recommended by the
CBD?
•
Land use planning and implementation
•
Assessment and monitoring of land-use changes
•
Integration/harmonization of policy, acts, guidelines
•
Cooperation between national focal points, ministries and agencies
•
Coordination in formulation of national strategies and action plans
June 2008
61
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
62
•
Sharing of data and information systems
•
National scientific and technical research capacities
•
Development and transfer of environmentally sound technologies
•
Prediction and monitoring of impacts, and development of assessments and response measures
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
Chapter IV
Prioritization of National Capacity Building for
Effective Management of Biodiversity
Priority 1: Identification and monitoring of biodiversity
Priority Actions
(i)
Establish system, programs and/or projects for identification and regular monitoring of biodiversity.
Possibilities for getting external supports through international funding mechanisms should be expored
and utilized, if needed.
(ii)
Enhance national research capacity. This involves: (a) building up a professional research
taskforce of relevant experts to work as advisory body, (b) upgrading of facilities in government research
organizations and selected national universities to make them center of excellence in research, (c) creation
of a new pool of competent research professionals, especially in the field of biotechnology, molecular
biology, GIS and remote sensing technologies, (d) acquisition of data collection, processing and information
exchange equipment for resources investigation and monitoring, (e) establishment of long-term research
stations/plots etc.
(iii) Develop biodiversity indicators.
(iv) Create multi-disciplinary research platforms.
(v) Get prepared for and acquisition of necessary technology from developed countries as provisioned in the
CBD.
(vi) Set up mechanisms for exchange and sharing of research findings
(vii) Enhance capacities (technical and material) of the protected area offices, district forest offices and local forest
user groups to make them capable in assessing the current status and monitoring changes in condition of
bio-resources within their territories.
Priority 2: Database development, management and information exchange
Priority Actions
(i)
Formulate a national plan for collection, management and utilization of biodiversity data.
(ii) Create and manage a central biodiversity database and information management system.
(iii) Establish a data/information sharing system.
June 2008
63
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
Priority 3: Effective implementation of biodiversity-related policies, plans and programs
Priority Actions
(i)
Enhance the national coordination mechanism through activation of the Environment Protection Council
and National Biodiversity Coordination Committee.
(ii) Strengthen the CBD focal office through institutional and individual capacity enhancement.
(iii) Forge a consensus among the major political parties in resolving the chronic problem of forest area
encroachment and resettlement in the Tarai and inner-Tarai districts.
(iv) Enhance law enforcement and program implementation capacity of relevant government departments.
(v) Set up effective and transparent monitoring and evaluation system at plan, program, project, organization,
and individual levels.
(vi) Remove/harmonize the contradictory provisions in policies and legislations.
(v)
Enhance technical knowledge and skills of protected area and DFO employees for effective implementation
of in-situ conservation programs.
(vii) Increase interagency communication and cooperation.
Priority 4: In-situ conservation of biodiversity
Priority Actions
(i)
Immediately formulate necessary strategy, policy, and programs required for in-situ conservation of wild
relatives of agricultural plants and high altitude rangelands.
(ii) Formulate necessary legislation required to balance conservation, local needs, and economic gains through
tourism development in the protected areas.
(iii) Select, establish and conserve critical areas/habitats/ecosystems, especially in the Mid-Mountain
physiographic region. Wherever feasible, adopt participatory approach to conservation of such sites.
(iv) Increase investment in conservation and management of forests and protected areas.
(v) Strengthen law enforcement capacity of protected area and DFO employees to check illegal trade and
poaching.
(vi) Conduct research on efficient management of government-managed forests.
Priority 5: Formulation, revision and/or harmonization of biodiversity related policies, laws, and
regulations
Priority Actions
(i)
64
Formulate a coherent strategy to effectively communicate the value of biodiversity and impact of its current
rate of loss on ecosystem goods and services and human well-being.
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
(ii)
Fill up the legislative gaps through enactment of required laws and regulations.
(iii) Consolidate and harmonize biodiversity related policies and legislations.
(iv) Link, more effectively, biodiversity with poverty reduction through mainstreaming of forestry, fisheries and
agricultural biodiversity conservation with the wider development agenda.
(v) Formulate strategy to balance production and conservation needs in agriculture sector.
(vi) Make the national policy making, management planning and decision making more research-based.
Priority 6: Ex-situ conservation of biodiversity
Priority Actions
(i)
Design and implement a national program for ex-situ conservation of biodiversity.
