Figure - Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation report_1387355803.docx · Web viewFederation of Community Forest Users in Nepal FRISP Forest Resource Information System Project

Draft for Comments

NEPAL

FIFTH NATIONAL REPORT TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CBD Convention on Biological DiversityCBO Community Based OrganizationCBS Central Bureau of StatisticsC/FUG Community/Forest User GroupCITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and FloraCOP Conference of PartiesCSO Civil Society OrganizationCSUWN Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in NepalDDC District Development CommitteeDDG Deputy Director GeneralDFO District Forest Office/OfficerDFRS Department of Forest Research and SurveyDNPWC Department of National Parks and Wildlife ConservationDOF Department of ForestsEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEPC Environment Protection CouncilFECOFUN Federation of Community Forest Users in NepalFRISP Forest Resource Information System ProjectGDP Gross Domestic ProductGEF Global Environment FacilityHDI Human Development IndexIAS Invasive Alien SpeciesICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain DevelopmentILO International Labor OrganizationI/NGO International/ Nongovernment OrganizationIPR Intellectual Property Rights IUCN The World Conservation UnionLI-BIRD Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development LRMP Land Resources Mapping ProjectMDG Millennium Development GoalMEA Multilateral Environmental AgreementMFSC Ministry of Forest and Soil ConservationMFALD Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local DevelopmentNARC Nepal Agriculture Research CouncilNBCC National Biodiversity Coordination CommitteeNBS Nepal Biodiversity Strategy (2002)NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action PlanNBSIP Nepal Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan (2006)NBU National Biodiversity UnitNPC National Planning CommissionNPR Nepali Rupees

Nepal’s Fifth National Report to the CBD Pageii

NTFP Non-Timber Forest ProductPES Payment for Ecosystem ServicesREDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest DegradationUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentVDC Village Development CommitteeWCMC World Conservation Monitoring Centre

Nepal’s Fifth National Report to the CBD Pageiii

Table of Contents

Contents PageAcronyms and Abbreviations iiTable of Contents ivList of Figures vEXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi1 NEPAL’S BIODIVERSITY: STATUS, TRENDS, AND THREATS 1

1.1

The National Context 1

1.2

Importance of Biodiversity in Nepal 3

1.3

Overview of Status, Trends and Threatsto Biodiversity 41.3.1 General Overview of Ecosystems, Species and Genetic Diversity 41.3.2 Forest Biodiversity 61.3.3 Rangelands Biodiversity 121.3.4 Wetlands Biodiversity 131.3.5 Agro-biodiversity 151.3.6 Mountain Biodiversity 161.3.7 Underlying Causes of Biodiversity Loss 171.3.8 Climate Change: A Common Threat 18

1.4

Sources and Trends of Funding for Biodiversity Management in Key Sectors 18

2 OVERVIEW OF PAST EFFORTS, ACHIEVEMENTS AND LESSONS LEARNED 212.1

Implementation of Nepal Biodiversity Strategy (2002) and Nepal Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan (2006): Key Achievements and Gaps

21

2.2

Other Key Efforts and Achievements 24

2.3

Lessons Learned 25

2.4

Development of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 282.4.1 The NBSAP Development Process 282.4.2 Salient Features of the NBSAP 29

3 PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 AICHI BIODIVERSITY TARGETS AND RELEVANT MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS

31

3.1

Background 31

3.2

Contribution of the Past Efforts 31

3.3

Key Targets and Milestones set by the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Towards Meeting the Relevant Aichi Targets and MDGs

42

3.4

Summary of National Indicators 52

REFERENCES 55

Nepal’s Fifth National Report to the CBD Pageiv

ANNEXES 61Annex 1.1: Nationally assessed status of wild mammals in Nepal 61Annex 1.2:Threatened tree species found in the mountains of Nepal 62Annex 3.1: Protected plant species in Nepal 63Annex 3.2: Protected Animal Species of Nepal 64

List of Figures Figure Title Page

1.1 Physiographic Zones of Nepal 11.2 Nepal’s share (percent) of global diversity of selected group of species 51.3 Changes in number of threatened bird species in Nepal during 2004-2010 61.4 Habitat preferences of nationally threatened birds in Nepal 71.5 Protected Areas in Nepal 81.6 Percent coverage by different categories of protected areas in Nepal 91.7 Changes in status of community forestry in between 2008 and 2013 101.8 Changes in status of pro-poor leasehold forestry in between 2008 and 2013 101.9 Protected Forests in Nepal 11

1.10 Ramsar sites in Nepal 131.11 Trend and sources of funding for management of forest biodiversity 191.12 Trend of funding for management of agrobiodiversity 191.13 Trend in climate change related funding in Nepal 202.1 Landscapes under management in Nepal 222.2 Annual revenue generated from tourism in protected areas 262.3 Proportional representation of individuals in the consultations from different

type of agencies (left), and number of individuals consulted at different levels28

2.4 Location of the regional and district level consultation workshops 293.1 Changes population of tiger in Nepal 383.2 Changes in population of rhino in Chitwan National Park 38

Nepal’s Fifth National Report to the CBD Pagev

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYNepal’s Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Threats

Nepal is a landlocked country situated in central part of the Himalayas between India and China. It has tremendous geographic diversity that ranges from tropical alluvial plains in the south to very rugged and permanently snow and ice covered Himalayan Mountains. The country can be divided into five major physiographic landscapes, namely High Himal, High Mountains, Middle Mountains, Siwalik and Tarai that extend from east to west. The climate varies from alpine cold semi-desert type in the trans-Himalayan zone to tropical humid type in the tropical lowlands in the south.

Forests together with shrublands covered 39.6 percent of the country’s land area in 1994. There are regional variations in terms of changes in forest conditions. The commercially and biologically valuable forests in the tropical lowlands and adjoining Siwalik Hills suffered from high rates of deforestation and degradation over the last four decades. Forests in the Middle Mountains are, in general, better managed and in many places forest cover increased in recent years due mainly to the community forestry programme. Many marginal agriculture lands, particularly in the hills and mountains, are being temporarily abandoned in recent years primarily because of labour scarcity due to outmigration of youths seeking off-farm and foreign employment.This has increased scope for introduction of perennial agriculture or forest crops in those lands.

Nepal is a multi-lingual, multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multicultural country inhabited by 125 castes and ethnic groups. Majority of the country’s26,620,809people live in rural mountain areas with fragile physiography and low productivity thereby creating a very strong poverty-environment-health and vulnerability nexus.The last decade witnessed substantial decline in poverty, improvement in income equality, increase inliteracy rate, and improvement in food security. Remittance played a crucial role in these developments. Despite these positive signs, thecountry’s overall economic growth has remained less than four percent since 2007. The prolonged political transition and uncertainties is speculated to be one of the major reasons behind the sluggish economic growth.

Nepal’s Fifth National Report to the CBD Pagevi

The country made some visible progress in infrastructure development during the last decade but many of the development projects are implemented without any environmental safeguard, thereby posing a direct threat to biodiversity. Rural roads constructed by the local governments and cascade of hydropower dams and stations constructed on some rivers are some example of the development efforts, which have caused considerable damage to the local biodiversity and environment.

Nepalese economy is very much dependent on the use of natural resources. Biodiversity is closely linked to the livelihoods and economic well being of most of the people. It touches upon almost every aspects of Nepalese life, including agricultural productivity, food security, building materials, human health and nutrition, indigenous knowledge, gender equality, culture, climate, water resources and aesthetic value to the society. The country’s biodiversity is also an important source of revenue. Tourism is the second most important source of foreign exchange for Nepal, which is directly related to biodiversity and nature.

Nepal’sunique geography withdramatic changes in elevation along the relatively short (<300 km) north south transect and associated high variability in the eco-climatic conditionshave resulted in a disproportionately rich diversity of flora and fauna in Nepal. Moreover, the country’s standing at the crossroads of two major biogeographic regions of the world (Indo-Malayan to the south and Palearctic to the north) has made Nepal a mixing place of species originating in both the regions.

A total of 118 ecosystemshave been identified in Nepal. The natural ecosystems range from the tall grasslands and marshlands and tropical and sub-tropical broadleaf forests along the Tarai and Siwaliks foothills to subtropical and temperate broadleaf and conifer forests in the Middle Mountains; mixed and conifer forests in the High Mountains; and alpine meadows above the treeline.Among the rangeland ecosystems, the tropical savannas and alpine meadows are exceptionally rich in biodiversity.Nepalese wetlands have very high ecological significance, as they harbor many threatened and endemic species of flora and fauna and serve as resting places for many migratory and globally threatened birds.The wetlands also have high cultural and economic significance. Nepal also has a high degree of agro-ecological diversity. The diverse climatic and topographic conditions have favored for maximum diversity of agricultural crops, their wild relatives, and animal species.

Species diversity, particularly the beta diversity, is very high in Nepal. The country occupies about 0.1 percent of the global area but harbors 3.2 percent and 1.1 percent of the world’s known flora and fauna, respectively.A total of342 plants and 160 species of wild plants and animals have been reported as being endemic to the country. Of the 342 endemic plant species, 14 belong to treeand bamboo groups. The richness of endemic species increases steadily from low to high elevations. The high altitude rangelands are especially important from the perspective of endemism.

Over 550 crop species areidentified as having food value, and around half of those species are believed to be currently under cultivation.The country’s horticulture diversity includesaround400 species and sub species of horticultural crops, including 45 species of seasonal fruits.An estimated 200 species of vegetables, including 11 different local varieties of potatoes, are grown in the country.

Many species of plants and animals are threatened. This includes 55 species of wild mammals and 18 species of trees found in the mountains. Birds are among the most threatened group of

Nepal’s Fifth National Report to the CBD Pagevii

fauna.Fourteenbird species have not been recorded in the country for at least ten years, and the number of Threatened, Endangered, and Critically Endangered species significantly increased in between 2004 and 2010. Birds that rely on wetlands and inhabit the tropical and subtropical and lower temperate zones are particularly at risk. Given that over half (56%) of Nepal’s nationally threatened bird species inhabit lowland forestswhere forest loss and degradation is high, this is a worrying trend. Among the known species of domestic animals, pure siri cattle has become extinct, achhamicattle and lampuchhre sheep are near endangered, and bampudke pig is critically endangered. Very limited information exists on genetic diversity.

Nine species of plants, 55 mammals, 149 birds, and 64 herpetofauna are included in the IUCN Red List. Similarly, 154 species of plants, 52 mammals, 108 birds and 19 reptiles and three insects have been listed in the CITES Appendices. Several species of plants and animals, including 27 mammals, nine birds, 14 angiosperms, and four gymnosperms have been declared as protected species by the government.

Nepal’s biodiversity is threatened by multiple factors.Loss and degradation of natural habitats,such as forests, grasslands, and wetlands due to expansion of settlements, agriculture and infrastructure; overexploitation; invasion by alien species; and pollution of water bodies remain thepredominant threats to natural systems.Poaching and illegal wildlife trade and human-wildlife conflict are other major direct threats to forest biodiversity, particularly in protected areas. Rapid expansion of hybrid varieties and indiscriminate use of insecticides and pesticides are the major threats to agro-biodiversity. Widespread mining of gravel from streams and rivers bedshas been emerged as a major threat in the lowlands. Natural disasters, such as landslides, glacial lake outburst floods and droughtpose considerable threat to mountain ecosystems and the people living in those areas. Climate changecan haveprofound impacts in future, particularly in the mountains. Most of threats continue to increase.

Demographic changes; poverty; weak enforcement of the law and overall poor governance; ignorance to biodiversity values in government and corporate accounting systems; unclear resource tenure and administrative jurisdictions; inadequate awareness and motivation to conserve biodiversity;gender, caste and ethnicity based inequality; and lack of an integrated approach to development planning at the national and district levels are the major underlying causes of biodiversity loss.

Overview of Past Efforts, Achievements and Lessons Learned

The Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (CBD Focal Agency) developed the first national biodiversity strategy and its implementation plan in 2002 and 2006, respectively. A subjective assessment of the progress made in implementation of the strategy and implementation plan based on the review and analysis of relevant literature and secondary data, consultations, and expert opinions indicated that the 2002 strategy was partially successful in achieving its goal of providing a strategic planning framework for managing biodiversity in the country.

Implementation of landscape management programmes, substantial expansion of protected area, development and implementation of species conservation plans and curbing of poaching had

Nepal’s Fifth National Report to the CBD Pageviii

positive effects on in situ conservation of threatened wild fauna, including tiger and rhino. The last decade also witnessed significant increase in the forest area managed by local communities, and participation of local people, including women and disadvantaged group, in forest and protected area management. Separate rangeland and wetland polices were formulated in 2012, and integrated management plans were developed and implemented in two Ramsar wetlands. Similarly, the three agrobiodiversity conservation strategies recommended by the 2002 strategy were successfully implemented. Successful implementation of a community based agrobiodiversity managementprogrammejointly by the Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Department of Agriculture, LI-BIRD and local farmers, and establishment of a national gene bank in 2010 weresome of the notable achievements made in conservation of agrobiodiversity in recent years.

Some of the important strategies recommended by the 2002 strategy, which could not be implemented include: (i) establishment of a Nepal Trust Fund for Biodiversity, (ii) strengthening of National Biodiversity Unit at the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, and (iii) assignment of National Biodiversity Coordinator. The strategy relating to endorsement of indigenous knowledge and innovations could not be implemented due to lack of necessary legislation. Among the 13 priority projects planned, three were not implemented due mainly to the contention among the key actors and lack of funding.

There have also been a number of other efforts and achievements in conservation of biodiversity during the past decade, which have no direct linkage to the Nepal Biodiversity Strategy (2002) and Nepal Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan (2006). Development and implementation of enabling plans, policies and legislations; establishment of high level committees (e.g. National Tiger Committee) and related institutional mechanisms; and enhanced cooperation with China and India to control cross-border illegal trade of wildlife parts are some examples. Some other efforts and achievements include: (i) declaration of eight forests with high conservation significance as protected forests, (ii) implementation of the Rastrapati (i.e. President) Chure Conservation Programme in 26 districts, (iii) implementation of tree improvement programme, (iv) assessment and mapping of forest resources, and (v) implementation of tissue culture programmes by some government agencies and private companies.

Some concrete efforts were made in mitigating the effects of climate change on biodiversity. A Climate Change Council headed by the Prime Minister has been formed in 2009 and Climate Change Policy has been formulated in 2011. The Ministry of Forest and soil Conservation has been promoting REDD+ as a mechanism to control forest loss and degradation since 2008. The Nepal Agricultural Research Council is engaged in developing drought-tolerant varieties of crops. UNDP and IUCN have been supporting implementation of an ecosystems based adaptation project in one of the biodiversity hubs and protected forest in western Nepal. WWF Nepal, together with other three agencies, has started implementation of a USAID-funded multi-million dollar landscape management programme with the objective of mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and local livelihoods.

The following are some of the key lessons learned from management of biodiversity in the last decade: (i) meaningful participation of local communities in the management of natural resources is a key to ensuring success and sustainability of programme interventions., (ii) landscape approachcould be an appropriate strategy for addressing multiple drivers of biodiversity loss,

Nepal’s Fifth National Report to the CBD Pageix

enhancing ecologicalprocesses and conserving threatened species, (iii) multi-stakeholder cooperation and collaboration is crucial to achieve success in biodiversity conservation, (iv) cooperation among law enforcement agencies is necessary for curbing illegal trade of wildlife species, (v) international cooperation can be helpful to curb transboundary trade of wildlife parts and strengthening ecological security in trans-boundary regions, (vi) there is a very good scope for further promotion of nature based tourism to generate necessary fund for conservation, and to provide economic opportunities for local communities, (vii) enabling policy is necessary to achieve the intended outcome and appropriate legislation is necessary in order to translate the policy pronouncements into practice, (viii) positive incentive measures, which promote conservation-friendly behaviors, are necessary to encourage local people in biodiversity conservation, and (ix) prior consultation and discussion with local communities is necessary before making any important decision that affects the local communities’ use of the local resources.

Development of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

The government is currently in the process of revising the 2002 biodiversity strategy and developing aNational Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), with financial supports ofthe Global Environment Facility, and technical support of the Kathmandu Forestry College. The overall objective of the NBSAP is to provide a strategic planning framework for management of Nepal’s biodiversity. There is a broad-based participation of national level, regional level, district level, and community level stakeholders in its development.

Progress towards Meeting the 2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets and Relevant Millennium Development Goals

In Nepal, systematic efforts to meet the Aichi Targets have just begun with the development of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. The country has, however, already made substantial progress in conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, which will contribute to meet most of the relevant Aichi Targets and the Millennium Development Goalof ensuring environmental sustainability. Some of the past efforts and achievements are highlighted in the preceding sections, and a more elaborate description of contribution of the past efforts towards meeting eachof the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets is presented in first part of Chapter 3 in this report.

The second part of Chapter 3 summarizes the key targets and milestones set by the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan towards meeting the relevant Aichi Targets and Millennium Development Goals, and the last part presents a summary of national indicators to be used for assessing the progress in implementation of the NBSAP strategies, targets and milestones.

Nepal’s Fifth National Report to the CBD Pagex

Nepal’s Fifth National Report to the CBD Pagexi

1. NEPAL’S BIODIVERSITY: STATUS, TRENDS AND THREATS

1.1 The National Context

Nepal is a landlocked country situated in central part of the Himalayas between 26022’ and 30027’ N latitudes and 80040’ and 88012’ E longitudes, covering an area 147,181 sq. km.Ithas tremendous geographic diversity. The elevation ranges from around 70 meter above sea level in the eastern alluvial plainsto 8,848 meter at the Mount Everest. The country can be divided into five major physiographic zones that extend from east to west, namely the High Himal, High Mountains, Middle Mountains (or Middle Hills), Siwaliks (or Chure), and Tarai (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1: Physiographic Zones of Nepal

Many different types of climates are found in Nepal, ranging from alpine cold semi-desert typein the trans-Himalayan areas to tropical humid type in the Tarai. The climate is predominantly influenced by three major factors, namely the altitudinal variations, monsoon, and westerly disturbances. Aspect also plays an important role in determining local climatic condition. The country receives average annual rainfall of around 1,600 mm. The annual precipitation ranges from 165 millimetersin the rain shadow areas north of the Himalaya to 5,500 millimeters in the Pokhara valley in western Nepal.Most of the precipitation occurs during June-September, in the form of monsoon rains.The country is drained by four major Himalayan river systems, a few medium-sized perennial rivers thatrise in the High Mountains region, and a number of seasonal streams that mostly originate in the Siwalik Hills.

Nepal’s Fifth National Report to the CBD Page12

Twenty-nine percent of Nepal was covered by forest and additional 10.6 percent was under shrublands in 1994. Agriculture and grasslands covered 21 percent and 12 percent, respectively. In between 1979 and 1994, the country’s forest area decreased by an annual rate of 1.6 percent and the area under shrubs increased by the annual rate of 8.4 percent(LRMP, 1986; DFRS/FRISP, 1999).

There are regional variations in terms of changes in forest conditions. Most of the forests in the Siwaliks and Tarai suffer from loss and degradation due to lack of scientific management and weak law enforcement. In recent years, the government has started scientific management of some production forests in the Tarai under a collaborative arrangement, which might have helped to slow down the deforestation and forest degradation, to some extent. Other community based forest management programmes, including the community forestry, leasehold forestry, and buffer zone community forestry might also have helped to abate the deforestation and forest degradation. Forests in the Middle Mountains are, in general, better managed and in many places forest cover increased in recent years due mainly to the community forestry programme (see e.g. Gautam, 2009; Niraula et al., 2013).

