Upload
others
View
9
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
Government of Nepal
Ministry of Agriculture Development
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project
ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
July 2012
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Particular acknowledgement goes to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for
their financial support to prepare this document. Similarly, we are grateful for the assistance of
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Institute for Integrated Development
Studies (IIDS) to carry out the situation analysis and field study to prepare this framework.
Our special thanks goes to Mr. Shyam K. Upadhyaya of Institute for Integrated Development
Studies (IIDS) and Ms. Xinshen Diao and Mr. Pramod Kumar Joshi of International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) for their invaluable effort to prepare this document. This
document would never have taken shape without their hard work.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page iii
Abbreviation and Acronyms
CBS Central Bureau of Statistics
CFUG Community Forestry Users Groups
DADO District Agriculture Development Office
DDC District Development Committee
DESMC District Environment and Social Management Committee
DLSO District Livestock Services Office
DoA Department of Agriculture
DoLS Department of Livestock Services
DPSU District Project Support Unit
EA Environment Assessment
ECP Environment Code of Practices
EIA Environment Impact Assessment
EMP Environment Management Plan
FWDR Far-Western Development Region
GAFSP Global Agriculture and Food Security Project
GEED Gender Equity and Environment Division
GoN Government of Nepal
IEE Initial Environment Examination
IPM Integrated Pest Management
IPNS Integrated Plant Nutrient System
MoAD Ministry of Agriculture Development
MoLD Ministry of Local Development
MWDR Mid-Western Development Region
NAFSP Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project
NARC Nepal Agriculture Research Council
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page iv
NGO Non-governmental Organizations
OP Operation Policy
PESMC Project Environment and Social Management Committee
PMU Project Management Unit
PPO Plant Protection Officer
PRMS Pesticide Registration and Management Section
RPPL Regional Plant Protection Laboratory
RPSU Regional Project Support Unit
SDAN Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal
SMD Soil Management Directorate
VDC Village Development Committee
WB World Bank
WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page v
CONTENT
Acknowledgement---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ii
Abbreviation and Acronyms ------------------------------------------------------------------------- iii
Executive Summary (Nepali) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ vii
Executive Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ xi
1. Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.1 Background ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.2 Objectives --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.3 Methodology ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2
1.4 Organization of the Report ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
2. Project Description ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
2.1 Location of the Project ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
2.2 Project Objective ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
2.3 Project Components ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
2.4 Project Alternative --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
3. Current Status of Environment ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5
3.1 Climate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
3.2 Land and Soil --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
3.3 Forest Resources --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
3.4 Water Resources --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
3.5 Energy Use --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
3.6 Pesticide Use ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
3.7 Climate Change ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
3.8 Agro-biodiversity in Project Area ------------------------------------------------------- 16
3.9 Physical Cultural Resources in the Project Area -------------------------------------- 17
3.10 Existing Environmental Issues and Management Practices ------------------------- 17
4. Environmental Policies, Laws, and Regulations ------------------------------------------ 21