(ii) Expand ex-situ conservation efforts and facilities for wild species.
(iii) Expand and consolidate germplasm storage facilities for ex-situ conservation of indigenous crops and
livestock.
(iv) Enhance research and management capacity of relevant agencies and professionals.
(v) Establish facilities to promote public education and awareness at ex-situ conservation sites.
Priority 7: Enhancement of national capacity in biosafety management
Priority Actions
(i)
Conduct research on GMOs and biosafety.
(ii)
Formulate necessary law and regulations required to effectively implement the National Biosafety
Framework (2007).
(iii) Set up GMO risk monitoring systems.
(iv) Enhance capacity of law enforcement agencies and professionals.
(v) Increase publicity, education and awareness on GMOs.
Priority 8: Effective implementation of EIA policy
Priority Action
Enhance enforcement of the Environment Protection Act (1997) and Environment Protection Regulations
(1997) for eliminating and mitigating potential threats to biodiversity from economic development.
June 2008
65
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
Priority 9: Involvement and/or activation of local bodies in biodiversity management
Priority Actions
(i)
Form and/or activate the District Biodiversity Coordination Committees through enhancement of their
financial and technical capacities.
(ii)
Set up a biodiversity planning and coordination mechanism at VDCs and municipalities.
(iii) Support the local agencies financially and technically in building up their own policy, plan and strategy for
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity within their territories. Such a policy, plans and strategies
should be integrated with their development agenda.
Priority 10: Enhancement of technical and financial capacities of community forest user groups
and other CBOs in in-situ conservation of biodiversity
Priority Actions
(i)
Provide short trainings and on-site demonstrations to FUG and other CBO members.
(ii) While extending technical and financial supports, give priority to those FUGs and other CBOs who do not
have their own financial resources.
Priority 11: Access to genetic resources and benefit sharing
Priority Actions
(i)
Investigate genetic resources on unknown taxa, particularly of threatened and economically valuable
species.
(ii)
Formulate legislation required to address the issue of access to genetic resources and benefit sharing.
(iii) Establish mechanism to share the profits and benefits from use of genetic resources with the indigenous
peoples and local communities who have brought forth the knowledge in the creation of and the future
preservation and use of genetic resources.
Priority 12: Increasing awareness and participation
Priority Actions
(i)
Formulate and implement biodiversity publicity and education plans and programs.
(ii) Set up professional teams to carry out publicity and education at the grassroots level.
(iii) Publish biodiversity-related books, journals, magazines, and reading material.
(iv) Explore and establish mechanism for public participation.
66
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
Priority 13: Preservation of traditional knowledge
Priority Actions
Carry out a nationwide survey on traditional knowledge, establish a system of evaluation criteria, specify the
scope of traditional knowledge and have the findings catalogued systematically.
Priority 14: Management and control of invasive alien species
Priority Actions
(i)
Conduct a countrywide survey on distribution, spatial extent and damage of invasive alien species.
(ii) Conduct research on control of invasive alien species and their utilization.
(iii) Set up invasive alien species early warning and monitoring systems.
(iv) Enhance the quarantine and detecting capacity of the custom and the quarantine departments through
appropriate training and incentive measures.
Priority 15: Improvement in university education system
Priority Actions
(i)
Make graduate education system more balanced between classroom teaching and research.
(ii)
Regularly update curricula and syllabus.
Priority 16: Improvement in capacity and effectiveness of NGO’s in biodiversity management
Priority Actions
(i)
Enable national NGOs to raise funds.
(ii)
Enhance technical capacities of national NGOs.
(iii) Improve communication between/among NGOs, INGOs, CBOs and government Agencies.
June 2008
67
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
References
ADB/ICIMOD, 2006. Environment Assessment of Nepal: Emerging Issues and Challenges.
Asian Development Bank (ADB) and International Center for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD),
Kathmandu.
Bajracharya, S. B., Furley, P. A. and Newton, A. C., 2006. Impacts of community-based conservation on local
communities in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15(8): 27652786.
Baral, H. S. and Inskipp, C., 2004. The State of Nepal’s Birds 2004. Department of National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation, IUCN Nepal and Bird Conservation Nepal.
Baral, J. C. and Subedi, B. R., 2000. Some community forestry issues in the terai, Nepal: where do we go from
here? Forest, Trees and People Newsletter No. 42:20-25.