The Forest Resource Assessment Project under the Forest Research and Survey Department is currently conducting a comprehensive survey of forest resources for the whole country using high resolution satellite data supplemented by ground sample surveys. The work, which is expected to be completed within the next two years, will provide a clearer picture of current status of the country’s forest resources.

Nepal was inhabited by a total of 26,620,809 people in 2011. The population grew with an average annual rate of 1.35 percent during the last decade. The distribution of population across the country varies widely. Socio-culturally, Nepal is a multi-lingual, multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multicultural country inhabited by 125 castes and ethnic groups(CBS, 2012). The last decade witnessed a substantial decline in poverty, and an improvement in income equality in Nepal. The average literacy rate increased from 54.1 percent in 2001 to 65.9 percent in 2011 (CBS, 2011). Despite these progresses, the rate of country’s economic growth has remained slow (<4% after 2007), and theHuman Development Index (0.463) and Gender Inequality Index (0.485) were below the south Asian average in 2012 (UNDP, 2013). The prolonged political transition and uncertainties is believed to have direct bearings on the country’s sluggish economic growth.

Nepal is basically an agricultural country. The country’s economy is very much dependent on the use of natural resources, including agricultural lands, forests, wetlands, and rangelands. Agriculture (including fishery) and forestry remain the country’s principal economic activity, employing 80 percent of the population and providing 35 percent of the GDP. At the national level, 28 percent of all household income comes from agriculture and forestry, 37 percent from nonfarm enterprises, 17 percent from remittances, and 16 percent from own household consumptions(CBS, 2011).

Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) pay a critical role for meeting the food and healthcare requirements of millions or rural people, particularly in the mountains.Many NTFPs, however, are facing over and unsustainable exploitation.The high demand for agricultural land and high


dependency on forests for meeting subsistence needs have caused substantial degradation of forests in many areas. The fact that around 78percent of total energy consumption is supplied by the forest resources provides an evidence of high forest dependency.

Labour scarcity due to outmigration of youths seeking off-farm and foreign employment and other factors have caused increased abandonment of marginal agriculture lands in recent years. While in one hand this trend might have temporarily decreased the country’s agricultural production, on the other it has increased the scope for expansion of private forestry and introduction of perennial cash crops and NTFPs in those private lands.

Nepal had a total of 10,835 km road network in 2010 of which 4,952 km was black-topped. About 25,000 km of additional rural road tracks had been opened by 2010 (DOR, 2010).Most of the rural roads have been constructed without any environmental safeguard, and pose a direct threat to biodiversity, particularly in the Middle Mountains. Most of the 638 megawatt electricity that Nepal has developed so far is hydropower (NEA, 2011). While in one hand, increased establishment of hydropower plants is a right step towards meeting the energy deficits, on the other hand cascade of hydropower dams and stations on some rivers is speculated to have causedsevere negative impacts on the aquatic biodiversity.

1.2 Importance of Biodiversity in Nepal

Biodiversity is closely linked to the livelihoods and economic well being of most of the Nepalese people. It touches upon almost every aspects of Nepalese life, including agricultural productivity, food security, building materials, human health and nutrition, indigenous knowledge, gender equality, culture, climate, water resources and aesthetic value to the society.

Agrobiodiversity is the backbone for the sustainable development of agriculture, food security and poverty alleviation as it provides for both the immediate needs and the long-term sustenance of the country’s farming communities. 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 forest biodiversity for meeting their daily subsistence livelihoods requirements. According to an estimate, at least 1,463 species of herbal medicinal plants are used by the rural people in Nepal (MFSC, 2006a). The collection and trade of several valuable herbs, such aschirayito (Swertia chirata), jatamansi (Nardostachysgrandiflora), yarchagumba (Cordyceps sinensis) has generated considerable employment opportunities and income of the local people in remote areas.

Nepalese wetlands have very high ecological, cultural and economic significance. The rich diversity of plants and animals that exists in wetlands provides a wide range of goods and services as well as income-generating opportunities for the local people,including many ethnic groups (ICIMOD, 2004). Despite being highly important, wetland ecosystems have been subjected to growing degradation. This has direct negative impact on biodiversity and livelihoods of over 20 ethnic and caste groups that are traditionally dependent on wetlands (IUCN, 2004; World Bank, 2008).


Mountain biodiversity is of high importance for a number of ecological functions, including soil retention and slope stability. Those functions are often closely connected with the extent of aboveground and below-ground vegetation. The high functional diversity of plantsin mountain ecosystems might have added to the resiliency of those ecosystems that often provides effective barriers to high-energy events such as rockfalls and avalanches.

The country’s biodiversity is also an important source of revenue. Tourism is the second most important source of foreign exchange for Nepal, which is directly related to biodiversity and nature. The revenue from protected area based tourism has been continuously increasing since 2003 (DNPWC, 2012).

The tourism industry has provided incentives to conserve biodiversity through foreign exchange to the government, necessary fund to conservation agencies (e.g. NTNC), and economic opportunities for local communities. There is a need for replacing the current nature or adventure tourism by eco-tourism that conserves the environment and sustains the well being of local people.

1.3 Overview of Status, Trends and Threats to Biodiversity

The dramatic changes in elevation along the relatively short (150-250 km) north-south transect and associated variability in the eco-climatic conditionshave resulted in a disproportionately rich diversity of flora and fauna in Nepal.Besides these local factors, the country’s standing at the crossroads of two major biogeographic regions of the world (Indo-Malayan to the south and Palearctic to the north) has made Nepal a mixing place of species originating in both the regions (Stainton, 1972).

1.3.1 General Overview of Ecosystems, Species and Genetic Diversity

The natural ecosystems in Nepal range from the tall grasslands, marshlands and tropical and sub-tropical broadleaf forests along the Tarai and Siwaliks foothills to subtropical and temperate broadleaf and conifer forests in the Middle Mountains; mixed and conifer forests in the High Mountains; and alpine meadows above the treeline. All these ecosystems are found withinless than 300 Kilometers south-north span and resulted primarily by the abrupt change in the elevation.

A total of 118 ecosystems, including 112 “forest”, four “cultivated”, one “water bodies” and one “glacier/snow/rock”, have been identified in the country. Among the five physiographic zones, the Middle Mountains has the highest number (i.e. 53) of ecosystems. The High Himal and High Mountains combined have 38 ecosystems. The Tarai and Siwaliks have 14 and 12 ecosystems, respectively. The “water bodies” occurs in all the zones, except the Siwaliks (Biodiversity Profiles Project, 1995; Table 1.1). The “forest” ecosystem in this categorization includes all the natural terrestrial ecosystems, including the shrublands, rangelands and alpine meadows.


Nepal

9.5

Birds

2.5

Amphibians

8.2

Bryophytes

5.2

Mam

mals

3.2

Angiosperms

1.9

Fishes

3.7

Butterflies

Table 1.1: Distributions of Ecosystems by Physiographic Zone

Physiographic Zone EcosystemsNumber % Types

High Himal and High Mountains

38 32.2 37 ‘forest’, and one ‘glacier/snow/rock’

Middle Mountains 53 44.9 52 ‘forest’, and one ‘cultivated’ (Pokhara)Siwalik 14 11.9 13 ‘forest’, and one ‘cultivated’ (Dun)Tarai 12 10.2 10 ‘forest’, and two ‘cultivated’ Other 1 0.8 ‘Water bodies’, found in all zones, except the SiwalikTotal 118 100

Source: Biodiversity Profile Project (1995)

Species diversity, particularly the beta diversity, is very high in Nepal. The country occupies about 0.1 percent of the global area but harbors 3.2 percent and 1.1 percent of the world’s known flora and fauna, respectively. Diversity of birds, bryophytes, mammals, and butterflies is especially high (Kunwar et al., 2010; BCN and DNPWC, 2011; Jnyawali et al., 2011; Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.2: Nepal’s share (percent) of global diversity of selected group of species

Status of Nepal’s genetic diversity is not well known. The Tree Improvement and Silviculture Unit under the Department of Forests, has been working to conserve the genetic resources of 38 socially and economically important tree species (TISU, 2013).Many wetlands are found to be important sources of genetic material for wild relative of rice varieties found in the Tarai, which are useful for improvement of commercial varieties (Bhandari, 1998).

Among the agriculture species, crops such as rice (Oryza sativa), rice bean (Vigna unbellata), egg plant (Solanum melongena), buck wheat (Fagopyrum esculentum,F. tatricum), soybean (Glycine max), foxtail millet (Setaria italic), citrus (Citrus aurantium, C. limon, C. medica) and mango


(Magnifera indica) have high genetic diversity. Similarly the genetic diversity in under-utilized or minor crops, such as calocacia, yam, buckwheat, horse gram, sweet potato, amaranthus, proso millet, foxtail millet, and tropical fruit species such as litchi, jack fruit, jujube, and black plum is very high. Traditional farming systems and wild relatives found in proximity have helped maintain the genetic variability in these species (Regmi, 1995; Jhaet al., 1996).

1.3.2 Forest Biodiversity

The country’s forest ecosystemscan be categorized into ten major groups: (i) tropical, (ii) subtropical broad-leaved, (iii) subtropical conifer, (iv) lower temperate broad-leaved, (v) lower temperate mixed broad-leaved, (vi) upper temperate broadleaved, (vii) upper temperate mixed broadleaved, (viii) temperate coniferous, (ix) subalpine, and (x) alpine scrub. These ecosystems 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 (ICIMOD and MOEST, 2007).

Many species of plants and animals are threatened. For example, among the 208 known species of wild mammals, one is considered “regionally extinct”, eight “critically endangered”, 25 “endangered”, 14 “vulnerable” and seven “near threatened” (Annex 1.1; Jnyawali et al., 2011). Similarly, 18 species of trees found in the mountains are reportedly threatened (Annex 1.2; Shrestha and Joshi, 1996; Press et al., 2000). Many of the threatened species of flora and fauna are wetland dependent.

Birds are among the most threatened group of fauna in Nepal. A total of 14 bird species have not been recorded in the country for at least ten years, and the number of Threatened, Endangered, and Critically Endangered species significantly increased in between 2004 and 2010 (Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.3: Changes in number of threatened bird species in Nepal during 2004-2010

Birds that rely on wetlands and inhabit the tropical and subtropical and lower temperate zones are particularly at risk. Over half (i.e. 56%) of Nepal’s nationally threatened birds inhabit forests; over a quarter in wetlands, and smaller numbers in grasslands. Most of these species occur in the lowlands(75–1,000 m) (BCN and DNPWC, 2011; Figure 1.4).


2004 2010

Figure 1.4: Habitat preferences of nationally threatened birds in Nepal

A number of species, including nine plants, 55 mammals, 149 birds, and 64 herpetofauna are included in the IUCN Red List (Table 1.2). Similarly, 154 plants, 52 mammals, 101 birds and 19 reptiles and three insects have been listed in the CITES Appendices (Table 1.3).

Table 1.2:Number of selected group of speciesin the IUCN Red List

Category Plants Mammals* Birds** HerpetofaunaCritically Endangered N/A 8 61 1Endangered 2 26 38 3Vulnerable 5 14 50 7Near Threatened 2 7 N/A 4Total 9 55 149 64

Source: ICIMOD and MOEST (2007); *Jnyawali et al. (2011); **BCN and DNPWC (2011)

Table 1.3: Number of Selected Group of Species in the CITES Appendices

CITES Appendices

Plants AnimalsMammals Birds Reptiles Insects Total

Appendix I 2 32 12 2 0 46Appendix II 148 16 95 15 3 129Appendix III 4 4 1 2 0 7Total 154 52 108 19 3 182

Source: UNEP-WCMC (2013)


Protected area has remained the dominant approach to conservation of biodiversity in Nepal. Currently, protected areas cover a totalof 34,185.62 sq. km.or 23.23 percent of the country’s total area. These include 10 national parks, three wildlife reserves, one hunting reserve, six conservation areas, and 5602.67 sq. km. buffer zone areas established around nine national parks (Figure 1.5; Figure 1.6). Four of the protected areas, including one national park (Banke) and three conservation areas (Gaurishankar, Khairapur, and Api Nampa) covering a total area of 4,632 sq. km. were established just in 2010. A buffer zone (in Banke NP) covering 343 sq. km. was also declared in the same year.

Figure 1.5: Protected Areas in Nepal

The protected areas in Nepal are managed under fourtypes of management modalities. The national parks, wildlife reserves and the hunting reserve are exclusively managed by the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC). The protection responsibility of these areas is given to the Nepal Army.The main focus of the national parks and wildlife reserves is conservation of flagship wild fauna, such as the tiger, rhinoceros, Asian elephant, snow leopard and red panda. Among the six conservation areas, two (i.e. Api Nampa and Khairapur) are directly managed by the DNPWC. The Annapurna, Manaslu and Gaurishankar conservation areas are managed by the National Trust for Nature Conservation under a multiple use policy.Kanchenjungha Conservation Area is being managed by a local management council since 2006, with supports from the DNPWC and WWF Nepal.The buffer zones are managed by local buffer zone councils in which the warden serves as the member secretary.


Figure 1.6: Percent coverage by different categories of protected areas in Nepal

The protected area biodiversity in Nepal is threatened mainly by: (i) illegal hunting and trade of important wildlife species, (ii) human-wildlife conflict, (iii) weak law enforcement, (iv) invasion by alien species, and (v) intrusion of tree species into grasslands. Illegal encroachment of forest area for cultivation and settlement is a threat in some areas (e.g. Khairapur Conservation Area).

The threat of illegal hunting isparticularly severe for some vertebrates, driven, in particular,by demand for wildlife products from China.Rhino (Rhinocerus unicornis), tiger (Panthera tigris), musk deer (Moschus moschiferus), pangolin (Manis spp.), and some bird species are especially at risk from poaching.Weak enforcementof theLaw has resulted due toinadequate staff, funding and essential field logistics for day-to-day operations.

Human-wildlife conflict relates to crop raids and livestock depredation by wild animals, which is common in all protected areas and poses a major threat particularly to large predators (e.g. snow leopard).The government is trying to resolve the problem through a system of awareness and cash compensation but the efforts have not yet proved to be effective. Finding an amicable solution to this problem remains a major challenge.

Invasion and rapid expansion of alien plant species, such as Mikania micrantha, Eupatorium adenophorum, E. odoratum, and Lantana camarahas been emerged as a major threat to protected areas located in the Tarai, Siwaliks and Middle Mountain zones in recent years.

Beside the threats mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, there are some gaps, issues and challenges in the management of biodiversity through protected area approach. Some of these include: (i) poor representation of the Middle Mountain ecosystems in country’s protected area system, (ii) gaps in conservation of a large number of threatened plants and some animal species, and (iii) conflicts with FECOFUN and some local forest user groups.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moschus_moschiferus

National forests outside protected area are under five main types of management arrangements: (i) community, (ii) collaborative, (iii) leasehold, (iv) protected, and (v) government-managed. The last two categories of forests are under direct management by the government through district forest offices, and there is different level of involvement of local communities in the rest. Leasehold forestry can be further categorized into the pro-poor leasehold forestry and forests leased to private firms and corporate houses for specific purposes. Some forest patches throughout the country are under the care or management of local religious institutions.

The last decade witnessed a substantial expansion of the community forestry. By June 2013, 18,133 community forest user groups (CFUGs) involving 2.24 million households were managing 1.7 million hectares (m. ha.) of forestland (27% of the total national forest) under the community forestry programme. Of that, around 0.47 m. ha. forest was handed over to 3,702 CFUGs involving 0.577 million households in between 2008 and 2013 (Figure 1.7; DOF, 2013a).

A total of 42,773 ha. degraded forest in 52 districts across Nepal is being managed by local people living below the poverty line, under the pro-poor leasehold forestry programme. By July 2013, a total 7,413 leasehold forest groups involving 74,950 households were engaged in the programme. Of this, 5,758 leasehold forest groups involving 45,058 households was added in between 2008 and 2013 (Figure 1.8).

Nineteen forests covering a total area of 54,072 ha. in nine Tarai districts are being managed under a collaborative arrangement involving the local people, local governments and Department of Forests. The process, which started in 2004, is being slowly expanded. Scientific forest management has been initiated in some of the sites (e.g. Tilaurakot in Kapilvastu district). Eight other Tarai forests, covering a total area of 26,608 ha., are planned to be added in the list of collaborative forests in 2013. Biodiversity conservation is one of the objectives of collaborative forest management, alongside sustainable production and income generation.

Since 2002, the government has taken initiative to manage some natural forests with high biodiversity value as protected forests. So far, eight forests covering a total area of 133,754.8 ha.(2.12% of the total national forest) have been declared as protected forests (Figure 1.9; Table 1.4).


Household Number

Community Forest Area

(ha.)

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

1660

000

1230

00022

3719

5

1700

048

20082013

Household Number

Leasehold Forest Area

(ha)

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

2989

2

1732

0

7495

0

4277

320082013

Figure 1.8: Changes in status of pro-poor leasehold forestry in between 2008 and 2013

Figure 1.7: Changes in status of community forestry in between 2008 and 2013

Seven of them were established in between 2010 and 2012 (DOF, 2013b). Eight other forests, covering a total area of 223,107 ha. are in the process of being declared as protected forests in near future.Figure 1.9: Protected Forests in Nepal

Table 1.4: Protected Forests in Nepal

Forest Year Established

Size (ha)

Location Conservation Significance

Kankre Bihar 2002 175.5 Surkhet Historical; archeological and biodiversity Madhane 2010 13,761 Gulmi Biodiversity; eco-tourismBarandabhar 2011 10,466 Chitwan Corridor; wetland; habitat for several

endangered animal and bird species.Panchase 2011 5,775.7 Kaski, Parbat,

SyangjaBiodiversity; eco-tourism; religious

Laljhadi-Mohana

2011 29,641.7 Kailai, Kanchanpur

Biological corridor; wetland

Basanta 2011 69,001.2 Kailai Wildlife habitat and corridorKhata 2011 4503.7 Bardia Wildlife habitat and corridorDhanushadham 2012 430 Dhanusha Historical; religious; biodiversity

Forest biodiversity outside protected area is threatened mainly by forest loss and degradation, and overexploitation and illegal exploitation of forest products. Loss and degradation of forests have been occurring due mainly to conversion to agriculture, encroachment for illegal settlements,


development of infrastructure (such as roads, electric transmission lines) inside forestland, excessive extraction of materials for construction such as sand and gravel, overgrazing, uncontrolled forest fires, and invasion by alien plant species. Overexploitation and illegal exploitation of biological resources, includingextraction of wood and non-wood forest products and poaching of wildlife are other major threats. Weak enforcementof theLaw due toinadequate staff, funding and essential logistics for day-to-day operations by district forestry staff is a major threat, particularly in the Tarai and Siwalik areas. Excessive political influence has also contributed to weak enforcement of the law. Human-wildlife conflict and climate change have been emerged as major threats in many areas, although the effect of climate change on different forest ecosystems and species is not well known.

Besides the above threats, lack of scientific forest management; inadequate technical capacities of the district forest offices and user groups; inadequate attention to management of biodiversity in community forests; wide variations in the success of community forestry programme across the country; poor linkage of community forestry with livelihoods and poverty alleviation; passive approach to the management of community forests; poor relationships among stakeholders;and limited participation of women and other disadvantaged social groups are some of the key gaps and issues in forest management. Controlling forest encroachment and illegal logging have particularly been the major challenges to the government.

1.3.3Rangeland Biodiversity

Rangeland ecosystems in Nepal are comprised of grasslands, pastures, shrublands and wetlands,which are distributed all over the country, coveringabout 1.7 million hectares or nearly 12 percent of country’s land area. The rangelands can be broadly grouped into five categories: (i) tropical savannas, (ii)sub-tropical rangelands, (iii) temperate rangelands, (iv) subalpine rangelands, and (v) alpine meadows.