4.1 World Bank’s Policy on Environment ---------------------------------------------------- 21
4.2. Environment Policies, Laws, and Regulations of Nepal ------------------------------- 22
5. Institution and Capacity Assessment ------------------------------------------------------- 26
6. Potential Impact of Project Activities on Environment --------------------------------- 27
7. Environmental Management Framework ------------------------------------------------- 31
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page vi
7.1 Environmental Screening and Categorization Guidelines --------------------------- 31
7.2 Environment Assessment Guidelines --------------------------------------------------- 32
7.3 Environment Management Plan (EMP) ------------------------------------------------ 33
7.4 Institutional Arrangement for EMF Implementation --------------------------------- 33
7.5 Project Level Environment Monitoring Framework ---------------------------------- 36
7.6 Capacity Strengthening Plan ------------------------------------------------------------- 37
7.7 Consultation Framework ----------------------------------------------------------------- 38
7.8 Environment Code of Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- 39
7.9 Estimated Budget for the Implementation of EMF ----------------------------------- 40
References ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41
Annexes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 43
List of Table
Table 2.1: Number of districts in the project area --------------------------------------------------- 2
Table 3.1: Land use in Mid- and Far-western Regions ---------------------------------------------- 5
Table 3.2: Community Forests in Mid-Western Development Region -------------------------- 10
Table 3.3: Leasehold Forests in Mid-Western Development Region --------------------------- 11
Table 3.4: Protected Areas in Mid-western Development Region ------------------------------- 11
Table 3.5: Community Forests in Far-Western Development Region --------------------------- 12
Table 3.6: Leasehold Forests in Far-Western Development Region ---------------------------- 12
Table 3.7: Protected Area in Far-western Region -------------------------------------------------- 13
Table 3.8: Percent of Households using different sources of fuel for cooking ---------------- 16
Table 3.9: Existing environmental issues in survey districts -------------------------------------- 19
Table 7.1: Sub-project cycle and environmental steps --------------------------------------------- 36
List of Figure
Figure 2.1: NAFSP Project Districts ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Figure3.1: Landuse map of mid-western region ----------------------------------------------------- 7
Figure 3.2: Landuse map of far-western region ------------------------------------------------------- 8
Figure 3.3: Organic matter content of soil in mid-west and far-west development regions ---- 9
Figure 3.4: Soil PH in Mid-and Far West Development Regions ---------------------------------- 9
Figure 3.5: Protected Areas of Nepal ----------------------------------------------------------------- 14
Figure 3.6: Ramsar Listed Wetlands of Nepal ------------------------------------------------------ 15
Figure 7.1: Proposed Project Implementation Arrangement_ NAFSP -------------------------- 35
Figure 7.2: Institutional Arrangement for EMF Implementation --------------------------------- 36
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page vii
;f/f+z;f/f+z;f/f+z;f/f+z
g]kfn ;/sf/n] s[lif ljsf; dGqfno dftxt g]kfn s[lif tyf vfB ;'/Iff cfof]hgf ;+rfng ug]{ k|:tfj ul/Psf] 5 h;n] s[lif pTkfbg / pTkfbsTj a9fO{ hLjLsf]kfh{gsf ljsNkx?sf ;fy} kfl/jfl/s cfo a[l4 ug{'sf cltl/Qm vfB j:t'sf] ;b'kof]u u/L ljkGg Pj+ l;dfGt ju{x?sf] vfB ;'/Iff l:yltdf ;'wf/ Nofpg] p4]Zo /fv]sf] 5 . o; cfof]hgfdf d"Vo $ ;+efux? /xg] 5g\ . != k|ljlw ljsf; tyf cg's'ng @= k|ljlw lj:tf/ tyf cjnDjg #= lhljsf]kfh{gdf ;'wf/ $= kf]if0f cj:yfdf ;'wf/ cfof]hgfn] nlIft au{sf] ?kdf ;fgf tyf l;dfGt s[ifsx?, e'ldlxg ljkGg kl/jf/, cflbjf;L / blntx?nfO{ k|fyldstfdf /fv]sf] 5 . oF] cfof]hgf dWo klZrd / ;'b"/klZrd ljsf; If]qsf] s"n !( j6f dWo kxf8L / pRr kxf8L lhNnfx?df nfu' ul/g]5 . o; cfof]hgf sfof{Gjogsf] d''Vo lhDd]jf/L s[lif ljsf; dGqfnosf] /xg] 5. o; cfof]hgfdf ;'kl/j]If0f lgsfo -Supervising Entity_ sf] e"ldsf ljZj a+}ssf] /xg] 5. o; jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg ?k/]vfdf cfof]hgf If]qsf] jftfj/0fLo kIfsf] jt{dfg l:ytLsf] ljZn]if0f u/L g]kfn ;/sf/ / ljZj j}+ssf] jftfj/0f ;DaB gLltx?sf] ;ldIff Pj+ ljZn]if0f ug{'sf ;fy} cfof]hgfsf k|:tfljt sfo{qmdx?af6 jftfj/0fdf kg{ ;Sg] ;dli6ut k|efjx?sf] klxrfg ul/Psf] 5 .