Bardsley, D., 2003. Risk alleviation via in-situ agrobiodiversity conservation: drawing from experiences in
Switzerland, Turkey and Nepal. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 99 (1-3): 149-157.
Bhuju, U. R., Shakya, P. R., Basnet, T. B. and Shrestha, S., 2007. Nepal Biodiversity Resource Book: Protected Areas,
Ramsar Sites, and World Heritage Sites. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development and
Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.
BISEP-ST, 2005. BISEP-ST: Annual Progress Report 2005. Biodiversity Sector Program for Siwaliks and Tarai
(BISEP-ST), Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
BPP, 1995. Red Data Book of the Fauna of Nepal. Biodiversity Profiles Project (BPP), Publications No. 4. Department
of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Brown, R.W., 1995. The water relations of range plants: adaptations to water deficits. In: D.J. Bedunah and
Sosebee, R. (eds.), Wildland Plants: Physiological Ecology and Developmental Morphology. Society for Range
Management 10030 W 27th Ave, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, USA.
CBS, 2007a. Nepal in Figures. Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), Kathmandu, Nepal.
CBS, 2007b. Population Projections for Nepal 2001 – 2021. Government of Nepal, Central Bureau of Statistics
(CBS). Available online: http://www.cbs.gov.np/Population/Projection/ [accessed 20 February 2008].
Collett, G., Chhetri, R., Jackson, W.J., and Shepherd, R., 1996. Nepal Australia Community Forestry Project Socioeconomic Impact Study. ANUTECH Pty Ltd, Canberra, Australia.
DNPWC, 2006. The Greater One-horned Rhinoceros Conservation Action Plan for Nepal (2006 – 2011). Department
of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu.
Dobremez, J. F., 1976. Le Nepal Ecologie et Biogeographie (Nepal Ecology and Biography). Centre Nationale de la
Recherche Centifique, Paris, France.
68
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
DOF, 2007a. CFUG Database Record Available in MIS (unpublished). Department of Forest (DOF), Babarmahal,
Kathmandu, Nepal.
DOF, 2007b. Leasehold Forestry Programme: District Level Group Status (unpublished). Department of Forest
(DOF), Babarmahal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
DOFRS/FRISP, 1999. Forest Resources of Nepal (1987-1998), Publication No. 74. Department of Forest Research
and Survey (DOFRS), His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and Forest Resource Information System
Project (FRISP), Government of Finland.
Dobremez, J. F., 1976. Le Nepal Ecologie et Biogeographie (Nepal Ecology and Biography). Centre Nationale de la
Recherche Centifique, Paris, France.
FAO, 2005. State of the World Forests 2005. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Gautam, A. P., Shivakoti, G. P. and Webb, E. L., 2004. A review of forest policies, institutions, and changes in the
resource condition in Nepal. International Forestry Review 6(2): 136-148.
Gautam, A. P., Webb, E. L, Shivakoti, G. P. and Zoebisch, M. A., 2003. Land use dynamics and landscape change
pattern in a mountain watershed in Nepal. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 99: 83-96.
GON/UNDP-GEF, 2007. Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal Project (NEP/05/G01) Project
Document (unpublished). Government of Nepal (GON) and United Nations Development ProgrammeGlobal Environment Facility (UNDP-GEF), Kathmandu.
GreenFacts, 2007. Scientific Facts on Biodiversity: A Global Outlook. Available online at: http://www.greenfacts.org/
en/global-biodiversity-outlook/ [accessed 2 Feb. 2008].
HMGN/ADB/FINNIDA, 1989. Master Plan for Forestry Sector Nepal (Main Report). His Majesty’s Government of
Nepal (HMGN), Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Finnish
International Development Agency (FINNIDA), Kathmandu.
IUCN, 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN- The World Conservation Union, Gland,
Switzerland.
IUCN, 1996. An Inventory of Nepal’s Wetlands. IUCN-Nepal, Kathmandu.
IUCN, 2006a. 2006 Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN - The World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN, 2006b. Securing a safe future for rhinoceros in Nepal. IUCN Nepal Country Office. Available online at:
http://www.iucnnepal.org/pdf/Rhino_conservation.pdf [accessed 2 Feb. 2008].
Jackson, W. J., Tamrakar, R. M., Hunt, S., and Shepherd, K. R., 1998. Land-use changes in two Middle Hill
districts of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 18(3): 193-12.