Among the different types of rangelands found in the country, the tropical savannas and the alpine meadows are especially important from biodiversity conservation point of view. The tropical savannas, which comprise of a mosaic of tall grasslands dominated by Saccharum spontaneum and Imperata cylindricaintermixed with broadleaf forests of species such as Eugenia jambolana, Bombaxceiba, Trewianudiflora, andMallotus philippensis, are excellent habitat for some of the endangered wildlife species such as rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis), Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris tigris), and gharial crocodile (Gavialis gangeticus). Many of these grasslands are also home to several species of globally threatened grassland birds (Baral and Inskipp 2009).

The alpine meadowsthat cover a broad area, especially in the eastern half of the country, are exceptionally rich in floral diversity, including numerous species of colorful flowers of alpine herbs.These grasslands are also home to endangered snow leopard, Himalayan goral (Naemorhedus baileyi), serow (Capricornis sumatraensis) and Himalayan tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus) and are very rich in faunal diversity(Mittermeier et al., 2004).There is hardly any information available on the trends of changes in rangeland biodiversity.

Threats to rangelands biodiversity differ with the location and type of rangelands. Overgrazing and tramplingby large herds of livestock (especially yak) is the main threat in high altitude pastures. The


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trewia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombax_ceiba

lowland grasslands and savannas are threatened by conversion to agriculture and other use. The loss and fragmentation has greatly affected grassland-dependent wildlife and bird species. Intrusion of riverine tree specieshas caused decline in quality and extent of some of these grassland habitats, including in the Chitwan National Park.Invasion by alien plant speciesis a threat to many Tarai, Siwaliks and Middle Mountain grasslands. Firesare other major threats, especially to grassland birds and reptiles as they destroy the nests and eggs. Inappropriate management of protected area grasslands, including untimely and intensive annual cutting, has posed a serious threat to country’s specialist grassland birds,many of which are now almost entirely confined to protected areas (BCN and DNPWC, 2011).

1.3.4Wetland Biodiversity

The wetland ecosystems of Nepal fall into two broad categories: (i) natural wetlands, comprising of lakes and ponds, riverine floodplains, swamps and marshes, and (ii) man-made wetlands, including water reservoirs, ponds and deep-water agricultural lands.Nine of the country’s wetlands are listed as Ramsar sites (Figure 1.10). Of these, six are located within protected areas or their buffer zones.

Figure 1.10: Ramsar sites in Nepal

Nepalese wetlands have very high ecological significance, as they harbor many threatened and endemic species of flora and fauna and serve as resting places for many migratory and globally threatened birds.The country’s wetlands sustain an estimated 230species of indigenous fish, including 16 species that are endemic to Nepal(Rajbanshi, 2013). The wetlands also harbor an estimated 118species of amphibians (ICIMOD and MOEST, 2007).


Nepal’s wetlands also play a significant role in conservation of floral diversity. Twenty-five percent of Nepal’s vascular plants, including 26 endemic species of flowering plants are believed to be wholly or significantly dependent on wetlands. Four of the 17 plants that are legally protected by the Government of Nepal are dependent on wetlands. The wetlands also hold several species of wild cultivars and relatives of cultivated crops, including five species of rice, namely Oryza nivara, O. granulata, O. officinalis, O. sativa f. spontanea and O. rufipogon (CSUWN, 2010). The wetlands also have high cultural and economic significance. Many ethnic groups are dependent on wetlands for their livelihoods.

Wetland biodiversity is threatened by: (i) drainage and encroachment for agriculture, settlement and infrastructure development, (ii) diversion and abstraction of water for farmland irrigation, (iii) unsustainable exploitation of wetland resources, including overfishing and destructive fishing,and overgrazing of marshes (iv) widespread mining of gravel from streams and rivers beds, (v) water pollution from households and industrial discharges and agricultural run-off, (vi) invasion of alien speciesinto wetland ecosystems, (vii) illegal hunting and trapping of birds and other wildlife, and (viii) siltation.

High dams that have been built on many rivers have posed serious threats to many species of fish and other aquatic species; the scale of this threat is expected to further increase in future. Uncontrolled use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers is a significant threat to many species of


Mai Pokhari located at 2,100 m elevation in eastern Nepal was enlisted as a Ramsar site in 2008Photo © Ambika P. Gautam

birds and aquatic life. The eutrophication of wetlands due to over-use of fertilizers can cause more severe damage to freshwater biodiversity in future.

Invasion of Eichhornia crassipesis a major threat to tropical and sub-tropical wetlands in eastern, central and western Nepal. Many internationally important wetlands, including the Beeshazari Lake in the Barandabhar corridor forest in Chitwan and Phewa Lake in Pokhara, are already severely invaded by Eichhornia. Invasive species such as Ipomoea carnea and Mikania micrantha are also becoming more and more abundant in areas near wetlands, thereby affecting habitats of water birds and other wetland dependent fauna.

Twelve alien fish species have been introduced in Nepalese wetlands for aquaculture development. This has been emerged as a threat to native species. Some of the introduced exotic species (such as Oreochromis mosambicusor Nile Tilapia)can be invasive. Although the extent of introduction of exotic species and their impacts on native diversity is not assessed for Nepal, limited studies conducted at specific locations show the coverage of exotic species is being rapidly expanded and they can have significant negative effects on local biodiversity in future (CSUWN, 2011).

Over-fishing and fish-poisoning have significantly reduced the food supply of fish-eating birds.Cumulative effect of the reduced food, habitat degradation and illegal hunting and trapping has caused continuous decline in populations of some wetland bird species such as brahminy kite (Haliastur indus), caspian tern (Sterna caspia), black-bellied tern (S. acuticauda) and river tern (S. aurantia). Some other species, including lesser fish eagle (Ichthyaetus humilis) and tawny fish owl (Ketupa flavipes) have been included in the nationally threatened list (BCN and DNPWC, 2011).

1.3.5 Agrobiodiversity

Nepal has a high degree of agro-ecological diversity. The diverse climatic and topographic conditions have favored for maximum diversity of agricultural crops, their wild relatives, and animal species. There are differences in traditional cropping systems across the country.These traditional farming systems, which use local indigenous knowledge and experiences, are assumed to have great role in maintaining the agricultural diversity. Unfortunately, the traditional systems have not been documented well.Farm animal production systems in the country can be grouped into three major types: (i) transhumant migratory system, (ii) stationary with semi-migratory or with semi-intensive system, and (iii) stationary stall feeding or closed system intensive system.

Agrobiodiversitycontributes substantially to Nepal’s species diversity. A total of 550 crop species areidentified as having food value, and around half of those species are believed to be currently under cultivation.The country is also very rich in fruit, vegetable and animal biodiversity.More than 200 species of vegetables are being grown in the country, of which 50 species have been commercialized and available in local and urban markets.Several breeds and strains of domestic animals (including poultry)found in different ecological belts are yet to be identified and characterized at the molecular level.

Diversity of crops, horticulture species, and livestock varies across the physiographic zones.The hills and mountains generally have higher agricultural biodiversity (both crop and animal) as compared to the lowlands (MFSC, 2002). High climatic and physiographic variability,relatively low


influence of modern technology, and higher level of ethnic diversity of human communities is believed to have contributed to higher richness of crop and livestock species in the mountains as compared to the Tarai.

Nepal has an estimated 550 crop species having food value, and around half of those species are believed to be currently under cultivation.The country is also very rich in fruit, vegetable and animal biodiversity.More than 200 species of vegetables are being grown in the country, of which 50 species have been commercialized and available in local and urban markets.Several breeds and strains of domestic animals (including poultry)found in different ecological belts are yet to be identified and characterized at the molecular level. The available information suggeststhat the country is rich in diversity of domestic animals.Diversity of crops, horticulture species, and livestockvaries across the physiographic zones. The hills and mountains generally have higher agricultural biodiversity (both crop and animal) as compared to the lowlands (MFSC, 2002).

There are variations in the distribution of crop genetic diversity across the country. For example, the highest number of farmer-named cultivars of rice, taro and sponge gourds is found in Kaski (Middle Mountains). Genetic diversity of buckwheat and barley are found to behigh in Jumla (High Mountains), and the diversity of pigeon pea is found to be highest in Bara (Tarai; Upadhyay and Joshi, 2003).

Agrobiodiversity is under threat due to: (i) commercialization of agriculture and the extension of modern high yielding varieties, (ii) indiscriminate use of pesticides, (iii) population growth and urbanization,(iv) lack of incentives to conserve the low-yielding local species and varities, and (v) changes in farmer’s priorities (MFSC, 2002).Poor level of awareness about the importance of biodiversity, lack of suitable policy for conservation of local species and varieties, and inadequate knowledgeareother threats.

Among the known species of domestic animals, pure siri cow has become extinct and achhami cattle are close to endanger (Neopane and Pokhrel, 2005). Lampuchhre sheep is close to endanger (Neopane and Pokharel, 2008) and bampudke pigs are extinct from domesticated habitat but are found in wild in small numbers (Neopane and Kadel, 2008).

The type and intensity of threats to agrobiodiversity slightly vary among the physiographic zones. For example, commercialization of agriculture and the extension of modern high yielding varieties, and urbanization are more relevant to the Tarai, while poor level of awareness is more related to the mountains.

Livestock diversity is threatened by: (i) decline of local breeds, (ii) weak quarantine, (iii) limited ex-situ conservation of local breeds, (iv) inadequate research and technologies, (v) limited access to good quality seed of local breeds (live or semen), and (vi) lack of incentives to continue keeping less productive local breeds.

1.3.6 Mountain Biodiversity

Mountain biodiversity cross-cuts several themes and sectors. It is treated separately in this report as mountains in Nepal are the centers of immense cultural and biological diversity.Moreover, scenic


landscapes and clean air make mountains target regions for recreation and tourism. However, mountain ecosystems are exceptionally fragile; both poverty and ethnic diversity are high in mountain regions,and people in the region are often more vulnerable than people elsewhere.

The mountain regions contain 70 percent of the country’s protected areas, as well as about half of the country’s global priority ecoregions. Many endangered species of flora and fauna inhabit the mountains. For example, 34 percent of the biodiversity (plants and animal species) is found in the High Mountains (above 3,000m), and 63 percent in the Middle Mountains (1,000-3,000 m). The highest numbers of plants occur between 1,500 and 2,500 m elevations. About 420 floweringplant species are distributed in the areas that lie above 5,000 m. Many vascular plants (e.g. angiosperm Christolae himalayayensis)have even been recorded at more than 6,000 melevation in the eastern Himalaya (MFSC, 2002; MFSC, 2005)).

The high elevation mountains also possess enormously diverse species and genetic resources of wild fauna. Some 80 species of mammals are known to occur in the High Mountains and High Himal areas of which eight, namely snow leopard, grey wolf, Tibetan argali, lynx, brown bear, musk deer, red panda and Tibetan antelope, are major wildlife species found in Nepal. Four of these species are endangered and vulnerable. Similarly, eight out of 20 endemic breeds of livestock are from the alpine region (Sherchand and Pradhan, 1998; MFSC, 2005).

Among the bird species, around 413 species are reported to occur above 3,000 m altitude. Of these, 19 species are known to breed in these high grounds. Nine species of birds are restricted to alpine rangelands of which five species, including imperial eagle, Pallas’ fish eagle, Hodgson’s bush chat, lesser kestrel, and Kasmir flycatcher are of international significance (Inskipp and Inskipp, 1991). Five of the nine Ramsar-listed wetlands in Nepal are located above 2,000 m elevations. The mountain biodiversity of the Himalayanregion also contributes significantly to the global biodiversity, as it sits at the center of the Himalayan Biodiversity Hotspot.

Mountain biodiversity in Nepal faces a significant threat due to human activities. Some of the main threats to mountain biodiversity include: (i) poor management of natural resources, including overexploitation of non-wood and wood products and mineral resources, (ii) unplanned and unregulated construction of rural roads, and (iii) inappropriate farming practices. Poverty is a major underlying threat.

The mountain ecosystems are fragile and vulnerable to natural disasters, such as landslides, glacial lake outburst floods and drought, which cause considerable damage to mountain ecosystems and the people living in those areas. The changing climatic conditions have exacerbated the threats to biodiversity and livelihoods, especially in the mountain areas in recent years.

1.3.7 Underlying Causes of Biodiversity Loss

Thethreats to biodiversity discussed in the preceding sections are the results of several underlying causes. These causes constitute a complex of social, political, economic, technological, and cultural variables that operate at various spatial levels. The major underlying causes of biodiversity loss in Nepal include: (i) poor forest governance, (ii) ignorance to biodiversity values in government and corporate accounting systems, (iii) widespread poverty and lack of diversified livelihood


opportunities, (iv) population growth and migration, (v) lack of an integrated approach to planning at national and district levels, (vi) land scarcity, (vii) unclear resource tenure and administrative jurisdictions, (viii) unsustainable agricultural practices, and (ix) inadequate awareness and motivation to conserve biodiversity.

1.3.8 Climate Change: A Common Threat

Biodiversity and climate change are closely linked.According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), the changing climatic condition is likely to become the dominant direct driver of biodiversity loss by the end of this century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that 20-30 percent of the species will likely be at a higher risk of extinction with temperature increases greater than 1.5°C and risks will increase with additional temperature rise (IPCC, 2007).

The understanding of impacts of climate change on Nepal’s biodiversity is very poor. Some of the known impacts are: (i) shifts in agro-ecological zones, prolonged dry spells, and higher incidences of pests and diseases increased temperature and rainfall variability, (ii) increased emergence and fast spread of invasive alien species (e.g. Mikenia micrantha,Parthenium hysterophorus), (iii) increased incidence of forest fire in recent years, (iv) changes in phonological cycles of tree species, (v) shifting of treeline in the Himalaya, and (v) depletion of wetlands (MOE, 2010). Limited available information indicates that the High Himal and High Mountain ecosystems are likely to be worst affected by climate change in near future.

1.4 Sources and Trends of Funding for Biodiversity Management in Key Sectors

Nepal Biodiversity Strategy (2002) envisioned establishing Nepal Trust Fund for Biodiversityas a long-term funding mechanism involving a number of bilateral, multilateral, private sector and the government agencies. The fund, which was supposed to provide financial and technical support to government agencies, NGOs and other institutions involved in biodiversity conservation in Nepal to enable them to undertake appropriate activities and projects both within and outside protected areas, never came to existence. Despite this gap, funding for biodiversity related programmes increased continuously and substantially over the last decade.

An analysis of the programme budget allocated for the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation shows that it continuously and substantially increased during the last decade. Bulk of the funds (i.e. 84.4%) came from the government or internal source, and remaining from foreign assistance in the form of grant (14.1%) and soft loan (1.5%) (Figure 1.11).

In addition, a number of other sources also financially contributed to biodiversity conservation programmes. NTNC-collected entry fee from visitors has remained one of the main sources of funding for implementing biodiversity management programmes in the Annapurna Conservation Area and Manaslu Conservation Area. In-kind cooperation by local communitiesand technical assistance by international community were some other sources.


Figure 1.11: Trendsand sources of funding formanagement of forestry programmes

Similar positive trends were found in allocation of budget for management of agrobiodiversity. For example, the government funding for the Gene Bank, Botany Division, Animal Breeding Division, Pasture and Fodder Division, and Department of Livestock Services, which are directly involved in conservation of agrobiodiversity, substantially increased over the last five years (Figure 1.12).

Figure 1.12: Trend of funding for management of agrobiodiversity

During the last five years, the annual expenditure in climate change related programmes and activities constituted around 1.3 percent to 2.1 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and 5.7 percent to 7.2 percent of total government expenditure. These figures indicate that the share of climate change related budget allocations and expenditure as percentage of GDP and government


2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

10,000,000

626,

254

1,90

5,10

4

1,91

5,40

1

1,97

2,09

0

2,29

8,68

0

2,69

7,29

9

3,42

4,76

3

4,44

6,23

6

5,28

6,32

7

5,00

7,21

0

8,63

3,95

5

328,

818

219,

196

119,

231

247,

898

385,

376

416,

604

419,

816

907,

512

779,

000

1,85

7,23

8

Public FundLinear (Pub-lic Fund)

Fiscal Year

Am

ount

in "

000"

Nep

ales

e R

upee

s

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/140

100002000030000400005000060000700008000090000

19060

54800 5600049400

89300

Fiscal Year

Agr

obio

dive

rsit

y Fu

nd in

NP

R

"000

"

expenditure are both increasing over the period (Figure 1.13). More than half (55%) of the total government climate change expenditure is estimated to come from external sources (Nepal, 2012).

Figure 1.13: Trend in climate change related fundingin Nepal

The climate change budget code has been introduced in the national budget starting this fiscal year (i.e. 2012/2013). The government has reportedly allocated 10.34 percent (5.8 % direct and 4.6% indirect) of its budget for 2013-2014 to climate funding. There are also many other funding through bilateral, multi-lateral, NGOs and INGOs sources, which in most cases remain out of the government monitoring system.


2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/120

50000001000000015000000200000002500000030000000

9684

560

1512

8490

1856

4035

2563

1913

2762

8848

Fiscal Year

Clim

ate

Chn

ge F

und

in

NPR

"00

0"

2. OVERVIEW OF PAST EFFORTS, ACHIEVEMENTS AND LESSONS LEARNED

2.1 Implementation of Nepal Biodiversity Strategy (2002) and Nepal Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan (2006): Key Achievements and Gaps

A subjective assessment of the progress made in implementation of the Nepal Biodiversity Strategy (NBS) and Nepal Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan (NBSIP)based on the review and analysis of relevant literature and secondary data, consultations, and expert opinions indicated that NBS was only partially successful in achieving its goal of providing a strategic planning framework for managing biodiversity in the country. Implementation of around 30 percent of the NBS strategies related to the six thematic areas was “very good”, 30 percent “good” and 41 percent “poor”. Of the 17 cross-sectoral strategies, four were almost fully implemented and two were not implemented. Implementation status of the rest of the strategies remained medium (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1: Status of implementation of NBS (2002) strategies

Sector/Theme Number of Strategies

Status of Implementation* Very Good Good Poor Not Implemented

Protected Area 8 2 (25) 3 (37.5) 3 (37.5) -Forest Biodiversity 9 2 (22.2) 3 (33.3) 4 (44.4) -Rangeland Biodiversity 4 1 (25) - 3 (75) -Wetland Biodiversity 1 - 1 (100) - -Agro-biodiversity 3 2 (66.6) 1 (33.4) - -Mountain Biodiversity 2 1 (50) - 1 (50) -Cross-sectoral 17 4 (23.5) 6 (35.3) 5 (29.4) 2 (11.8)

* The number in parenthesis refers to the percentage

The last decade also witnessed substantial expansion of the country’s protected area. A total of 6,120.6 sq. km. protected area was added just in between 2002 and 2010. Moreover, buffer zones were declared around six protected areas during the period. These efforts, along with preparation and implementation of species conservation plans and abatement in poaching, had positive contributions to in situ conservation of threatened wildlife species. The population of the Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) increased continuously since 2009 (Acharya and Dhakal, 2012; WWF, 2012).Similarly, the population of rhino (Rhinocerus unicornis) in its main habitat the Chitwan National Park recovered from its lowest (i.e. 354) in 2006 to 503 in 2011 (DNPWC, 2009; DNPWC, 2011; Subedi et al., 2013).