g]kfnsf] cGo ljsf; If]qx? eGbf cfof]hgf nfu' ul/g] If]q -dWo / ;'b"/ klZrd If]qdf_ a9L ;'Vvf xfjfkfgL kfOG5 / ef}uf]lns If]qsf] ljljwtf ;+u} xfxkfgLdf klg ljljwtf kfOG5 . pkf]i0f b]lv ;dlztf]i0f, lztf]i0f / n]sfnL -cNkfOg_ xfjfkfgL kfOG5 . df6f]sf] pj{/fzlQmdf x|f; cfpg] ;d:of Aofks 5 . kl/If0f ul/Psf df6f]sf gd'gfx? dWo] ;'b"/ klZrdf~rn If]qdf &^ k|ltzt / dWoklZdfGrn If]qdf ^@ k|ltzt gd'gfx?df k|fª\ufl/s tTjsf] dfqf sd kfOPsf] 5 . ;du|df kxf8 / pRr kxf8sf] t'ngfdf t/fO{ If]qsf] df6f]df k|fª\uf/Ls tTjsf] dfqf sd b]lvG5 . kxf8L / pRr kxf8L If]qsf] df6f]df clDnokgfsf] ;d:of a9L 5 . cfof]hgf If}qsf kxf8L / pRr kxf8L lhNnfx?df /f;folgs dn / ljifflbx?sf] k|of]u eg] sd kfOPsf] 5 . hnjfo' kl/jt{gn] klg o; If]qdf c;/ kg{ yfn]sf] b]lvG5 .
To:t} dWo klZrdf~rn If]qsf] #& k|ltzt / ;'b"/ klZrdfGrn If]qsf] $( k|ltzt e'efu jgh+unn] 9fs]sf] 5 . ;xeflutfd'ns jg Joj:yfkg k4tL oL If]qx?df a9b} uPsf] kfOPsf] 5 . dWo klZrdfGrn If]qdf #@($ / ;'b"/ klZrdfGrn If]qdf @%^& j6f ;fd'bflos jg pkef]Qmf ;d'xx?sf] u7g ePsf] 5 . To;}u/L dWo klZrdfGrndf !)!% / ;'b'/klZdfGrndf **& sj'lnotL jg pkef]Qmf ;d'xx? s[oflzn 5g\ . cfof]hgf nfu' x'g] If]qx?df dxTjk"0f{ /fli6«o lgs'~h, l;df;f/ If]q / ;+/lIft If]qx? kb{5g\ .
3f“;, bfp/f, sf7, ufO{j:t'sf]nflu ;f]Q/ / k|f+ufl/s dnsf] d"Vo ;|f]t jgh+un xf] . ufO{j:t'sf nflu ;f]Q/ (Bedding materials) jgh+unaf6} k|fKt x'G5 h'g sDkf]i6 dn agfpgsf]nflu Hofb} dxTjk"0f{ x'G5 . kxf8L If]q / pRr kxf8L If]qdf ufOj:t'sf] dn g} jfnLgfnLsf] kf]if0fsf] k|d'v ;|f]t xf] . of;f{u'Djf h:tf hl8j'6Lsf] ;+sngjf6 x'g] cfDbfgLn] cfof]hgf If]qsf s]lx pRrkxf8L lhNnfx?sf 3/kl/jf/x?sf] vfB ;'/Iff cj:yfdf ;'wf/ ug{ dxTjk"0f{ e"ldsf v]n]sf] kfO{G5 . jgIf]qsf] cltqmd0f, cToflws kz' rl/r/g, 89]nf], k}/f], glbs6fg / sf7sf] rf]/Ln] jghGo ;|f]tdf rfk kg{ uPsf] 5 . cWoog ul/Psf lhNnfx?df ;/sf/L jgsf] cj:yf t'ngfTds ?kdf lju|b} uPsf] / ;fd'bfon] Joj:yfkg u/]sf] / ;+/lIft If]qx?sf] jgsf] cj:yfdf s]lx ;'wf/ ePsf] hfgsf/L ;xeflux?af6 u/fOPsf] lyof] .
cfof]hgf If]q hn;|f]tdf klg lgSs} wlg b]lvG5 . dxfsfnL, ;]lt, s0f{fnL, e]/L, /fKtL h:tf gbLx? oL If]qx?Jff6 g} jxG5g\ . oL If]qdf dxTjk"0f{ l;d;f/ If]qx? klg /x]sf 5g\ . g}kfndf laBdfg bz laleGg
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page viii
/fd;f/ If]q dWo] tLgj6f dWo Pj+ ;'b"/ klZrd If]qdf /x]sf 5g . t/ o; If]qsf] hn;|f]tnfO{ xfn;Dd plrt ;b'kof]u eg] ug{ ;lsPsf] 5}g .
jt{dfg jftfj/0fLo d'2fx?jt{dfg jftfj/0fLo d'2fx?jt{dfg jftfj/0fLo d'2fx?jt{dfg jftfj/0fLo d'2fx?