JAFTA, 2001. Information System Development Project for the Management of Tropical Forest, Activity Report of Wide
Area Tropical Forest Resources Survey (Kingdom of Nepal). Japan Forest Technology Association (JAFTA),
Kathmandu.
June 2008
69
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
Jha, P. K., Thapa, R. B. and Shrestha, J. B., 2005. Conservation and Management of Pollinators for Sustainable
Agriculture through an Ecosystem Approach. Report submitted to Food and agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Kathmandu.
Jha, S., 2003. Ecological study of some selected grasses and forbs found in Morang district of Nepal. Ph. D.
dissertation, Tribhuvan University, Kathamandu.
LRMP, 1986. Land Utilization Report. Land Resources Mapping Project (LRMP), Kenting Earth Sciences Limited.
His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and Government of Canada.
MOCTCA, 2004. Protected Areas of Nepal and Ecotourism. State of the Environment/Eco-Tourism/2004. Available
online at: http://www.most.gov.np/en/pdf/environment/publications/state2004/ [accessed 2 Feb. 2008].
MOFSC, 2002. Nepal Biodiversity Strategy. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forest and Soil
Conservation (MOFSC), Kathmandu.
MOFSC, 2006a. Nepal: Third National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. His Majesty’s Government
of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MOFSC), Kathmandu.
MOFSC, 2006b. Sacred Himalayan Landscape – Nepal Strategic Plan (2006-2016): Broad Strategy Document.
Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MOFSC), Kathmandu.
MOFSC, 2006c. Tarai Arc Landscape – Nepal Annual Progress Report. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests
and Soil Conservation (MOFSC), Kathmandu.
MOPE, 2002. Nepal: National Assessment Report for World Summit on Sustinable Development. His Majesty’s
Government of Nepal, Ministry of Population and Environment, Kathmandu.
Neupane, S. P. and Pokhrel, P. K., 2005. Indigenous Cattles of Nepal. Animal Breeding Division, National Agricultural
Research Council, Kathmandu, Nepal.
NPC/MOPE, 2003. Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, National
Planning Commission (NPC) and Ministry of Population and Environment (MOPE), Kathmandu.
Pariyar, D., 1998. Rangeland resource biodiversity and some options for their improvement. In: National Biodiversity
Action Plan. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu.
Rai, N.K. and Thapa, M. B., 1993. Indigenous pasture management system in high altitude Nepal: A review. Report
Series No 22. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, Ministry of Agriculture and Winrock International,
Kathmandu.
Schreier, H., Brown, S., Schmidt, M., Shah, P., Shrestha, B., Nakarmi, G., Subba, K. and Wymann, S., 1994.
Gaining forest but losing ground: A GIS evaluation in a Himalayan watershed. Environmental Management
18(1): 139-150.
Sharma, E. and Chettri, N., 2005. ICIMOD’s transboundary biodiversity management initiative in the Hindu
Kush Himalayas. Mountain Research and Development, 25(3): 278-281.
70
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
Sharma U.R. and Wells M.P., 1996. Nepal. In: Lutz, E. and Caldecott, J. (eds.), Decentralisation and Biodiversity
Conservation. The World Bank, New York.
Shrestha, T.B. and Joshi, R.M., 1996. Rare, Endemic and Endangered Plants of Nepal. WWF Nepal Program,
Kathmandu, Nepal.
Shrestha, G. L. and Shrestha, B., 1999. An overview of wild relatives of cultivated plants in Nepal. In: Shrestha, R.
and Shrestha, B. (eds). Wild Relatives of Cultivated Plants in Nepal. The Green Energy Mission, Kathmandu,
Nepal.
Stainton, J.D.A., 1972. Forests of Nepal. John Murray, London.
Sthapit, B. and Quek, P., 2005. Community biodiversity register: overview, concepts and some systematic approaches.
In: Suvedi, A., Sthapit, B. R., Upadhyay, M. P. and Gauchan, D. (eds.), Learning from Community Biodiversity
Register in Nepal. Proccedings of National Workshop, 27-28 October 2005, Khumaltar, Nepal.
Sthapit, B., Shrestha, P. and Upadhyay, M. (eds.), 2006. On-farm Management of Agricultural Biodiversity in Nepal:
Good Practices. NARC/Li-BIRD/IPGRI/IDRC.UNDP, 2007. Human Development Report 2007/2008 Country Fact Sheets - Nepal. United Nations Development Program (UNDP), New York.