In situ conservation using landscape planning approach, and with active involvement of local people was another NBS strategy that was successfully implemented. The incorporation of landscape approach as a new strategic and operational direction to conservation and sustainable use of biological resources by Tenth Five Year Plan (2003-2008) provided further impetus to implement the strategy. Accordingly, the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MFSC), with supports from several donors and development partners, implemented landscape management programmes in


the Terai Arc Landscape, Sacred Himalayan Landcsape, andKailash Sacred Landscape. A consortium of four I/NGOs led by WWF Nepal has started implementation of a similar programme in the Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape since 2011 under USAID funding (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Landscapes under management in Nepal

Participation of local people, including women and disadvantaged group, in forest and protected area management substantially increased during the last decade. Some other NBS strategies, which were successfully implemented include: (i) formulation of the National Rangeland Policy in 2012, and (ii) integrated management of two wetlands (i.e. Koshitappu and Ghodaghodi) of international importance by the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal project implemented by the MFSC.

The three agrobiodiversity strategies were successfully implemented. Community based biodiversity management has been established as a successful approach for conservation of agriculture genetic resources. This approach has been embedded with several good practices such as community biodiversity registration, biodiversity fair, participatory plant breeding and participatory variety selection, and community seed bank. Participatory Plant Breeding and Participatory Variety Selection have now been well established in cereal crops. These successes are the result of successful collaboration among the Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Department of Agriculture, LI-BIRD and local farmers (Rijal et al., 2003; Subedi et al., 2011; Shrestha et al., 2013).

A National Agriculture Genetic Resource Centre (Gene Bank) has been established in 2010 in Lalitpur for ex-situ conservation of agricultural genetic resources. The Gene Bank has also


established a tissue bank and laboratories for in-vitro culture, molecular research, seeds testing, and has created its links with the 115 community seed banks established across the country (Bhatta et al., 2012; Joshi , 2013).

Of the 13 priority projects planned by the NBSIP (2006), only three were successfully implemented. These include: (i) integrated wetlands management, (ii) landscape level biodiversity conservation, and (iii) conservation and management of pollinators for sustainable agriculture through ecosystem approach. Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Rampur Chitwan implemented aFAO-funded pilot project on “Conservation and Management of Pollinators for Sustainable Agriculture through an Ecosystem Approach”. The project was 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).

Status of implementation of four of the NBSIP projects remained “good” and three “poor”. Three of the priority projects, namely Phulchoki-Chandragiri Biodiversity Conservation Programme, Rhododendron Conservation Programme in Tinjure-Milke-Jaljale, and establishment of the Kanchenjungha Tri-national Peace Park were not implemented.

Some other strategies and plans that were not implemented include: (i) establishment of Nepal Trust Fund for Biodiversity, (ii) strengthening of National Biodiversity Unit, and (iii) assignment of National Biodiversity Coordinator. The strategy relating to endorsement of indigenous knowledge and innovations could not be implemented due to lack of necessary legislation.

The lack of linkage between the NBSand most of the sectoral and cross-sectoral strategies, plans, policies and programmes that were formulated after 2002 is probably the most important gap in implementation of the strategy. One of the main reasons behind this missing link between the NBS (2002) and subsequent strategies, plans, policies and programmes could be the lack of an effective institutional mechanism to coordinate implementation of the strategy and monitor progress. The National Biodiversity Coordination Committee (NBCC) and related thematic committees, which were supposed to guide, coordinate and monitor the implementation, could not become so effective due mainly to weak secretariat. The National Biodiversity Unit (NBU) in the MFSC did not get a National Biodiversity Coordinator, and the unit could not be strengthenedas envisaged by the NBS. The National Trust Fund for Biodiversity, which was supposed to be the main source of funding for the NBCC and NBU, was not even established. The long gap between formulation of the NBS and NBSIP also caused the NBS to remain “dormant” for the precious first four years of its formulation (i.e. 2002-2006).

Some other gaps that affected implementation of the NBS include: (i) poor inter-and intra-agency coordination and cooperation, (ii) contradictory or conflicting legislations and administrative jurisdictions, (iii) inadequate mainstreaming of biodiversity into national development plans and programmes, (iv) lack of legislation to translate the strategy and policies into actions (e.g. agro-biodiversity policy, tourism policy), (v) inadequate incentives for conservation of less productive agri-crop varieties (native landraces) and livestock breeds, (vi) lack of time-bound targets, in most cases, for implementation of sectoral conservation plans, (vii) poor enforcement of laws, including the Environmental Protection Act (1997) and Local Self-Governance Act (1996), (viii) lack of


system for mainstreaming indigenous technical knowledge and innovations into national development programmes, (ix) gap in linking biodiversity registration programme with biodiversity conservation, use and benefit sharing, (x) inadequate technicalcapacity for bio-prospecting, and ex-situ conservation of agrobiodiversity, and (xi) unorganized information sharing and dissemination system.

Implementation of the NBSIP suffered from: (i) contention among the key actors due mainly to inadequate consultation and cooperation with local and indigenous communities while devising plans for conservation of biodiversity-rich areas (e.g. Phulchoki-Chandragiri, Tinjure-Milke-Jaljale), (ii) poor monitoring, (iii) lack of an effective system of benefiting local communities from protected area tourism (except in conservation areas), (iv) delay in preparation and implementation of conservation plans for many important wildlife species, including water buffalo, dolphin and swamp deer, (v) lack of baseline information on biodiversity, including agro-biodiversity, (vi) lack of vision and plan to use the existing NARC farms for conservation of agro-biodiversity, and (vii) inadequate financial resource to implement the identified priority projects.

2.2 Other Key Efforts and Achievements

There have also been a number of other efforts and achievements in conservation of biodiversity and natural resources during the past decade, which have no direct linkage to the NBS (2002) and NBSIP (2006). For example, the concept of sustainable economic growth, including conservation of biodiversity and natural resources with participation of local communities, has been firmly embedded in the country’s interim constitution, and most of the national development plans, policies, strategies and regulatory frameworks developed since 2002. Some high level committees (e.g. National Tiger Committee, Climate Change Council) and related institutional mechanisms have been established. Substantial efforts have been made to control cross-border illegal trade of wildlife parts bystrengthening cooperation with China and India.

There have also been a number of efforts and achievements in the management of forest biodiversity and agrobiodiversity, which do not have direct relation to the NBS or NBSIP. Declaration of eight natural forests with high conservation significance as protected forests; implementation of the Rastrapati (i.e. President) Chure Conservation Programme in 26 districts (out of 33 districts in the Chure region); implementation of tree improvement programme, and public land agroforestry by the Department of Forests; assessment and mapping of forest resources by the Department of Forest Research and Survey; tissue culture programme implemented by the Department of Plant Resources, NARC and some private companies; production and use of cattle and buffaloes semen by Department of Livestock Services and NARC for improving dairy animals are some examples.

The governmentand its development partners have started implementation of some programmes, which directly or indirectly support biodiversity conservation in the changing climatic conditions. The Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation has been promoting REDD+ as a mechanism to control forest loss and degradation since 2008. There have also been some initiatives towards implementation of REDD+ and PES in the field. The Alternative Energy Promotion Center under the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MOSTE) has been making substantial efforts in promotion of clean and renewable energy. The MOSTE, in collaboration with ICIMOD


and other partners, launched the Mountain Initiative in 2010. UNDP and IUCN have been supporting implementation of an ecosystems based adaptation project in one of the biodiversity hubs and protected forest in western Nepal. NARC is engaged in developing drought-tolerant varieties of crops. A rice variety (IR 64) has already been released for submerged conditions. The government has assigned a separate, dedicated budget code for climate change and has started allocating about five percent of annual budget for climate change related activities from the current fiscal year.

2.3 Lessons Learned

The following are some of the key lessons learned from management of biodiversity in Nepal.

(1)Meaningful participation of local communities in the management of natural resources is a key to ensuring success and sustainability of programme interventions. The successful management of Kanchenjungha and Annapurna conservation areas, corridors, and thousands of community and leasehold forests across the country are evidences. Several studies have shown that forest degradation and loss has declined substantially and even reversed in many areas,particularly the Middle Mountains, after implementation of the community forestry programme(see e.g. Gautam, 2006; Niraula et al., 2013).The improvement in forest condition has created habitat corridors and development of successive stages of forests, which might have played crucial role in conservation of biodiversity, including preventing local extinction of species. Ensuring meaningful local participation requires ensured economic incentives, and incorporation of traditional practices, local knowledge and institutions in the design and implementation of the programmes. Promoting cultivation of medicinal and aromatic plants such as chiraito (Swertia chirayita), lemon grass (Cymbopogon sp.) and other NTFPs (such as broom grass) in community managed forests is found to be one of the proven approaches to benefit communities and achieve success in biodiversity conservation.

(2) Landscape approachcould be an appropriate strategy for addressing multiple drivers of biodiversity loss, enhancing ecologicalprocesses and conserving threatened species. This is particularly true in areas where the protected areas are scattered likeislands and too small to support viable population of species and ecological processes. The contribution of the Western Terai Landscape Complex Project (WTLCP) towards enhancing biodiversity assets and sustainable livelihoods supports this speculation. The six-year (2006-2012) project reportedly helped restore forest, grassland and wetland habitats and increase in population of several important wildlife species, including tiger, swamp deer and blackbuck. Conservation of local varieties of crops through establishment of seed banks at the community level has empowered the communities in having access to seeds of local genetic resourcesand conserving those varieties (Acharya et al., 2010; Shrestha et al., 2013). Similar successes have been reported from the transboundary Kangchenjunga Landscape Project, implemented by ICIMOD in collaboration with various agencies and communities in eastern Nepal, Sikkim and Darjeeling of India, western Bhutan and China (ICIMOD, 2008).

(3) Cooperation and collaboration among relevant agencies (government, I/NGOs, local communities) is crucial to achieve success in biodiversity conservation. As mentioned earlier, the success met in conservation of agriculture genetic resourcesthrough community biodiversity


registration, participatory plant breeding and participatory variety selection, and community seed bank was the result of successful collaboration among the Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Department of Agriculture, LI-BIRD and local farmers. Involving local stakeholders in planning and implementation is critical to achieving objectives of conserving agro biodiversity and using the genetic resources in sustainably way. The continuous increase in population of endangered species such as tiger and rhino in recent years was possible through concerted joint efforts of the DNPWC, WWF Nepal, NTNC, some local NGOs and local people. The achievements of the WTLCP was possible through cooperation and collaboration between the MFSC, NARC, UNDP, district level agriculture, forest, national parks and livestock offices, local governments, NGOs and community groups. On the other hand, lack of effective and sustained coordination and cooperation among the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation and Ministry of Agriculture Development is believed to have negatively affected management of rangeland and wetland biodiversity.

(4) Cooperation among law enforcement agencies is necessary for curbing illegal trade of wildlife species, which in turn helps control poaching. Collaboration among the recently set up Wildlife Crime Control Bureau in Nepal Police and DNPWC, alongside effective implementation of anti-poaching plans and activities, can largely be credited fordecreased poaching of threatened species and illegal trade of wildlife parts in recent years. The associated financial incentive might have enhanced motivation of the police personnel in controlling trafficking and illegal trade wildlife parts.

(5) International cooperation can be helpful to curb transboundary trade of wildlife parts and strengthening ecological security in trans-boundary regions. The recently established cooperation with China and India has been useful in controlling illegal wildlife trade through sharing of information, knowledge, experiences and practices. Formation of the South Asia Wildlife Enforcement Networkin 2010 has helped for coordinated regional response to combat illegal wildlife poaching and trafficking (Karki et al., 2011).

(6) There was a continuous and significant increase in number of tourists visiting protected area and associated increase in revenue over the last decade (Figure 2.2; DNPWC, 2012). This shows that there is a very good scope for further promotion of tourism to generate necessary fund for conservation, and to provide economic opportunities for local communities.

Figure 2.2: Annual revenue generated from tourism in protected areas


The protected area tourism, so far, has been largely limited to the Chitwan National Park, Annapurna Conservation Area, Sagarmatha National Park and Langtang National Park. There is a need for exploration and promotion of new areas for tourism and promotion of eco-tourism in all protected areas. This will, among other, involve: (i) designing and implementing rules and guidelines to match the practices and principles of eco-tourism, (ii) training staff, (iii) raising visitor awareness, (iv) strengthening local management capacity, and (v) scaling up and expanding successful initiatives. Promoting culture and environment based tourism in community managed forest sites could be another possibility to enhance rural livelihoods and income.

(7) Enabling policy is necessary to achieve the intended outcome and appropriate legislation is necessary in order to translate the policy pronouncements into practice. This is evidenced, among other, by fact that the community forestry programme could not gain momentum until a supportive Forest Act and Forest Regulation were promulgated in 1993 and 1995, respectively. That remained the situation despite the clear direction given by the Master Plan for Forestry Sector (1989). The implementation of the Rangeland Policy (2012) and Wetland Policy (2013) has not actually commenced due to lack of legislation. Part of the reason behind less effectiveness of the National Biodiversity Coordination Committee relates to lack of its legislative basis. Attempts to improve management of mountain biodiversity have been partly hindered due to lack of separate policy and legislation governing mountain biodiversity.

(8) Positive incentive measures, which promote conservation-friendly behaviors, are necessary to encourage local people in biodiversity conservation. This lesson has been learned from the PES system implemented by the Rupa Lake Rehabilitation Fisheries Cooperative Ltd. in Kaski district. The cooperative has started community based conservation of the lake and its wise use programme with the objective of lake restoration and biodiversity conservation. The benefit from the fish harvest is shared among the beneficiaries on equitable basis. Certain percent of the net benefits are paid to the upland communities through a PES system. This has significantly improved conservation of fish and other aquatic life in the lake as well as the catchment area, and there is high possibility for the long term sustainability of the initiative.

(9) Prior consultation and discussion with local communities is necessary before making any important decision that affects the local communities’ use of the local resources. Inadequate consultation with the local and indigenous communities while devising conservation plans was one of the important reasons behind non-implementation of the Phulchoki-Chandragiri Biodiversity Conservation Programme, and Rhododendron Conservation Programme in Tinjure-Milke-Jaljale as planned by the NBSIP (2006). Inadequate consultation with local forest user groups before declaring the Gaurishankar Conservation Area invited unprecedented level of conflicts between the government and local people, which affected implementation of conservation area management activities. Similarly, many existing community forests and leasehold forests were suddenly brought under protected area management regime in recent years due to declaration of those areas as buffer zones. This sudden change in the management regime, without properly informing and counseling the user group members, has caused strong disenchantment among the group members. These


events have led to increasing contention between the protected area approach and participatory approach to conservation of forest biodiversity in recent years.

2.4 Development of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

The Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (CBD Focal Agency) is currently in the process of developing National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP). The project is funded by the Global Environment Facility through United Nations Environment Programme and technically supported by the Kathmandu Forestry College. The NBSAP is the revised and updated version of the Nepal Biodiversity Strategy (2002).The overall objective of the NBSAP is to provide a strategic planning framework for conservation of Nepal’s biodiversity, sustainable use of the biological resources for enhancing local livelihoods and eco-friendly national development, and equitable sharing of the benefits accrued across all sections of the society.

2.4.1 The NBSAP Development Process

The NBSAP is primarily based on stocktaking of current situation through extensive review of relevant plans, policies, strategies, agencies’ reports and other literature, and collection and analysis of secondary data available with different government and non-government agencies. Consultations with stakeholders at various levels and limited field observations formed the main sources of primary data and information. Relevant decisions and guidelines of the CBD Conference of Parties (COP), particularly the COP 10 Decision X/2on Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 adopted by the Parties in October 2010, and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets provided theoretical framework and technical guidance in its development.

Consultations with relevant stakeholders were carried out at the national, regional, district and community levels. Efforts were made to make the consultations gender-balanced and socially inclusive. Checklists were used to make the consultation meetings efficient and objective oriented. A total of 1,664 individuals, including 459 (26.7%) women and 1,205 (73.3%) men, belonging to government, I/NGOs, Civil Society, academics, media, forest user groups and other CBOs were consulted during the process (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3: Proportional representation of individuals in the consultations from different type of agencies (left), and number of individuals consulted at different levels


Consultations in Kathmandu involved interactions with officials and experts working in selected 41 organizations, including relevant government ministries and departments; Kathmandu-based INGOs and national NGOs; Civil Society groups; natural resources users’ federations and networks;Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities; research and academic institutions; and professionals’ teams engaged in revision of forestry sector strategy, and formulation of national REDD+ strategy.

Regional level government and non-government stakeholders, and district level government line agencies, NGOs, Civil Society groups and other relevant agencies and individuals were consulted by organizing a day-long consultation workshop at each of the five development regions, and selected 15 districts across Nepal. Field level consultations were carried out by organizing community level meetings at 30 selected sites within the 15 selected districts (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4: Location of the regional and district level consultation workshops

2.4.2 Salient Features of the NBSAP

The NBSAP has been structured into six chapters, including: including: (i) introduction, (ii) the national context, (iii) threats to biodiversity, (iv) efforts to manage biodiversity and key outcomes, (v) strategy for management of biodiversity, (vi) arrangements for implementation of the strategy, and (vii) framework for local biodiversity strategy and action plan. The description and analysis of past efforts and achievements, and formulation of strategies and actions are focused around six


thematic areas and sectors: (i) protected areas, (ii) forests outside protected areas, (iii) rangelands, (iv) wetlands, (v) agriculture, and (vi) mountains. Cross-cutting themes, such as livelihoods, governance, gender and social inclusion, and climate change impacts and adaptations have been dealt separately.


Salient features of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Broad-based participation of stakeholders in its development. It is comprehensive and balanced in terms of thematic and sectoral coverage. It provides a clear analytical account of the past efforts, achievements and gaps. Gives due considerations to gender and social inclusion and emerging issues, such as climate change

and invasive alien species. Thematic strategies and targets are directly linked to priority actions, Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and

performance indicators. This will make implementation of the strategies and monitoring of the progress easier.

It includes strategies to minimize the current contentions and enhance complementarities between the protected area and participatory approaches to biodiversity conservation.

Identifies the current gaps in coverage and connectivity of existing protected area network and recommends the ways to fill those gaps.

It includes a plan and framework for managing biodiversity at the local level. It builds on and aims at consolidating the successful past efforts and achievements.

3. PROGRESS TOWARDS THE 2020 AICHI BIODIVERSITY TARGETS AND RELEVANT MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS

3.1 Background

In the CBD Conference of Parties’ tenth meeting (COP-10) held at Aichi of Nagoya, Japan, the Parties came up with a new plan and targets to conserve biodiversity and enhance its benefits to the people. The plan known as the “Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020” includes aset of 20 ambitious yet achievable targets, which are collectively known as the Aichi Targets. The targets are grouped into five strategic goals (CBD, 2010). As a Party to the CBD, Nepal has an obligation to prepare and implement strategies and actions to meet the Aichi Targets. Similarly, under Goal 7 of the MDGs (i.e. Ensure Environmental Sustainability), Nepal had targeted to integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources (NPC/UNDP, 2005).

In Nepal, systematic efforts to meet the Aichi Targets have just begun with the development of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP). The country has, however, already made substantial progress in conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity through formulation of enabling policies and strategies and design and implementation of various programmes. The following sections briefly describe the key efforts and outcomes that will contribute to meet the Aichi Targets and relevant MDGs.

3.2 Contribution of the Past Efforts

3.2.1 Awareness Raising(Aichi Target 1)

The awareness raising efforts in Nepal can be categorized into two broad groups: (i) raising awareness of local communities, and (ii) improving awareness of general public. Government line agencies, including district forest offices, and district agriculture offices have been implementing different training and other capacity building programmes for local user groups. Many NGOs are working with local communities to change local people’s attitudes towards biodiversity by helping them recognize the importance of conserving biodiversity for their own livelihoods and wellbeing. For example, the Red Panda Network has implemented conservation education programme in eastern mountain districts.Bird Conservation Nepal and Bird Education Society are working to build capacity of grassroots conservation groups at Important Bird Areas (BCN and DNPWC, 2011). Similar programmes have been implemented by FECOFUN, conservation area management committees, and buffer zone management councils to raise awareness among members of the local user groups.

Efforts towards improving awareness of general public include a broad range of activities. Some examples of such activities include: (i) radio programmes implemented by the Nepal Forum of Environmental Journalists (e.g. “Aankhi Jhyal”), Bird Conservation Nepal (“Panchhi Sansar”), and LI-BIRD (“Libird ko Chautari”), (ii) public awareness campaign on International Biodiversity Day, World Environment Day, National Conservation Day, World Wetlands Day, World Migratory Bird


Day and International Vulture Awareness Day, (iii) exhibitions, (iv) information boards, and (v) distribution of brochures and newsletters by different agencies. Print media and television programmes are making substantial contributions to raise awareness in recent years. Some individuals are also putting substantial efforts to raise awareness, especially about the importance of conserving threatened birds.

3.2.2Integration and Incorporation of Biodiversity Values (Aichi Target 2)

Progress in integration of biodiversity values into development plans, policies, strategies andsectoral programmes has so far been limited to inclusion of biodiversity and nature conservation in the development plans, polices and strategies. All the national development plans developed and implemented since 2002 have provisions related to biodiversity and environment.The Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal (2003) emphasizes environmental conservation as an integral component of poverty alleviation and sustainable economic growth. The Interim Constitution of Nepal (2007)recognizes the right of every person to live in a clean environment as a fundamental right, and asks the government to make special arrangements for the conservation of biodiversity, its sustainable use and equitable distribution of the benefits derived from it. The Constitution also obliges the state to pursue a policy aimed at identifying and protecting traditional knowledge, skills and practices. The implementation of those provisions, however, has remained poor. Mainstreaming of biodiversity has not yet been a national priority. No effort has yet been made to incorporate biodiversity values in government and corporate accounting systems. Lack of scientific evidence has made it difficult to convince the policy-makers aboutthe value of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

3.2.3Elimination of Perverse and Promotion of Positive Incentives (Aichi Target 3)

Several forms of disincentives related to conservation of both plant genetic resources (PGR) and animal genetic resources (AnGR) exist in the country. Provision of bank loan for improved varieties and breeds in crops and livestock, and restriction for marketing of seeds of farmers’ landraces and unreleased/unregistered varieties in crops are examples. The orientation of promoting exotic improved varieties and breeds has been changed and made in a way that the local species/varieties/breeds are promoted by the government sectors. This is supported by the national agriculture extension strategy (2007) which entails conservation of agrobiodiversity and as a result the Department of Agriculture has been implementing good practices (e.g. community based biodiversity management). This has contributed to the promotion of local genetic resources (GRs). The disincentives has been eliminated and positive incentives are created by several other policies such as National Agriculture Policy (2004); National Agrobiodiversity policy (2007); National seed vision (2011) as all these policies have made provisions for promotion of local GRs. Agriculture Development Strategy (ADS) though yet to be endorsed also entails the promotion of local GRs. However, the priority is still given for improved varieties and breeds at programme and implementation level.

Similarly, some of the policies, plans and programmes particularly of the forestry sector have been striving to address the perverse incentives by focusing on formulation of pro-biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services based policies and legislation. The Forest Act (1993) has, for example, tries to address some of such perverse incentives by providing legal recognition to


management of forests by communities. One of the biggest perverse incentives is provided by sectoral polices which focus on increasing infrastructure development and production by using biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services. Partial implementation of different policies and legislation also provide perverse incentives for loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystems. The National Planning Commission and Council of Ministers are best suited to address this issue.

Nepal is yet to embark on proper valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services which has resulted into the price charged for using biological resources and ecosystem services which leads to over-consumption even exploitation. Furthermore, establishing property rights can contribute to remove perverse incentives and manage biodiversity and ecosystems more sustainably.

3.2.4Sustainable Production and Consumption (Aichi Target 4)

The concept of sustainable production and utilization has been well incorporated in the national development plans as well as sectoral policies (e.g. Rangeland Policy 2012, National Wetland Policy 2012) and strategies developed in recent years. However, translation of those policy provisions into practice has been very limited. The concept has, to some extent, implemented by the departments under the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MFSC) in the management of community, leasehold and collaborative forests, conservation areas, and selected sub-watersheds. The Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal project implemented by the MFSC during 2008-2013 introduced the concept in the management of two Ramsar sites in southern Nepal. Hotels and resorts inside protected areas are required to take necessary measures towards sustainable consumptionof natural resources and dispose wastes within safe ecological limits.

3.2.5Reducing the Loss, Degradation and Fragmentation of Natural Habitats (Aichi Target 5)

Some of the main efforts related to achieving this target include: (i) substantial expansion of protected area which now covers 23.23 percent of the country’s land area, (ii) declaration of eight forests covering a total area of 133,754.8 ha as protected forests, (iii) substantial expansion of community forestry, leasehold forestry, and collaborative forest management programmes (iv) implementation of landscape management programmes in four important landscapes, namely the TAL, CHAL, SHL, and KSL, (v) implementation of the President Chure Conservation Programme in 26 districts located in the fragile Siwaliks range, and (vi) conservation of two wetland sites of international importance under the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal project.

The transformation of government managed forests into different forms of participatory forest management has been continuously increasing. In the process, 470,048 ha. additional national forest was handed over to 3,702 local user groups as community forest just in between 2008 and 2013. Similarly, 54,000 ha. national forest was brought under the collaborative management and another 25,450 ha. under the pro-poor leasehold forestry during the same period (DOF, 2013). Many studies have shown that forest degradation and loss has declined substantially and even reversed in many areas,particularly the Middle Mountainsafter successful implementation of the community forestry programme(see e.g. Gautam, 2006; Niraula et al., 2013).Some recent estimates have indicated decreasing trend of deforestation even in the Tarai (e.g. WECS, 2010). According to FAO (2010), the forest areain Nepal remained stable during 2005-2010. These are encouraging developments in


the context that the country experienced a very high rate (1.6% per year) of deforestation during 1979-1994 (LRMP, 1986; DFRS/FRISP, 1999).

The government has been promoting REDD+ as a mechanism to control forest loss and degradation since 2008. The Readiness Preparation Proposal(R-PP)prepared in 2010 has identified five activities for payment under REDD+ schemes: (i) reducing deforestation, (ii) reducing forest degradation, (iii) sustainable forest management, (iv) conservation of forest carbon, and (v) enhancement of forest carbon stock (MFSC, 2010).

Despite the above efforts loss and degradation of national forests in some regions (e.g. the Silwalik) is believed to be going on unabated. There is a general perception among the stakeholders that the rangelands and wetlands located outside protected areas are facing increasing degradation, although there is hardly any information to substantiate those perceptions.

3.2.6Sustainable Management of Aquatic Flora and Fauna (Aichi Target 6)

Enlisting of eight wetlands as Ramsar sites since 2003 was one of the key efforts related to meeting this target. The Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation implementeda wetland management project in two Ramsar sites, namely the Koshitappu Wildlife Reserve and Ghodaghodi lake complex under the UNDP/GEF-funded five year (2008-2013) project “Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal” (CSUWN). The overall objective of the project was to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the national wetland biodiversity, and environmental goods and services for improved livelihoods of the local people. The project also contributed tonational capacity building 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). The National Wetland Policy (2012) was formulated with support of the CSUWN project.

There have been a few other local initiatives. For example, the Rupa Lake Rehabilitation Fisheries Cooperative Ltd.in Kaski district has started a community based conservation of lake resources and its wise use programmewith the objective of lake restoration and biodiversity conservation. The main activities of the cooperative include: (i) cleaning the aquatic vegetation from the lake, (ii) harvesting exotic fishes without destroying the juveniles of native species, and (iii) controlling illegal fishing in the lake. The benefit from the fish harvest is shared among the beneficiaries on equitable basis. Certain percent of the net benefits are paid to the upland communities through a PES system.

3.2.7 Sustainable Management of Agriculture, Aquaculture and Forestry (Aichi Target 7)

The Department of Forests has started implementation of collaborative forest management in production forests of nine Tarai districts since 2004. So far, 19 collaborative forests, covering a total area of 54,072 ha., have been established. Forest management plans have been prepared and approved for all of those forests and scientific forest management has been initiated in some of the sites (e.g. Tilaurakot, Kapilvastu). Eight other Tarai forests, covering a total area of 26,608 ha., are planned to be added in the list of collaborative forests in 2013.


The community based forest management programmes exemplify some other initiatives taken by the government towards sustainable management of country’s remaining forest resources. Currently (i.e. as of June 2013), the community forestry programme covers 1.7 million hectares and the programme is continuously being expanded. The pro-poor leasehold forestry and buffer zone community forestry are other community based sustainable forest management programmes. The improvement in conditions of community managed forests has contributed positively to conservation of biodiversity and local livelihoods.

The government has also taken some other important initiatives towards sustainable management of forests and biodiversity. The Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MFSC) has been implementing the Rastrapati (i.e. President) Chure Conservation Programme in 26 districts (out of 33 districts in the Siwalik range). Protection of regeneration in 1,047 ha. highly critical forest areas, and establishment of 292 ha. plantation in critical areas are some of the achievements of the programme (DOF, 2013b). A tree improvement programmehas been implemented by the Department of Forests. A new programme called public land agro-forestry has been implemented in some districts in central Tarai.

In some Tarai districts (especially in central Nepal), many small agro-forestry plots have been established on public common lands. The plots, which are managed by local landless or poor people, usually possess a wide range of agriculture, horticulture and forest tree and other species. The initiative is led by the concerned district forest offices and, in some cases, supported by environmental NGOs.

The Department of Fisheries Development in collaboration with Department of Agriculture has initiated community based sustainable fisheries management in marginal swamps and oxbow lakes scattered across the Tarai. The wetlands are utilized for extensive aquaculture alongside conservation of biodiversity. There is, reportedly, meaningful participation of local indigenous communities in the initiative.

3.2.8 Reducing Pollution and Excessive Use of Fertilizer(Aichi Target 8)

The efforts to contribute reduction of pollution in the country have been made with some degree of success. For example, organic farming has been promoted with government guidelines and set principles and integrated pest management through farmers’ field school has been widely applied. Similarly, efforts for reducing excessive use of fertilizers have been made with success. Examples are initiation and implementation by the Government (i.e. MOAD) for providing subsidies for organic fertilizers for last two years is a good landmark in this direction. The establishment for organic industries at each development regions has been planned as per the organic fertilizer programme approved guided by the national fertilizer policy (2002). The policy also has the provision of promotion of integrated plant nutrient management system for the efficient and balance use of fertilizers where broadly fertilizer has been defined to include organic, chemical, and microbial.

3.2.9Controlling, Eradicating and Preventing Invasive Alien Species (Aichi Target 9)


The efforts to control, eradicate and prevent invasive alien species in Nepal are limited to: (i) manually clearing of invasive plants by forest user groups and farmers in community forests and farmlands, and (ii) a few studies carried out on different aspects of invasive alien species by IUCN Nepal and individual scholars (see e.g. Tiwari et al., 2005; Shrestha et al., 2010; Timsina et al., 2011; Rai et al., 2012; Rai and Scarborough, 2012).

3.2.10Minimizing Impacts of Anthropogenic Pressures and Climate Change on Vulnerable Ecosystems (Aichi Target 10)

In case of Nepal, mountain ecosystems can be considered more vulnerable than ecosystems in other regions because of high fragility of the mountain systems. Efforts to manage mountain biodiversity overlap with other thematic efforts, particularly with those related to protected areas, landscape management, and community based forest management.

Of the 20 protected areas that exist in Nepal, 13 are located in the mountains, which cover 84 percent of the total protected area in the country. Similarly, two biodiversity-rich mountain sites, namely Madhane and Panchase, have recently been declared as protected forests by the government.

The community forestry programme has been extensively and successfully implemented in the Middle Mountains where it has been generally successful in controlling or reversing the trends of deforestation and forest degradation. The government has been implanting landscape management programmes in two important mountain landscapes, namely the Sacred Himalayan Landscape, and Kailash Sacred Landscape. A consortium of I/NGOs led by WWF Nepal have started another landscape management programme in the Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape with the objectives of mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and local livelihoods. WWF Nepal, in partnership with Water and Energy Commission Secretariat, has started implementation of Integrated Water Resource Management in priority catchments of two sub-basins in the Koshi River

3.2.11Conservation of Areas having Particular Importance for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services(Aichi Target 11)

Nepal has already surpassed the target of at least 17 percent terrestrial area to be conserved. Currently, the country’s 23.23 percent (i.e. 34,185.6 sq. km) area is protected. The protected area network include 10 national parks, three wildlife reserves, one hunting reserve,six conservation areas, and 5602.67sq. km. buffer zone areas established around nine national parks.These actions have put Nepal in the top 20 countries in the world and second in Asia for the percentage of its surface area that is protected (USAID, 2012).

In addition to the protected areas, eight natural forests of high conservation significance have been declared as protected forests since 2002. Some of these forests are important wildlife corridors and the rest are rich in biodiversity. Three of them (Dhanushadham, Kankre Bihar and Panchase) also have historical and religious significance. Eight additional forests covering a total area of 223,107 ha. are in the process of being declared as protected forests in near future. Additional information on the protected areas and protected forests, including their locations, is presented in Chapter 1.


The Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation in collaboration with its development partners has been implementing landscape management programmes in three important landscapes, namely the Terai Arc Landscape, Sacred Himalayan Landscape, and the Kailash Sacred Landscape. Another landscape programme has been initiated by a consortium of INGOs and NGOs in the Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape since 2011 under USAID funding.These landscapes provide connectivity to several protected areas and have helped enhance ecologicalprocesses and conservation of endangered species. Location and spatial coverage of these landscapes is shown in Figure 2.1 (Chapter 2).

3.2.12Conservation of Threatened Species(Aichi Target 12)

Nepal has made significant efforts and achieved some notable successes in preventing extinction of threatened wild fauna and improving their conservation status. Some of the national efforts include: (i) expansion of protected areas targeting conservation of endangered flagship animal species (such as tiger, rhino, snow leopard, red panda, black buck), (ii) preparation and implementation of species conservation plans for some threatened species, (iii) curbing illegal trade in wild animal parts, (iv) broadening habitat of threatened species (e.g. rhino) through translocation of individuals to new areas, (v) establishment and management of a gharial crocodile breeding center in Chitwan, and vulture feeding centers at two locations (vi) monitoring of populations of some endangered wildlife species, and (vii) identification and conservation of Important Bird Areas.

Species conservation action plans have been prepared and implemented for conservation of some of the threatened species, including tiger, rhino, wild elephant, snow leopard, and vulture. Similar conservation plans for red panda, gharial crocodile, and blackbuck are being prepared at the moment.

Effective implementation of anti-poaching plans and activities and setting up of Wildlife Crime Control Bureau in Nepal Police are some of the steps the government together with its conservation partners took to control poaching and illegal trade of wildlife parts. Efforts were also made to enhance international cooperation to curb illegal trade in animal parts. The signing of a Memorandum of Understandingon environment and biodiversity conservation with People’s Republic of China on 3 June 2010 and signing of a joint resolution with the Government of Indiaon 19 July 2010 are examples. Formation of South Asia Wildlife Enforcement Networkon 19 May 2010 for a coordinated regional response to combat illegal wildlife poaching and trafficking is yet another initiative (Karki et al., 2011).

Systematic monitoring of populations of some other wildlife species, including snow leopard (Uncia uncia), gharial (Gavialis gangeticus), blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur), Himalayan tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus), guar (Bos gaurus) and swamp deer (Cervus duvaucelii) has been started since 2008 (WWF, 2012). Similarly, there have been regular surveys of globally threatened bird species which have provided much useful information on their population sizes, key sites, threats and conservation needs.

The above efforts have contributed towards not only saving species from extinction but also increasing populations of some mega wildlife species in recent years. For example, the population of the Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) increased continuously since 2009 (Figure 3.2;Acharya


and Dhakal, 2012; WWF, 2012; DNPWC, 2013).Similarly, population of rhino (Rhinocerus unicornis) in its main habitat the Chitwan National Park recovered from its lowest (i.e. 354) in 2006 to 503 in 2011 (Figure 3.3; DNPWC, 2009; DNPWC, 2011; Subedi et al., 2013). Some unconfirmed reports (e.g. Panthi, 2013) suggest impressive recovery of black buck population in Khairapur after the area was declared as a conservation area in 2010.

Some other key national level efforts towards conservation of threatened species include: (i) establishment and management ofagharial breeding center in Chitwan by the DNPWC, and (ii) conservation of endangered bird species through establishment of 27 Important Bird Areas across the country, which resulted decline in the number of vulnerable bird species from 61 to 50 in between 2004 and 2010 and decline in number of regionally extinct bird species from 10 to eight during the same period (BCN and DNPWC, 2011).

The government has taken initiatives to conserve the threatened species by declaring them as protected species. The list includes 27 species of mammals, nine species of birds, three species of reptiles, 14 species of angiosperms and four species of gymnosperms (Annex 3.1; Annex 3.2).

In addition to the national efforts described in the preceding paragraphs, there have been some local and sub-national initiatives aimed at conservation of threatened species in-situ or ex-situ. For example, the Red Panda Network has been active in conservation of endangered red panda (Ailurus fulgens) in Ilam, Panchthar, Taplejung and Sankhuwasabha districs, which comprise one of 11 red panda sub-population areas in Nepal. A community-managed Vulture Safe Feeding Site has been established by the Bird Conservation Nepal at Pithauli inNawalparasi district in 2007. A local NGO named Dolphin Conservation Centre has initiated community based conservation of dolphin (Platanista gangetica) in Mohana River and its tributaries (Pathriya, Kandaand Kanada) in western Nepal.

3.2.13Conservation of Agro-genetic Diversity(Aichi Target 13)


Figure 3.2: Changes population of tiger in Nepal

Figure 3.3: Changes in population of rhino in Chitwan National Park

Some of the key efforts include: (i) establishment and Management of National Agriculture Genetic Resource Centre (Gene Bank), and community gene or seed banks(ii) tissue culture programmes, and (iii) production and use of cattle and buffaloes semen. The Gene Bank has been established in 2010 at Khumaltar, Lalitpur under the management of Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC) with the objective of ex-situ conservation of agricultural genetic resources. NARC, through its National Potato Research Programme, has also been carrying out a separate tissue culture programme since last two decades to produce and supply pre-basic seeds of potato to farmers across the country (NPRP, 2011).

The Biotechnology Section of the National Herbarium and Plant Laboratory under the Department of Plant Resources has been carrying out tissue culture of some plants species thereby contributing to in-vitro conservation of plant germplasm in the country. By 2006, the section had carried out in-vitro propagation of around 70 species of plants including trees, orchids, fruits, vegetables, medicinal and aromatic plants and bamboo species (MFSC, 2006a).

The Animal Breeding Division, NARC and the National Livestock Breeding Centre under the Department of Livestock Services have been managing semen of cattle and buffaloes for improving dairy animals and their contribution to the economy. At both places, cryo-preservation technology is being applied. The programme at the moment has been focused on transboundary (exotic) breeds of cattle (jersey and holsteins) and murrah buffalo.