UNEP-WCMC, 2008. UNEP-WCMC Species Database: CITES-Listed Species. World Conservation Monitoring
Centre of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, England. Available
online at: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/isdb/CITES/ [accessed 5 January 2008].
Upreti, B. R. and Upreti, Y. G., 2002. Factors leading to agro-biodiversity loss in developing countries: the case of
Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11 (9): 1607-1621.
Virgo, K. J. and Subba K. J., 1994. Land-use change between 1978 and 1990 in Dhankuta District, Koshi Hills,
Eastern Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 14: 159-170.
WRI, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute (WRI), Washington,
DC.
WTLCP, 2006. WTLCP at a Glance. Western Tarai Landscape Complex Project (WTLCP), Babarmahal,
Kathmandu.
WWF, 2007a. WWF Nepal: Annual Report 2005-06. WWF-Nepal Country Office, Kathmandu.
WWF, 2007b. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund: Eastern Himalayas. WWF, Washington
D.C., USA. Available online at: http://www.panda.org/easternhimalayas/cepf. [accessed 21 Dec. 2007].Yonzon,
P. 1998. Biodiversity Conservation of Rangelands. In: Proceeding of the Third Meeting of Temperate Asian
Pasture and Fodder Network (TAPAFON), held during 9-13 March, Pokhara, Nepal.
June 2008
71
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
Appendix 1.1: Composition of the Thematic Working Group on Biodiversity
72
S.N.
Name
Position
Organization
1
Mr. Ananta Vijaya Parajuli
Chair
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (UNCBD
Focal Point)
2
Ms. Bidya Pandey
Member
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative
3
Mr. Manahari Khadka
Member
National Planning Commission
4
Mr. Sher Singh Thagunna
Member
Department of National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation
5
Mr. Resham Bahadur Dangi
Member
Department of Forests
6
Mr. Lalit Prasad Kattel
Member
Department of Plant Resources
7
Mr. Diwakar Chapagain
Member
WWF Nepal
8
Dr. Mukesh Chalise
Member
Nepal Forum of Environmental Journalists
9
Mr. Bhawani Prasad Kharel
Member
IUCN Nepal
10
Mr. Sagar Rimal
Member
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation
11
Mr. Binod Basnet
Member
National Trust for Nature Conservation
12
Prof. Dr. Pramod Kumar Jha
Member
Tribhuvan University, Central Department of Botany
13
Mr. Damber Tembe
Member
Federation of Community Forest Users in Nepal
14
Mr. Shambhu Dev Baral
Member
Association of District Development Committees
15
Dr. Chhewang Namgel Lama
(Sherpa)
Member
Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology
16
Mr. Batukrishna Uprety
Member
Secretary
Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
Appendix 2.1: Forest Types of Nepal
Forest type
Region; elevation range
Tropical
Tarai and inner-tarai; below 1200
m
(i) Tropical moist
deciduous
Eastern Nepal
Shorea robusta, Terminalia spp., Adina cordifolia,
Lagerstomia parviflora, Bombax ceiba, Albizzia spp.,
Eugenia jambolana and riverine forests dominated
by Acacia catechu and Dalbergia sissoo; Bombax
ceiba
(ii) Tropical dry
deciduous
Western foothills
Terminalia sp., and Anogiessus latifolia and riverine
forests dominated by Acacia catechu and Dalbergia
sissoo; Michelia champaca (evergreen); Bombax
ceiba
Subtropical broadleaved (evergreen)
Central and eastern Nepal; 1000 2000 m
Schima wallichii and Castanopsis indica; riverine
forest of Cedrela toona and Albizia spp. occur along
the valley sides of large rivers; Alnus nepalensis is
widespread along streams and moist places.
Subtropical conifer
South-facing slopes of western
Nepal; 1000 -2200 m
Pinus roxburghii.
Lower temperate
broad-leaved
Mid-Mountains; 2000-2700m in
the west, 1700-2400 in the east
Castanopsis tribuloides, C. hystrix, Lithocarpus
pachyphylla and Quercus spp. Alnus nitida forest is
confined to the river banks of the Mugu Karnali
(2130-2440m); Quercus leucotrichophora, Q.
lanuginosa, and Q. floribunda forests are found
in western Nepal; Quercus lamellosa forest are
common in central and eastern parts and Lithocarpus
pachyphylla forest occurs in the eastern parts of the
country.
Lower temperate
mixed broad-leaved
1700- 2200 m; moister north and
west-facing slopes
Several tree species belonging to Lauraceae family.