3.2.14Restoration and Safeguarding of Ecosystems, taking Into Account the Needs of Disadvantaged Social Groups (Aichi Target 14)

The community forestry and pro-poor leasehold forestry programmes, conservation area management programmes, and landscape management programmes are the main initiatives aimed at restoring and safeguarding ecosystems by taking into account the needs of indigenous and disadvantaged social groups. There is extensive involvement of local communities, including women, poor, and other disadvantaged social groups and indigenous communities in all these programmes.

Many studies have shown that the community forestry and other community based forest management programmes have not only helped reversed the trends of deforestation and forest degradation but also established traditional rights of the local people over the resources and contributed to biodiversity conservation, increased supply of forest products, empowered rural women, poor and the disadvantaged groups, promoted income generation and community development activities, and improved livelihoods of people in rural areas (Gautam et al., 2003; Gautam 2009; MFSC, 2013a; Niraula et al., 2013). Moreover, the community forest users’ groups are helping in inculcating spirit of democracy among the people, gender balance, social justice, societal empowerment and transformation (Kanel and Kandel, 2006).

The landscape management programmes implemented by the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation in collaboration with its development partners are other efforts towards meeting this target. Studies have shown that the Western Tarai Landscape Complex Project made substantial progress toward enhancing biodiversity assets and sustainable livelihoods, and modest progress in policy and institutional development. Some notable achievements have been reported in restoration


of forest, grassland and wetland habitats and increase in population of several important wildlife species, including tiger, swamp deer and blackbuck, and conservation of local varieties of crops (Acharya et al., 2010). Establishment of seed banks at the community level has empowered the communities in having access to seeds of local genetic resourcesand conserving those varieties (Shrestha et al., 2013). The wetlands management programme implemented in two Ramsar sites (Koshitappu and Ghodaghodi) helped improve the condition of the wetlands and associated livelihoods of the local indigenous communities (MFSC, 2013b).

3.2.15Conservation, and Restoration of Degraded Ecosystems to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation and Combating Desertification (Aichi Target 15)

In addition to the efforts and achievements described in the preceding section, the efforts specifically related to achieving this target include: (i) restoration of 42,773 ha. degraded forest land under the pro-poor leasehold forestry and forage development programme implemented in 52 districts across Nepal, (ii) promoting, since 2008, REDD+ and PES as mechanisms to control forest loss and degradation, (iii) implementation of Rastrapati (i.e. President) Chure Conservation programme in 26 districts, and (iv) the reforestation and afforestation programmes implemented by the government agencies and forest user groups across Nepal.

3.2.16Operationalization of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources by 2015 (Aichi Target 16)

Article 35(5) of the Interim Constitution of Nepal (2007) has emphasizedfor sustainable use of forest, vegetation and biodiversity and equitable distribution of the benefit derived from it. The government’s initiative to facilitate and regulate access and benefit sharing so far is limited to drafting of the Genetic Resources (access, use and sharing of benefits) Bill in 2008, which is yet to be finalized and enacted. Moreover, Nepal is yet to ratify the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing.

3.2.17Development and Implementation of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan by 2015 (Aichi Target 17)

National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, including a framework for management of biodiversity at the local level, has just been developed by the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation with supports from the GEF made available through UNEP, and broad-based involvement of the stakeholders. The NBSAP is in the process of being formally endorsed by the Council of Ministers1. The NBSAP development process is described in more detail in Chapter 2.

3.2.18Respecting the Traditional Knowledge, Innovations and Practices of Indigenous and Local Communities and Ensuring their Effective Participation at All Relevant Levels (Aichi Target 18)

Nepal’s ratification of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and ILO Convention 169 (Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention) shows the country’s commitment to the rights of indigenous nationalities. The commitment has also been reflected in Article 35 (18) of the Interim

1This statement assumes that the NBSAP process reaches to this stage by the time this report is submitted to the CBD.


Constitutional of Nepal (2007), according to which the state is to pursue a policy aimed at identifying and protecting traditional knowledge skills and practices. However, not much progress has been made towards translating those commitments into actions, except for documentation of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices associated with biological resources in few districts Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation with supports from IUCN, South Asia Watch and Trade Economics and Environment and LI-BIRD. The government is yet to take effective legal measures in this regard.

3.2.19Improving, Sharing, Transferring, and Applying the Science Base and Technologies Relating to Biodiversity (Aichi Target 19)

Efforts relating to this target are scattered across different agencies and sectors. The following are some examples. The Department of Plant Resources, in collaboration with some national and international agencies and funding support from the British Government's Darwin Initiative, has been implementing the Flora of Nepal Project. The project aims at developing a detailed catalogue of Nepal’s extraordinarily diverse but threatened flora using high-tech methods. Specifically the project is contributing to implementation of the CBD by: (i) enhancing national coordination and capacity building, through human resources, research and international cooperation, (ii) increasing support for biodiversity research, (iii) reflecting the state of biodiversity knowledge through identification and monitoring, (iv) strengthening the national biodiversity database network and facilitating information exchange, and (v) endorsing indigenous people's knowledge and innovations (Williams, 2005).

The Global Taxonomic Initiative Nepalhas been established with the objective of developing national taxonomic capacity on flora and fauna and developing network of national institutions working in this sector. The activities are to be carried out by an eleven-member steering committee coordinated by the Department of Plant Resources with representation from various institutions (DPR, 2007).

The Forest Research and Survey Department, with financial and technical supports from the Government of Finland made available through the Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) Project, has been conducting assessment of Nepal’s forest resources using high resolution satellite imageries supplemented by ground surveys. Identification and mapping of biodiversity rich areas is one of the activities of the FRA project.

3.2.20Mobilization of Financial Resources for Effective Implementation of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (Aichi Target20)

Successful implementation of the NBSAP is estimated to require nearly 3.5 times of the budget that is currently allocated to the biodiversity sector. Both the internal and external sources of funding are to be explored and mobilized to meet this requirement. As in the recent past, the bulk of the funding is expected to come from the Government of Nepal. Funding from the local governments (DDCs, VDCs and municipalities) could be another key source. NTNC-collected entry fee from visitors has remained one of the main sources of funding for implementing biodiversity management programmes in the Annapurna, Manaslu and Gaurishankar conservation areas, and this is expected to continue in future. In-kind contributions by local communitiesand contributions from private


corporate sector will be some other sources of internal funding. Grants, loans and technical assistance by international community will be the sources of external funding.

A major proportion of the future funding for biodiversity management is expected to come from the climate change stream. The government has introduced a climate change budget code from this year and has reportedly allocated 10.34 percent (5.8 % direct and 4.6% indirect) of its budget for the fiscal year 2013-2014 to climate funding. Some of the recently initiated donor funded projects and programmes, such as the ecosystems based adaptation project supported by UNDP and UNEP and the Hariyo Ban programme funded by USAID provide indication of increasing donor interest to support Nepal to mitigate the negative impacts of climate change on biodiversity.

3.3 Key Targets and Milestones set by the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Towards Meeting the Relevant Aichi Targets and MDGs

The NBSAP has formulated a number of strategic goals and targets to meet the Aichi Biodiversity targets and the Millennium Development Goal of ensuring environmental sustainability, by 2020. Each strategic goal is to be met through implementation of one or more specific strategies and a number of priority actions linked to each of the strategies. The strategieshave been grouped into the six biodiversity themes, namely protected area, forest, rangelands, wetlands, agriculture, and mountain. Cross-sectoral issues have been dealt separately. The strategic goals, strategies, and priority actions are designed to address the key national biodiversity threats, issues and gaps, alongside meeting the relevant Aichi Targets MDGs.

Aichi Target 1: By 2020, at the latest, people are aware of the values of biodiversity and the steps they can take to conserve and use it sustainably.

The NBSAP strategies for enhancing awareness are based on the lessons learned and built upon the successful past efforts of the government and non-government sectors. Strengthening national, district and local (VDC/municipality) level institutions for conservation and sustainable use of components of biodiversity is a major strategic plan. A number ofspecific strategies have been formulated and priorities for actions identified to meet this target. This, among other, includessetting up of a separate Biodiversity Management Division at the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, which will also act as the NBCC secretariat and national CBD Focal Point. The Biodiversity Management Division will take concrete steps to systematize the currently disorganized biodiversity information collection and sharing system.

Educating and raising awareness of the policy-makers, corporate houses, local communities and general public about the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services is to be done through effective communication, education and outreach programmes, and development and implementation of demonstration programmes. The communication, extension and outreach (CEO) strategy and the action plan included in the NBSAP have recommended a number of priority actions to be carried out by 2020. Some examples of such priority actions aimed at raising awareness on agrobiodiversity include: (i) creating awareness on the importance of genetic resources, (ii) raising awareness on the value agro-biodiversity and related policies and strategies, (iii) organizing exposure visits of farmers to biodiversity rich areas, (iv) effective dissemination of information


related to biodiversity, and (v) revising high school, college and university curricula by including biodiversity.

The CEO provides a framework for use by organizations and community groups while developing and implementing their own action plans based on the local ecological and socioeconomic context. If implemented successfully, the CEO strategy will enable mechanisms for sharing knowledge, building capacity, enhancing cooperation among relevant agencies at different levels.

The strategy for management of protected areas includes provision for improving awareness among the general public about the role and importance of protected areas through: (i) development of on-site lecturing, demonstration and interpretation infrastructure for selected protected areas, and (ii) improving web-based dissemination of information. Designing and implementation of programmes to raise awareness and build capacity of local FUGs in the corridors and buffer zone user groups for climate responsive management of the forests is another strategic action recommended by the NBSAP.

Aichi Target 2: By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems.

Mainstreaming of biodiversity has not yet been a national priority. One of the priority actions identified by the NBSAP for integration of biodiversity values into national and local policies, strategies plans and programmes relates to incorporation of conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components and prevention and control of loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystems in the mandate of Council of Ministers and all relevant ministries. Implementing this action will require amendment of Government of Nepal (Work Division) Regulations (2012).

Promoting evidence based decision making that also takes into account of biodiversity values requires better understanding of the country’s biodiversity and its direct and indirect contributions to the economy. The NBSAP has provisioned for gradually undertaking a comprehensive inventory of ecosystems and species throughout the country, and enhancement of national capacity for biodiversity research.Strengthening the knowledge and understanding for controlling invasive alien species by enhancing capacity for their identification, prevention, early detection and management is a part of knowledge generation and management strategy.A National Biodiversity Information Management System is to be established for collection and dissemination of biodiversity related data with clear protocols for data sharing. All donor projects will be required to lay out a plan for how they will make the data collected publicly accessible. This is expected to help enhance evidence based decision making that will also take account of biodiversity values.

Successful incorporation of biodiversity into development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and its incorporation into national accounting and reporting systems demands for improvement in the governance system.The NBSAP strives to improving biodiversity governance and management through: (i) mainstreaming biodiversity management in sectoral policies and plans such as energy, industry, irrigation and roads, (ii) improving relevant legislations, (iii) effective implementation of environment related provisions of different policies, strategies, and legislations, and (iv) promoting transparency, accountability and participation at different levels.


Promoting synergies among biodiversity related international conventions is another target to be met in the medium term (i.e. 5 years). The NBSAP has a strategy of formulating a separate legislation for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Development and implementation of programmes for conservation of biodiversity by DDCs and VDCs as per the provisions of the Local Self-governance Act 1999 [sections 189 (1) (G), and 28 (1) (H)]; development of a system for strategic environmental assessment; and ensuring its effective implementation are some other strategic actions recommended by the NBSAP.

Some actions recommended by the NBSAP to promote transparency include: (i) respecting right to information of individuals and communities by disseminating and providing information relating to biodiversity and environment, and (ii) ensuring involvement of citizens and citizen groups in the decision making related to conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components and fair and equitable benefit sharing at different stages.

Aichi Target 3: By 2020, at the latest, incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity are eliminated, phased out or reformed in order to minimize or avoid negative impacts, and positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are developed and applied, consistent and in harmony with the Convention and other relevant international obligations, taking into account national socio economic conditions.

So far, there has not been any serious effort in Nepal to identify incentives including subsidies that are harmful to biodiversity and try to reduce and eliminate them. The problem is exacerbated by lack of valuation and accounting of biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services. The NBSAP attempts to address this gap through formulation or improvement of relevant legislations. Harmonizing the sectoral policies, plans and programmes and even legislation to avoid any perverse incentives is another strategic measure recommended by NBSAP.

The strategy related to further consolidating and promoting on-farm conservation of genetic resources is expected to create or enhance positive incentives for conservation of agrobiodiversity. The strategic actions relted to management of forest biodiversity will also promote incentive-based resource management such as enterprise oriented community forestry which would link enterprise creation to forest management in an effort to ensure the sustainable use of forest resources by making local communities responsible for protecting and monitoring the resources which they are managing and subsequently harvest/sell them. Thus the focus is on empowering the communities or FUGs to operate the enterprises and manage the forest through capacity building to community members, supported by the implementation of both a forest management plan and an enterprise development plan. NBSAP also recommends establishing and implementation of a system of proper valuation and accounting of biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services. Moreover, adequate incentive programmes to compensate local communities for the loss of cattle and crops destroyed by wildlife or reward the presence of wild animals on private lands through public payments is to be implemented.

Aichi Target 4: By 2020, at the latest, Governments, business and stakeholders at all levels have taken steps to achieve or have implemented plans for sustainable production and consumption and have kept the impacts of use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits.


Strategies and priority actions relating to sustainable production and use of biological resources have been included in the set of strategies related to management of forests, rangelands, wetlands, mountains and agrobiodiversity. Strategies such as, promoting scientific management of forests to improve forest productivity, biodiversity conservation, and climate resilience; supporting and improving community based forest governance and management; and promoting sustainable management of NTFPs are examples of forest management strategies related to this target.

The rangeland management strategy includes development of appropriate legislation for conservation and sustainable use of rangelands biodiversity. The strategy for management of wetland biodiversity has recommended for development of a national programme for conservation and wise use of wetlands. The NBSAP has also recommended for further strengthening and promotion of successful practices initiated by the recently completed Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal project. The strategy for managing mountain biodiversity strives to enhancing environmental governance to drive green economy. The agrobiodiversity strategy has included provisions for promotion of indigenous traditional knowledge, skills and practices, and development and implementation of programmes for improving and promoting local species, varieties or breeds for contributing to food security.

Aichi Target 5: By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced.

Priority action for addressing the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation include: (i) directing infrastructure expansion into non-forest lands, (ii) controlling illegal harvest and trade of timber and other forest products through effective enforcement of the law, (iii) promoting and enhancing alternative livelihoods to reduce demand for agriculture land, (iv) promoting private forestry and agro-forestry on private and community lands as alternative sources of forest products, (v) promoting alternatives to woodfuel (e.g. green energy, bio-briquette) and promoting more efficient forest products utilization technologies such as bio-briquette, improved stoves, particle board, and improved harvest, storage and processing of NTFPs, and (vi) developing and implementing plans to significantly reduce forest fires.

Four concrete priority actions have been identified for controlling further loss and degradation of Siwalik forests by making it a priority strategy of the central and local governments (i.e. DDCs, VDCs). Some of these actions include: (i) adopting “conservation with the people”, “limited harvest” and “zero grazing” approach in the management of Siwalik forests, (ii) endorsing implementing the draft Chure Conservation Strategy, (iii) designing and implementation of integrated plans for conservation and development of Siwaliks by the relevant DDCs, VDCs, and municipalities, and (iv) identifying priority areas, and preparing and implementing conservation plan for more effective implementation of Rastrapati Chure Conservation Programme.

Other key strategies include: (i) removing or legalizing as per the country’s Law, at least 50 percent of the existing illegal settlements and cultivations in forestland by 2020, and stopping new encroachment, (ii) stopping mining of stone, gravel and sand from rivers, streams and other areas


within forest, (iii) promoting scientific forest management, (iv) scaling up the impacts of leasehold forestry, and (v) implementation of PES, and REDD+ where feasible, are other main strategies.

Improvement in contiguity and connectivity of protected area systems is to be achieved through: (i) establishment and conservation-friendly management of community, co-managed or protected ecological corridors, bottlenecks and climate refugia, and (ii) restoration of degraded forest, rangeland, and wetland habitats located in corridors, bottlenecks and climate refugia.

Improvement in forest and protected area governance and management through: (i) reviewing, and if necessary, revising the organizational structure and staffing of the DNPWC, (ii) enhancing law enforcement capacities of the DOF and DNPWC staff, and training to the local communities for enhancing biodiversity conservation and livelihoods, (iii) Effectively implement the existing forest and protected area management plans and species conservation plans, and (vi) bringing stronger commitments and enhancing capacity of front-line DOF and DNPWC staff (rangers) to stop forest loss and degradation.

Designing and implementation of an integrated landscape management strategy that focuses on local, community-led actions to solve resource management, biodiversity conservation, and climate change challenges has been recommended. Identification and promotion of appropriate land use (e.g. agroforestry, private forestry in marginal lands) and land management systems (e.g. SALT) to improve biodiversity conservation, control watersheds degradation and reduce pressure on forests is another key strategy included for management of landscapes. The strategy for controlling degradation of rangelands includes pastoral development and management through integrated approach for reducing pressure on rangelands.

Aichi Target 7: By 2020 areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity.

Successful implementation of the NBSAP will promote scientific management of forests for effective conservation of biodiversity, to maximize the benefits of the forestry sector to the full potential, and enhancing resilience of forests to negative impacts of climate change. Another key strategy for management of forest biodiversity includes mandatory inclusion of a biodiversity chapter in the district, community forest, collaborative forest, and leasehold forest management plans. The chapter will have specific provisions for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and DFOs, CFUGs, Collaborative FUGs, and Leasehold FUGs will be implementing those provisions. If implemented successfully, this strategic action will be crucial in scaling up biodiversity conservation into broader geographical space, and beyond the protected areas.

The NBSAP aims at prioritizing the conservation and wise use of wetlands located outside protected areas with meaningful and inclusive participation of local communities. Mismanagement, over extraction of resources, infestation of invasive species, pollution will be minimized through sustainable management practices. Sustainable utilization of wetlands will be the integral part of biodiversity conservation. Comprehensive criteria, such as controlling conversion of wetlands to other use, prevention of pollution and invasion of alien species and equitable use of water and other resources will be developed and enforced. Other potential wetland sites will be included in the Ramsar list.


Aichi Target 8: By 2020, pollution, including from excess nutrients, has been brought to levels that are not detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity.

The strategy for improving and expanding on-farm conservation supported by strengthening community based biodiversity management in the form of actions plan in the NBSAP (2014) will have clearly addressed this by promoting local and appropriate management practices e.g. encouraging use of compost and green manure and other locally available organic fertilizers; promoting local GRs, which can fit well with limited chemical fertilizers; promoting locally adapted species/varieties/breeds that are environment friendly etc. The IPM as an important action has been proposed in the NBSAP, which will contribute greatly to reduce pollution from excess nutrients.

Aichi Target 9: By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identified and prioritized, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction and establishment.

Some of the priority actions provisioned by the NBSAP to control Invasive Alien Species (IAS) by 2020 include: (a) carrying out detail survey of the coverage and research on modes and pathways of propagation, ecological and economic damage and loss, control measures, and possible uses of at least five most problematic IAPS that have posed high threat to native species and habitats, (b) developing and implementing programme to raise awareness of local people on identification of IAS, their impacts and control techniques, (c) identification and use biological control agents, and (iv) providing technical assistance to local people in the control and management of IAS.

Department of Plant Resources, NARC and Central Department of Botany, Tribhuwan University will work closely and in cooperation with international organizations such as the CBD, Global Invasive Species Information Network, and or Global Invasive Species Programme of DIVERSITAS to develop Invasive Plant Atlas for identification, early detection, prevention and management of invasive alien plants.

Aichi Target 10:By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable ecosystems impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimized, so as to maintain their integrity and functioning.

The strategy and priority actions for managing mountain ecosystems and biodiversity are aimed at conserving critical ecosystems and species and ensuring the continued supply of mountain ecosystem goods and services that are critical to both upstream and downstream human and other biological communities.

The NBSAP strategies for the mountains are grouped into two strategic goals, namely: (i) enhanced understanding of mountain biodiversity and ecosystem services, and (ii) environment-friendly economic development. Generating and strengthening knowledge on the ecology of mountain ecosystems; promoting alternative livelihoods opportunities;building infrastructure for green development; enhancing environmental governance to drive green economy; strengthening implementation mechanisms; promoting public–private partnerships; andconsolidating diverse


funding mechanisms for biodiversity management, climate change, and sustainable development are some of the key strategies.

Aichi Target 11: By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascapes.

Nepal has already surpassed this target by putting 23.23 percent (i.e. 34,185.62 sq. km) of her land area under protection. The country does not have any coastal or marine area. Some of the strategies provisioned by the NBSAP to establish and strengthen ecological connectivity include: (i) establishment and conservation-friendly management of ecological corridors, bottlenecks and climate refugia outside protected area, (ii) restoration of degraded forest, rangeland, and wetland habitats located in corridors, bottlenecks and climate refugia, (iii) facilitation of wildlife movements between key adjacent habitats, and (iv) designing and implementation of an integrated landscape management strategy that focuses on local, community-led actions to solve resource management, biodiversity conservation, and climate change challenges.

Some priority actions to implement the strategies include: (a) identification of important corridors, bottlenecks and climate refugia across the country (especially, north-south corridors), (b) development and implementation of conservation oriented forest management plans by local forest user groups located in the corridors, bottlenecks and climate refugia, (c) awareness raising, and capacity building of the local forest user groups in the corridors for conservation-friendly management of the forests, (d) planning and implementation of reforestation and afforestation programmes by district forest offices and communities to restore degraded sites, (e) expansion of protected forest where necessary and feasible, and (f) building “overpass and underpass” in key areas (e.g. along the highway in Barandabhar corridor in Chitwan) to allow free movement of wildlife species.

Aichi Target 12: By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.

The protected area management strategy of the NBSAP has included provision for improvement and expansion of conservation of priority ecosystems (with highest level of species diversity) and species (with highest level of endemism and endangerment). This is to be achieved through: (i) effective implementation of the existing protected area management plans and species conservation plans, (ii) identification of ecosystems and species needing priority conservation actions, and (iii) development and implementation of conservation plans for more priority ecosystems and species.

Development and implementation of mechanisms to reduce human-wildlife conflicts is another important strategy in the NBSAP aimed at protecting threatened species, which is to be achieved through: (a) reviewing and, if necessary, revising the current policy and administrative procedure related to compensating the loss and damage of human life and property by wildlife, and (b) managing and controlling illegal settlements inside protected areas.


The NBSAP has a strategic goal of abating poaching and illegal trade of wildlife parts. This is to be achieved by bringing stronger commitments and enhancing capacity of front-line staff (rangers) to stop wildlife crime; heightening coordinated efforts between enforcement agencies; and designing and implementing more community based programmes to elevate awareness.It has also recommended restructuring and improving the mandate of the district level Wildlife Crime Control Bureau to significantly reduce the illegal trade of flora and fauna from outside protected areas. Similarly, it includes a strategy and a number of priority actions to prevent the extinction of threatened and endanger species of crops and animals.

Aichi Target 13: By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguardingtheir genetic diversity.

One of the strategic goals for management of agro-biodiversity included in the NBSAP relates to improving and expandingthe existing on farm conservation and use of agricultural genetic resources. A number of priority actions have been recommended to realize this goal. The medium term strategic goal also includes a provision for furthering strengthening the existing collection, conservation, rejuvenation, characterization, and documentation capacities of the national Gene Bank for improved and expanded ex-situ conservation of agricultural genetic resources.Enhanced networking and collaboration with relevant stakeholders at national, regional and international levels is another key strategy included in the NBSAP.The strategy for management of forest biodiversity includes a provision for restoration and recovery of economically and socially valuable wild species through in-situ and ex-situ conservation actions.

Aichi Target 14: By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are restored and safeguarded, taking into account the needs of women, indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable.

The NBSAP strategies to meet this target include: (i) development of legal base for access to genetic resources and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits, and (ii) development and institutionalization of a system of payment for ecosystem services, (iii) filling the policy and legislative gaps related to access and benefit sharing andintellectual property rights,(iv) providing continuity to documenting traditional knowledge, innovations and practices associated to biological resources, and (v) protecting traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities.

Restoration of degraded forest, rangeland and wetland habitats inside protected areas; reclaiming and restoring encroached forestlands and controlling further encroachment; reversing or at least controlling the loss and degradation of Siwalik forests by making it a priority of the central and local governments (i.e. DDCs, VDCs); scaling up the coverage and impacts of leasehold forestry; and implementation of afforestation and reforestation programmes by government line agencies and user groups are some specific strategies aimed at restoring degraded forest ecosystems.

Aichi Target 15: By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15


per cent of degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification.

The short-term and medium-term strategies of the NBSAP to meet this target include: (i) abating deforestation and forest degradation, (ii) planning and implementation of reforestation and afforestation schemes, (iii) designing and implementation of targeted programmes to promote agroforestry and private forestry, particularly on marginal and abandoned farmlands, and (iv)implementation of PES and REDD+ where feasible. A number of priorities for actions have been indentified to translate the strategies into actions.

Other strategies for mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change include: (i) developing knowledge base to broaden temporal and spatial perspectives and possible risks of climate change on biodiversity, (ii) incorporating climate change adaptation measures in the design and implementation of biodiversity management programmes, (iii) identifying, conserving and promoting ecological corridors and landscape connectivity to enable movement of species in the context of climate change, (iv) envisioning and planning for possible translocation of species that are restricted to confined habitat types or have low reproductive rates, (v) promoting non-conventional energy sources, such as biogas, solar energy, and small hydropower, where feasible, (vi) promoting scientific management of production forests, which will help forest managers to reduce the risk of damage and possible losses from changing climatic conditions and also to undertake effective mitigation actions, and (v) enhancing the capacities of actors to manage and learn from climatic events.

Aichi Target 16: By 2015, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization is in force and operational, consistent with national legislation.

Examples of priority actions recommended in the NBSAP to achieve this target include: (a) finalization and enactment of Genetic Resources (access, use and sharing of the benefits) Bill in order to provide legal base for access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization, and (b) development of sui generis legislation for protection of plant varieties with the aim to provide legal ownership to farmers for their varieties and knowledge and also substantive rights provided to the farmers by the Agro-biodiversity Policy 2007.

Aichi Target 17: By 2015 each Party has developed, adopted as a policy instrument, and has commenced implementing an effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan.

The Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, as the national focal agency for CBD, is in the process of finalizing the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP). The NBSAP has been prepared by taking into account of the national needs and Nepal’s obligation to fulfill its commitment made at theCOP-10 meeting of the CBD held at Aichi of Nagoya, Japan.

Aichi Target 18: By 2020, the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and their


customary use of biological resources, are respected, subject to national legislation and relevant international obligations, and fully integrated and reflected in the implementation of the Convention with the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities, at all relevant levels.

One of the NBSAP strategies to meet this target relates to enacting a new intellectual property rights legislation by 2018, which would provide legislative measures for prior art, geographical indication and also adequate protection for indigenous and local communities’ rights by patenting the products developed by utilizing their bio-cultural heritage including knowledge, innovations and practices.

One of the priority actions identified for protection of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities is to extend support to the National Foundation for Development of Indigenous Nationalities and Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities to protect and promote to traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and their customary use of biological resources.

Aichi Target 19: By 2020, knowledge, the science base and technologies relating to biodiversity, its values, functioning, status and trends, and the consequences of its loss, are improved, widely shared and transferred, and applied.

The NBSAP’s medium term strategies related to this target are grouped into two broad strategic goals, namely: (A) reducing the knowledge gap on biodiversity, and (B) establishment of an efficient Biodiversity Information Management System (BIMS). The specific strategies to meet these goals include: (i) gradually undertaking comprehensive inventory of ecosystems and species throughout the country, (ii) building government and civil societies’ ability to gather and synthesize information necessary for informed decision-making, (iii) establishment of a national BIMS with clear protocols for data sharing, (iv) setting up of a system where all relevant agencies (including donor projects) will be required to lay out a plan for how they will contribute their data to the BIMS and also make the data collected publicly accessible. Moreover, the monitoring and evaluation strategies, if implemented successfully, will greatly promote evidence based decision making.

Aichi Target 20: By 2020, at the latest, the mobilization of financial resources for effectively implementing the Strategic Plan 2011-2020 from all sources and in accordance with the consolidated and agreed process in the Strategy for Resource Mobilization should increase substantially from the current levels. This target will be subject to changes contingent to resources needs assessments to be developed and reported by Parties.

The NBSAP has identified eight specific cost categories and 11 possible internal and external sources of funding for its implementation. Government funding will remain the major source of funding. Some of the specific sources include: (i) recycling of government revenues collected from biodiversity-related products and services (such as wood and non-wood forest products, tourism, trekking, mountaineering fees etc), (ii) donations by private sector, (iii) contributions by NGOs and CBOs, (iv) investment by private sector (e.g. ecotourism, micro-hydropower), (v) in-kind cooperation by local communities, (vi) technical assistance by international community, (vii) grants from bilateral and multi-lateral donor agencies, and (viii) loan from international bodies. NTNC-collected entry fee from visitors has remained and will be one of the main sources of funding for


implementing biodiversity management programmes in the conservation areas. Funding from REDD+ and other climate change streams is expected to be a major source in future.

3.4 Summary of National Indicators

Awareness raising (Aichi Target 1)1. Change in level of participation of women, disadvantaged and indigenous peoples and local

communities in biodiversity conservation activities2. Number of events organized to raise awareness and capacity development programmes 3. Proportion of DFOs and FUGs giving priority to native and threatened species4. Number of CEPA materials 5. Change in knowledge, attitude and capacity of stakeholders (government and non government)

towards biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services6. Changes in number of awareness raising events and infrastructure (such as on-site lecturing,

demonstration and interpretation facilities in protected areas)7. Changes in number and type of research based publications (books, journal articles, scientific reports,

proceedings of conferences etc)Integration and incorporation of biodiversity values (Aichi Target 2)

1. Number and proportion of new and revised sectoral and cross-sectoral policies, plans, strategies, legislations and programmesthat have integrated biodiversity

2. Changes in the accounting systems adopted by NPC and Ministry of Finance while assessing sectoral contributions to national economy (GDP)

3. Changes in level of funding for conservation agencies and programmes4. Number of DDC, VDC and municipality integrating biodiversity in respective district and village

development plans 5. Changes in legal status and functioning of the NBCC and capacity of its secretariatElimination of Perverse and Promotion of Positive Incentives (Aichi Target 3)1. Changes in existence, scale and implementation status of perverse and positive incentive measures2. Number of sectoral polices, plans and legislations harmonized3. Measures taken to establish and implement a system of proper valuation and accounting of biodiversity and ecosystem servicesSustainable Production and Consumption (Aichi Target 4)

1. Number of management plans developed and implemented for sustainable production and consumption of forest, agriculture, rangelands, wetlands and other renewable natural resources

2. Number and proportion of carrying capacity-based species and habitat management plans developed and implemented by protected areas

3. Number of protected areas having and implementing ecotourism plansReducing the Loss, Degradation and Fragmentation of Natural Habitats (Aichi Target 5)

1. Changes in the rate of deforestation and forest degradation 2. Change in patchiness of key forest habitats (e.g. Shape Complexity Index)3. Change in forest area under encroachment4. Change in community managed forest area5. Change in forest area under scientific management6. Change in number, area and quality of habitat corridors7. Type and scale of measures taken to control invasive alien species8. Area reforested/afforested9. Number of PES and REDD+ schemes implemented and area coveredSustainable Management of Aquatic Flora and Fauna (Aichi Target 6)


Numberand coverage of wetlands added to the list of Ramsar sites Number and coverage of sustainable wetland management plans developed and implemented Type and scale of measures taken to control invasive alien plant and animal species Type and scale of measures taken to control pollution of water bodies Changes in status of ex-situ conservation of aquatic animalsSustainable Management of Agriculture, Aquaculture and Forestry (Aichi Target 7)

1. Change in organic-certified agricultural area2. Change in status (coverage, number of activities and quality) of community based conservation of

agroiodiversity 3. Change in community managed forest area4. Change in forest area under scientific management5. Changes in scale, type and quality of aquaculture managementReducing Pollution and Excessive Use of Fertilizer(Aichi Target 8)

1. Proportion of farmers in selected sample sites who are using fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides in prescribed levels

2. Changes in physical and biological conditions of the Ramsar sites and other important wetlands3. Change in spatial coverage and intensity of water hyacinth and other invasive aquatic plants in selected

wetlandsControlling, Eradicating and Preventing Invasive Alien Species (Aichi Target 9)1. Type and number of measures taken to control invasive alien species2. Number and coverage of strategies and plans developed for management of invasive and alien species and status of their implementation Minimizing Impacts of Anthropogenic Pressures and Climate Change on Vulnerable Ecosystems (Aichi Target 10)1. Number of climate resilient plans developed with considering climate risks and implemented by DNPWC, CA committees, and BZ councils2. Number and quality of initiatives aimed at conserving critical mountain ecosystems and species3. Change in level of publications on mountain biodiversity and ecosystem services4. Initiatives for environment-friendly economic development5. Number, coverage and quality of forest management plans that have integrated climate change risks and prescribed measures for mitigation and adaptation of climate change impacts on species and habitatsConservation of Areas having Particular Importance for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Aichi Target 11)

1. Number and quality of measures taken to enhance connectivity between adjacent habitats 2. Changes in status of conservation of Middle Mountain ecosystems3. Change in coverage and quality of landscape management4. Change in coverage and quality of protected forests5. Number and coverage of community forests with conservation-friendly management plans and status

of their implementationConservation of Threatened Species(Aichi Target 12)

1. Changes in population of threatened animal and plant species2. Changes in number of poaching events3. Proportion of DFOs and FUGs giving priority to native and threatened species in seedlings production

and plantation schemes4. Changes in number of conflicts between threatened fauna and human5. Number and proportion of threatened species under ex situ conservation6. Changes in status of threatened species/breeds/varieties of crop, horticulture and livestock Conservation of Agro-genetic Diversity(Aichi Target 13)

1. Changes in number and trends of conserved local crop landraces and animal breeds2. Changes in number and quality of plant and animal germplasm collected and stored in the national and


community gene banksRestoration and Safeguarding of Ecosystems, taking Into Account the Needs of Disadvantaged Social Groups (Aichi Target 14)

1. Change in number and coverage of leasehold forests2. Proportion of CFUGs and collaborative groups implementing specific livelihood enhancement

programmes3. Changes in number and quality of NTFP-based and other green micro-enterprises operational at the

local level4. Change in participation of women and disadvantaged social groups in CBFM5. Number of NTFP species management plan developed and implemented by DFOs6. Number of events organized to raise awareness and enhance capacity of women and other

disadvantaged social groups7. Gender and social inclusion strategies/guidelines for biodiversity management and benefit sharing8. Participation of local and indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation and managementConservation, and Restoration of Degraded Ecosystems to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation and Combating Desertification (Aichi Target 15)

1. Area of degraded forest conserved 2. Number and area of REDD+ schemes/projects3. Number and area of climate vulnerable watershed restored 4. Status of integration of adaptation measures in landscape/ecosystems/watershed management Operationalization of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources by 2015 (Aichi Target 16)Status of the Genetic Resources (access, use and sharing of the benefits) BillDevelopment and Implementation of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan by 2015 (Aichi Target 17)

1. Status of development and implementation of the NBSAP 2. Number of DDC, VDC and municipality having and implementing local biodiversity management

plansRespecting the Traditional Knowledge, Innovations and Practices of Indigenous and Local Communities and Ensuring their Effective Participation at All Relevant Levels (Aichi Target 18)1. Status of sui generis legislation for protection of plant varieties with the aim to provide legal ownership to farmers2. Progress towards ratification and implementation of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources3. Status of the National Intellectual Property PolicyImproving, Sharing, Transferring, and Applying the Science Base and Technologies Relating to Biodiversity (Aichi Target 19)

1. Status of the Flora of Nepal Project 2. Number and quality of inventory onecosystems and species3. Number of exploratory surveys conducted in areas with possible existence of endangered wildlife

species4. Changes in level of funding for biodiversity research and education5. Changes in status of the National Clearing House Mechanism6. Establishment and operationalization of National Biodiversity Information Management SystemMobilization of Financial Resources for Effective Implementation of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (Aichi Target 20)Changes in level of funding for management of forest biodiversity, wetland biodiversity, rangeland biodiversity and agrobiodiversity


REFERENCES

Acharya, D. P., Bajimaya, S. and Ferguson, A., 2010. Mid-term Evaluation of Western Terai Landscape Complex Project. United Nations Development Programme, Nepal. Available online at: www.undp.org/content/.../WTLCP_MTE_Final_Report_Nov_30th.doc(accessed on 03 Nov. 2013).

Acharya, K.P. and Dhakal, M. (eds.), 2012. Biodiversity Conservation in Nepal: A Success Story. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Babarmahal, Kathmandu.

Baral, H. S. and Inskipp, C., 2009. The birds of Shukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Our Nature 7: 56-81. Available online at: http://www.nepjol.info/index.php (Accessed on 22 October 2013).

BCN and DNPWC, 2011. The State of Nepal’s Birds 2010. Bird Conservation Nepal (BCN) and Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), Kathmandu.

Bhandari, B., 1998. An inventory of Nepal’s Terai Wetlands, IUCN Nepal, Kathmandu.

Bhatta, M.R., B. K. Joshi and D. Gauchan, 2012. National Gene Bank, Multilateral System and Community Seed Banks for Conservation and Utilization of Agricultural Genetic Resources. Paper presented in National Workshop on Community Seed Bank, held on June 28-30, 2012, Pokhara, Nepal.

Bhattarai, N. D., Chaudhary, R. C., Magar, G. and Kumal, G., 2011. Annual Progress Report 2011 (Palpa Hub Office). Technical Assistance for Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Program.

Biodiversity Profile Project, 1995.Biodiversity Profile of the Midhills Physiographic Zone. Technical Publication No. 13, Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation and Government of the Netherlands, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

CBD, 2010. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Targets. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Available online at: http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268 (accessed on 21 April 2013).

CBS, 2011. Third Nepal Living Standards Survey 2010-11. Statistical Report (in two volumes). Central Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.

CBS, 2012. Environment Statistics of Nepal, 2011. Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), Government of Nepal, Kathmandu. Available at: http://cbs.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/environment_book_final.pdf(accessed on 25 August 2013).

CSUWN, 2010. Wetland-Resource Book. Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal (CSUWN) Project, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu.

CSUWN, 2011. Wetlands Invasive Alien Species Management Guidelines. Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal (CSUWN) Project, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu.


http://cbs.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/environment_book_final.pdf

http://www.nepjol.info/index.php

DFRS/FRISP, 1999. Forest Resources of Nepal (1987-1998), Publication No. 74. Department of Forest Research and Survey/Forest Resource Information System Project (DFRS/FRISP). Government of Nepal and FRISP, the Government of Finland.

DNPWC, 2000. Rhino Count 2000 Initial Report (unpublished). Department of National Parks and wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), Kathmandu.