Upper temperate
broadleaved
2200-3000 m in drier south-facing
slopes of central and eastern Nepal
Quercus semicarpifolia
Upper temperate
mixed broadleaved
2500-3500 m; moister north- and
west-facing slopes in central and
eastern Nepal
Acer spp. and Rhododendron spp.
Temperate coniferous
2000-3000 m
Pinus wallichiana, Abies sp., Picea smithiana, and
Pinus excelsa; Cedrus deodara, Picea smithiana,
Juniperus indica and Abies pindrow forests occur in
the west; Larix griffithiana, Cupressus torulosa and
Tsuga dumosa forests are widespread between 21303340m.
Sub-alpine
3000 - 4100 m.; sometimes
extending to even higher elevations
Abies spectabilis, Picea smithiana, Betula utilis, and
Rhododendron spp.
Alpine
Above 3600 m
Varied associations of Juniperus spp.
Rhododendron spp.; scrub and grasslands
June 2008
Characteristic tree species
and
73
T H E M AT I C A S S E S S M E N T R E P O RT : B I O D I V E R S I T Y
Appendix 2.2: Protected Areas of Nepal
Protected area
Area (000
ha.)
Habitat type
Key species
Chitwan
93.2
Lowland mixed broadleaf
forest, grasslands, and
wetlands
One-horned rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis),
tiger (Panthera tigris), and gharial (Gavialis
gangeticus)
Langtang
171.0
High altitude forests and
medows
Red panda (Ailurus fulgens)
Sagarmatha
114.8
Sub-alpine and alpine
vegetations, grasslands, and
open medows
Snow leopard (Uncia uncia), Himalayan
tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus), several species
of rhododendrons
Rara
10.6
High mountain wetland,
mixed forest and grasslands
Musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster), endemic
frog Rara paha (Paa rarica), and three
endemic species of snow trout (Schizothorax
macropthalus, S. nepalensis, and S. raraensis),
red panda
Bardia
96.8
Tropical and subtropical
forests, lowland grasslands,
and wetlands
Black buck (Antilope cervicapra), dolphin
(Platanista gangetica), rhino (Rhinoceros
unicornis)
Khaptad
22.5
Unique mountain grassland
ecosystem
Shey-Phoksundo
355.5
High mountain wetland,
forest and grasslands
Snow leopard (Uncia uncia), musk deer and
grey wolf (Canis lupus)
Makalu-Barun
150.0
High altitude forests
Several species of rhododendrons, black
bear, red panda, musk deer and several
species of birds
Shivapuri
14.4
Mid-Mountain mixed
broadleaf forest
Several species of birds
Shuklaphanta
30.5
Low-land grassland and
tropical forest
Swamp deer, tiger, rhino, elephant, python
(Python molurus), monitor lizard (Varanus
flavescens), cobra
Koshitappu
17.5
Riverine floodplain
Wild buffalo (Bubalus arnee), and several
bird species including migratory water
fowls
Parsa
49.9
An extension of the Chitwan One-horned rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis),
National Park; representative tiger (Panthera tigris), elephant (Elephas
Chure landscape
maximus)
132.5
Mountain forests and
grasslands
Blue sheep
762.9
Trans-Himalayan and
mountain ecosystems
Snow leopard, musk deer, pheasants and
several species of endemic plants
National Parks
Wildlife Reserves
Hunting Reserve
Dhorpatan
Conservation Areas
Annapurna
74
June 2008
National Capacity Self-Assessment, Nepal
Protected area
Area (000
ha.)
Habitat type
Key species
Kangchenjungha
203.5
High mountain and alpine
landscape
Snow leopard, musk deer and several species
of rhododendron
Manaslu
166.3
Sub-alpine and alpine
vegetations, grasslands, and
open medows
Grey wolf, musk deer, snow leopard, blue
sheep and Himalayan thar
Chitwan
75.0
See above
See above
Bardia
32.8
See above
See above
Makalu Barun
83.0
See above
See above
Langtang
42.0
See above
See above
Shey Phoksundo
1,34.9
See above
See above
Sagarmatha
27.5
See above
See above
Koshitappu
17.3
See above
See above
Shuklaphanta
24.3
See above
See above
Parsa
29.8
See above
See above
Rara
15.8
See above
See above
Khaptad
21.6
See above
See above
Total
2,895.9
Buffer Zones
June 2008
75