DNPWC, 2005. Annual Progress Report 2004-2005. Department of National Parks and wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), Kathmandu.

DNPWC, 2009. The Status and Distribution of the Greater One-Horned Rhino in Nepal. Department of National Parks and wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), Kathmandu.

DNPWC, 2011. Annual Progress Report 2010-2011. Department of National Parks and wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), Kathmandu.

DNPWC, 2012. Annual Report 2011-2012 (in Nepali). Department of National Parks and wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), Kathmandu.

DNPWC, 2013. Tiger Count 2013 (unpublished office record). Department of National Parks and wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), Kathmandu.

DOF 2013a. CFUG Database Record Available in MIS (unpublished). Department of Forest (DOF), Babarmahal, Kathmandu, Nepal.

DOF, 2013b. Hamro Ban 2011/2012(Annual Progress Report in Nepali). Department of Forests (DOF), Babarmahal, Kathmandu.

DOF, 2013c. Forestry Database (unpublished data available on request). Department of Forests (DOF), Babarmahal, Kathmandu.

DOR, 2010. Statistics of Strategic Road Networks (SSRN 2009/10). Department of Roads (DOR), Kathmandu.

DPR, 2007. Global Taxonomic Initiative (GTI): Nepal (unpublished draft). Department of Plant Resources (DPR), Kathmandu, Nepal.

Gautam, A. P., 2006. Combining geomatics and conventional methods for monitoring forest conditions under different governance arrangements. Journal of Mountain Science 3(4): 325-333.

Gautam, A. P., 2009.Equity and Livelihoods in Nepal's Community Forestry. International Journal of Social Forestry 2(2): 101-122.

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, 2001. Nepal Gazette (12 February 2001). Government of Nepal.


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

ICIMOD, 2004. Biodiversity and Livelihoods in the Hindu Kush Himalayan Region. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) Newsletter, No. 45, Kathmandu.

ICIMOD, 2008. Biodiversity Conservation in the Kangchenjunga Landscape. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) Newsletter, No. 45, Kathmandu.

ICIMOD and MOEST, 2007. Nepal Biodiversity Resource Book. Protected Areas, Ramsar Sites, and World Heritage Sites. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) and Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology (MOEST), Kathmandu in cooperation with UNEP Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.

Inskipp, C. and Inskipp, T., 1991. A Guide to the Birds of Nepal. Croom Helm, London, UK.

IPCC, 2007. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. In: Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., van der Linden, P. J. and Hanson, C. E. (eds.) 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

IUCN, 2004. A review of the status and threats to wetlands in Nepal. IUCN Wetland and Water Resources Programme. IUCN, the World Conservation Union.

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.

Joshi, 2013. A Brief Overview of Community Seed Bank Initiatives in Nepal. In:Shrestha P., R. Vernooy and P. Chaudhary (eds.). Community Seed Banks in Nepal: Past, Present, Future. Proceedings of a National Workshop, LI-BIRD/USC Canada Asia/Oxfam/The Development Fund/IFAD/Bioversity International, 14-15 June 2012, Pokhara, Nepal. Pp 41-46.

Jnawali, S.R., Baral, H.S., Lee, S., Acharya, K.P., Upadhyay, G.P., Pandey, M., Shrestha, R., Joshi, D., Laminchhane, B.R., Griffiths, J., Khatiwada, A. P., Subedi, N., and Amin, R. (compilers), 2011. The Status of Nepal Mammals: The National Red List Series. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Kathmandu.

Kanel, K.R. and B. R. Kandel, 2006. Achievements and Challenges of Community Forest. Hamro Ban, Department of Forests, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu.

Karki, J. B., S. R. Jnawali, G. Gurung, M. B. Pandey and G. P. Upadhyay, 2011. Tiger Conservation Initiatives in Nepal. The Initiation, 4:56-68.

Kunwar, R. M., Shrestha, K., Dhungana, S. K., Shrestha, P. R. and Shrestha, K. K., 2010. Floral biodiversity of Nepal: An update. Journal of Natural History Museum, 25: 295-311.

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


http://books.icimod.org/demo/uploads/ftp/Nepal%20Biodiversity%20Resource%20Book.pdf

http://books.icimod.org/demo/uploads/ftp/Nepal%20Biodiversity%20Resource%20Book.pdf

MFSC, 2002. Nepal Biodiversity Strategy. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MFSC), Kathmandu.

MFSC, 2005. Nepal’s Thematic Report on Mountain Biodiversity submitted to the CBD Secretariat (unpublished). Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MFSC), Kathmandu.MFSC, 2006a. Nepal: Third National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MFSC), Singhdurbar Kathmandu.

MFSC, 2009. Nepal: Fourth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MFSC), Singhdurbar Kathmandu.

MFSC, 2010. Nepal’s Readiness Preparation Proposal: REDD 2010-2013. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MFSC), Singhdurbar, Kathmandu.

MFSC, 2013a. Persistence and Change: Review of 30 Years of Community Forestry in Nepal. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MFSC), Kathmandu.

MFSC, 2013b. Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal, 2013: Good Practices and Lesson Learned from the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in Nepal Project. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MFSC), Kathmandu.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Mittermeier, R. A., P. R. Giles, M. Hoffman, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks, C. G. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreaux, and G. A. B. Da Fonseca (eds.). 2004. Hotspots Revisited. Earth's Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. CEMEX/Agrupacion Sierra Madre, Mexico City, Mexico.

MOE, 2010. National Adaptation Programme of Action to Climate Change. Ministry of Environment (MOE), Kathmandu.

NEA, 2011. Annual Report 2011. Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA), Kathmandu.

Nepal, G., 2012. Climate finance and Nepalese Perspective. In: Devkota, D. C., Uprety, B. K. and Bhattarai, T. N. (eds.). Climate Change and UNFCCC Negotiation Process. Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, Kathmandu.

Neopane, S. P. and Kadel, R., 2008. Indigenous Pigs of Nepal. NARC, Lalitpur, Nepal.

Neopane, S. P. and Pokharel, P. K., 2008b. Indigenous Sheep of Nepal. Nepal AgriculturalResearch Council, Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal.

Niraula, R. R., Gilani, H., Pokharel, B. K. and Qamer, F. M., 2013. Measuring impacts of community forestry program through repeat photography and satellite remote sensing in the Dolakha district of Nepal. Journal of Environmental Management, 126:20-29.

NPC/UNDP, 2005. Nepal Millennium Development Goals: Progress Report 2005. National Planning Commission (NPC) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Nepal.

NPRP, 2011. National Potato Research Programme (NPRP) Annual Report, 2010/2011. Nepal Agriculture Research Council (NARC), Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal


Panthi, K., 2013. “119 hectares of Bardiya forestland encroached”. Available at: http://www.kantipuronline.com/2013/09/06/national/119-hectares-of-bardiya-forestland-encroached/377578.html(accessed 06 September 2013).

Press, J. R., Shrestha, K.K. and Sutton, D.A., 2000. Annotated Checklist of the Flowering Plants of Nepal. The Natural History Museum, London and Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu.

Rai, R. K., Sandilya, M. and Subedi, R., 2012. Controlling Mikania micrantha HBK: How effective manual cutting is? Journal of Ecology and Field Biology, 35(3): 235-242.

Rai, R. K. and Scarborough, H., 2012.Valuing the Damage Caused by Invasive Plant Species in a Low-income Community in Nepal. SANDEE Working Papers, ISSN 1893-1891; WP 74–12. ISBN: 978-9937-596-03-9.

Serchand, L. and Pradhan, S. L., 1998. Domestic Animal Genetic Resource Management and Utilization in Nepal. National Biodiversity Action Plan, Department of Livestock Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Singha Durbar, Kathmandu.

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

Shrestha, U. B., Shrestha, B. B. and Shrestha, S., 2010. Biodiversity conservation in community forests of Nepal: Rhetoric and reality. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 2(5): 98-104.

Shrestha, P., Sthapit, S. and Paudel, I., 2013. Community Seed Banks: A Local Solution to Increase Access to Quality and Diversity of Seeds. In: Shrestha P., R. Vernooy and P. Chaudhary (2013). Community Seed Banks in Nepal: Past, Present, Future. Proceedings of a National Workshop, LI-BIRD/USC Canada Asia/Oxfam/The Development Fund/IFAD/Bioversity International, 14-15 June 2012, Pokhara, Nepal.

Subedi, N., Jnawali, S. R., Dhakal, M., Pradhan, N. M. B., Lamichhane, B. R., Malla, S., Amin, R. and Jhala, Y. V., 2013. Population status, structure and distribution of the greater one-horned rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis in Nepal. Oryx, 47(3): 352–360.

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

Timsina, B., Shrestha, B. B., Rokaya, M. B. and Münzbergová, Z., 2011. Impact of Parthenium hysterophorus L. invasion on plant species composition and soil properties of grassland communities in Nepal. Flora, 206:233-240.

TISU, 2013. An Overview of Tree Improvement and Silviculture Unit’s Activities in Nepal. Department of Forests, Tree Improvement and Silviculture Unit (TISU), Hattisar, Kathmandu.

Tiwari, S., Adhikari, B., Siwakoti, M. and Subedi, K., 2005.An inventory and assessment of invasive alien plant species of Nepal. IUCN- The World Conservation Union, Nepal.

UNDP, 2013. Human Development Report 2011. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York, USA.


http://www.kantipuronline.com/2013/09/06/national/119-hectares-of-bardiya-forestland-encroached/377578.html

http://www.kantipuronline.com/2013/09/06/national/119-hectares-of-bardiya-forestland-encroached/377578.html

UNEP-WCMC, 2013. UNEP-WCMC Species Database: CITES-Listed Species. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), Cambridge, UK. Available online at: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/species.html(Accessed on 23 September 2013).

Upadhaya, M. P. and Joshi, B. K., 2003. Plant genetic resources in SAARC countries: Their conservation and management: Nepal chapter. SAARC Agriculture Information Center. Pp. 297-422.

USAID, 2012. Nepal Biodiversity and Tropical Forestry Analysis: Prosperity, Livelihoods and Conserving Ecosystems (PLACE) IQC Task Order # Aid-367-To-12-00001. United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Nepal Office, Kathmandu.

Williams, N., 2005. On the trail of Nepal’s flora. Current Biology, 15(24): R977-R978.

World Bank, 2008. Nepal - Country Environmental Analysis: Strengthening Institutions and Management Systems for Enhanced Environmental Governance. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Available online at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7996 (accessed on 22 April 2013). WWF, 2012. WWF Nepal Strategic Plan 2012 – 2016. WWF Nepal, Kathmandu.

WWF, 2012. WWF Nepal Strategic Plan 2012 – 2016. WWF Nepal, Kathmandu.


https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7996

http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/species.html

ANNEXESAnnex1.1: Nationally assessed status of wildmammals in Nepal

Regionally Extinct (RE)Pigmy Hog (Porcula salvania)Critically Endangered (CR)Blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra), Brown Bear (Ursus arctos), Csorba’s Mouse-eared Myotis (Myotis csorbai), Great Evening Bat (la io), Grey Wolf (Canis lupus), Indian Chevrotain (Moschiola indica), Ganges River Dolphin (Platanista gangetica), Tibetan Gazelle (Procapra picticaudata)Endangered (EN)Alpine Musk Deer (Moschus chrysogaster), Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus), Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris), Black Giant Squirrel (Ratufa bicolour), Chinese Pangolin (Manis pentadactyla), Clouded Leopard (Neofelis nebulosa), Dhole (Cuon alpines), Fishing Cat (Prionailurus viverrinus), Greater One-horned Rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis), Harlequin Bat (Scotomanes ornatus), Himalayan Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus), Himalayan Field Mouse (Apodemus gurkha), Himalayan Pika (Ohotona himalayana), Himalayan Water Shrew (Chimarrogale himalayica), Hispid Hare (Caprolagus hispidus), Hog Deer (Axis porcinus), Indian Pangolin (Manis crassicaudata), Red Panda (Ailurus fulgens), Sloth Bear (Melursus ursinus), Smooth-coated Otter (Lutrogale perspicillata), Snow Leopard (Panthera uncia), Spotted Linsang (Prionodon pardicolor), Striped Hyaena (Hyaena hyaena), Swamp Deer (Rucervus duvaucelii), Water Buffalo (Bubalus arnee)Vulnerable (VU)Assam Macaque (Macaca assamensis), Axis Deer (Axis axis), Barking Deer (Muntiacus vaginalis), Bengal Fox (Vulpes bengalensis), Common Leopard (Panthera pardus), Crab-eating Mongoose (Herpestes urva), Gaur (Bos gaurus), Kiang (Equus kiang), Leopard Cat (Prionailurus bengalensis), Lynx (Lynx lynx), Mandelli’s Mouse-eared Bat (Myotis sicarius), Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus), Sambar Deer (Rusa unicolor), Short-winged Pipistrelle (Philetor brachypterus)Near Threatened (NT)

Andersen’s Leaf-nosed Bat (Hipposideros pomona), Blyth’s Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus Lepidus), Eurasian Otter (Lutra lutra), Ghoral (Naemorhedus goral), Himalayan Tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus), Large Indian Civet (Viverra zibetha), Tibetan Tube-nosed Bat (Murina aurata)

Source: Jnyawali et al. (2011)


Annex 1.2: Threatened tree species found in the mountains of Nepal

Botanical Name Local Name

Elevation Range (m)

Region of Occurrence

IUCN Threat Category

Reference

Abies pindrow Thingre salla

2100-3600 West Rare Press et al. (2000)

Alnus nitida Utis 1800-2500 West-Central

Rare Shrestha and Joshi (1996); Press et al. (2000)

Choerospondias axillaris

Lapsi 1200-1500 Central-East Rare Shrestha and Joshi (1996)

Cinnamomum glaucescens

Sugandhakokila

2000-2500 West-East Rare (GON protected)

Press et al. (2000)

Crataeva unilocularis

Siplikan 1200-1800 Central-East Rare Shrestha and Joshi (1996)

Elaeocarpus sphaericus

Rudrakchhya

650-1700 Central-East Vulnerable

Larix griffithiana Carriere

Dhingre sallo

1100-4000 East Rare

Larix himalaica Langtang sallo

2400-3600 Central Rare Shrestha and Joshi (1996); Press et al. (2000)

Magnolia globosa 3200-3400 East Rare Shrestha and Joshi (1996)

Michelia champaca Champ 600-1300 Central-East EndangeredMichelia kisopa Champ 1400-2800 West-East Endangered Shrestha and Joshi (1996);

Press et al. (2000)Olea ferruginea Olive tree 500-2600 West Rare Shrestha and Joshi (1996)Oroxylum indicum Tatelo 200-1400 West-East Vulnerable Shrestha and Joshi (1996);

Press et al. (2000)Podocarpus neriifolius

Gunsi 800-1500 Central-East Endangered; CITES Appendix III

Talauma hodgsonii Bhalu kath 900-1800 Central-East Endangered; CITES Appendix III

Shrestha and Joshi (1996); Press et al. (2000)

Taxus wallichiana Lauth sallo

CITES Appendix II

Press et al. (2000)

Tetracentron sinense 2150-3200 East Rare; CITES Appendix III

Shrestha and Joshi (1996)

Ulmus wallichiana 1800-3000 West-Central

Rare/ Endangered


Annex 3.1: Protected plant species in Nepal

Scientific Name Common English Name

Local Name IUCN Red List Status

CITES Appendix Status

Species Banned for Collection, Use, Sale, Distribution, Transportation and ExportAngiospermsJuglans regia Walnut OkharOrchis latifolia Orchid Panch aunlePiccrohiza kurroa Gentian Kutki IISpecies Banned for Export Except for Processed with Permission of Department of ForestsAngiospermsCinnamomum glaucescens SugandakokilaCordyceps sinensiss YarsagumbaRauvolfia serpentina Serpentine Sarpagandha VU IIValeriana Jatamansi Spike nard JatamansiVleriana wallichii Valerian SugandhawalGymnospermsAbies spetabilis Fir Talis Patra NTTaxus buccata Himlayan yew Loth salla EN IITaxus wallichiana East Himalayan yewTaxus contorta West Himalayan yewBryophyteParmelia spp. Lichen JhyauSpecies Banned for Harvest, Transportation and Export for Commercial PurposesAngiospermsAcacia catechu Cutch tree KhayerBombax malabaricum Silk cotton tree SimalDalbergia latifolia Rose wood Satisal VUMichellia champaca Magnolia ChampPterocarpus marsupium Indian kino tree BijaysalShorea robusta Common sal Sal

Source: Nepal Gazette, 12 February 2001, IUCN ( 2013b). Note: Protection of Walnut is from National Forest Only


Annex 3.2: Protected Animal Species of Nepal

Scientific Name Common English Name Local Name IUCN Red List Status

CITES Appendix Status

MammalsMacaca assamensis Assam Macaque Asami Rato Bandar VU IIManis pentadactyla Chinese Pangolin Kalo Salak EN IIManis crassicaudata Indian Pangolin Tame Salak EN IICaprolagus hispidus Hispid Hare Laghukarna Kharayo EN ICanis lupus Grey Wolf Bwanso CR IUrsus arctos Brown Bear Himali Rato Bhalu CR IAilurus fulgens Red Panda Habre EN IPrionodon pardicolor Spotted Linsang Silu Biralo ENFelis bengalensis(Prionailurus bengalensis)

Leopard Cat Chari BaghVU

I

Felis lynx (Lynx lynx) Lynx Pahan Biralo VU IINeofelis nebulosa Clouded Leopard Dwanse Chituwa EN IPanthera tigris Royal Bengal Tiger Pate Bagh EN IPanthera uncia(Uncia uncial)

Snow LeopardHiun Chituwa

EN I

Elephas maximus Asian Elephant Hatti EN IRhinoceros unicornis One-horned Rhino Gainda EN ISus salvanius Pygmy Hog Pudke Bandel RE IMoschus chrysogaster Alpine Musk Deer Kasturi Mriga EN ICervus duvauceli Swamp Deer Bahrasingha EN IBos gaurus Gaur Gauri Gai VU IBos grunniens Wild Yak Chauri Gai IBubalus arnee Wild Water Buffalo Arna EN IIIOvis ammon Great Tibetan Sheep Nayan DD IPantholops hodgsoni Tibetan Antelope Chiru DD IAntilope cervicapra Blackbuck Krishnasar CR IIITetraceros quadricornis Four-horned Antelope Chauka DD IIIHyaena hyaena Striped Hyaena Hundar ENPlatanista gangetica South Asian River

Dolphin Shons CR I

BirdsBuceros bicornis Giant Hornbill Raj Dhanes R ICatreus wallichii Cheer Pheasant Cheer R IHoubaropsis bengalensis(Eupodotis bengalensis)

Bengal Florican Khar Mayur R I

Lophophorus impejanus Impeyon Pheasant Danphe ICiconia nigra Black Stork Kalo Bhundiphor WV IICiconia ciconia White Stork Seto Bhundiphor ITropan satyra Crimson-horned

PheasantMunal R III

Sypheotides indica(Eupodotis indica)

Lesser Florican Sano Khar Mayur RII

Grus antigona Saras Crane Saras R IIReptilesGavialis gangeticus Gharial Crocodile Gharial Gohi IPython molurus Asiatic Rock Python Ajingar I


Varanus flavescens Golden Monitor Lizard Sun Gohoro ISource : 1) Chapagain, D and Dhakal, J. 2003; 2) IUCN, 2011; 3) BCN and DNPWC, 2011.


Documents

Figure - Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation report_1387355803.docx · Web viewFederation of Community Forest Users in Nepal FRISP Forest Resource Information System Project