af9L / gbL s6fg dWo / ;'b'/ klZrdf~rnsf vf;u/L t/fOsf lhNnfx?sf k|d"v jftfj/0fLo ;d:ofx? 5g\ . oL If]qx?df lgoldt cGt/fndf 7"nf af9L cfpg] u/]sf] 5 . s}nfnL / sGrgk'/ lhNnfsf kxf8L uf“p ljsf; ;ldltx?df klx/f]sf] klg ;d:of /x]sf] 5 . a9\bf] clts|d0f / sltko :yfgdf v'Nnf r/gn] ubf{ r"/] If]qdf ltj| ultn] jg ljgf; eO/fv]sf] 5 . sf7sf] rf]/L lgsf;L pRr /x]sf] atfOG5 . klx/f] / e"Ifo dWo kxf8L / pRr kxf8L Pj+ lxdfnL lhNnfx?sf k|d'v jftfj/0fLo ;d:ofx? x'g\ . dWo kxf8 / pRr kxf8/lxdfnL e]usf lhNnfx?sf] ;/sf/L h+unx?df jg ljgf;sf] ;d:of klg b]lvPsf] 5 . df6f]sf] pj{/fzlQmdf x|f; cfpg] ;d:of ;j} lhNnfx?df kfOPsf] 5 . dWokxf8L / pRrkxf8L If]qsf] df6f]df clDnokgf a9L 5 eg] t/fO If]qsf] df6f]df k|f+ª\ufl/s tTjsf] dfqf sd 5 . t/fO If]qsf Joj;flos t/sf/L pTkfbg If]qx?df ljiffbLx?sf] k|of]u a9\bf] 5 .
Jfftfj/0fLo ;d:ofx?sf] nfuL k|fs[lts / dfgjLo b"j} sf/0fx? lhDd]jf/ 5g\ . h'Dnf / ?s'd lhNnfdf ul/Psf] cGt/s[of cg';f/ h+undf 89]nf] nufpg] k|yfn] ubf{ jgsf] ljgf; / h}ljs ljljwtfdf IftL k'¥ofPsf] 5 . sltko dWokxf8L / pRr kxf8L lhNnfx?df dflg;x? hflg hflg h+undf 89]nf] nufp5g\ . To;/L 89]nf] nufp“bf csf]{ l;hg'df ufOj:t' r/fpg /fd|f] 3f“; pd|G5 eGg] hg ljZjf; 5 . s]lx kxf8L / pRr kxf8L If]qdf s[ifsx? h+undf uf]7 jgfP/ jif{sf] s]lx dlxgf ufO{j:t' r/fpg] k|yf klg 5 h;n] jg ljgf; ub{5 . pRr kxf8L If]qdf vfgf ksfpg'sf] ;fy} cfuf] tfKg klg bfp/fsf] k|of]u ul/g] x'bf“ bfp“/fsf] dfu pRr 5 h;n] h+undf rfk a9fPsf] 5 . h8Lj'6Lsf] cJojl:yt ;+sngn] lxdfnL If]qsf] h}ljs ljljwtfdf IftL k'¥ofPsf] 5 . l;dfGt, le/fnf] hUUffdf klg v]lt ug]{ rng / hyfefjL ;8s vGg] k|j[ltn] e'Ifo / klx/f]sf] ;d:of NofPsf 5g\ . t/ e"jgfj6 h:tf k|fs[lts sf/0fx? klg e"Ifo / klx/f]sf] nfuL TotLs} lhDd]jf/ 5g\ .
cfof]hgfaf6 jftfj/0fdf kg{ ;Sg] ;DefJo c;/x?cfof]hgfaf6 jftfj/0fdf kg{ ;Sg] ;DefJo c;/x?cfof]hgfaf6 jftfj/0fdf kg{ ;Sg] ;DefJo c;/x?cfof]hgfaf6 jftfj/0fdf kg{ ;Sg] ;DefJo c;/x?
o; cWoog cg';f/ cfof]hgfdf k|:tfljt sfo{qmdx?n] jftfj/0fdf k'¥ofpg] s'k|efj sd} x'g] b]lvPsf] 5 . dflYf pNn]v ul/P cg';f/ cfof]hgf If]qdf df6f] x|f; x'g] ;d:of Jofks 5 . olb /f]syfdsf pkfox? cjnDjg gug]{ xf] eg] cfof]hgfn] k|j{wg ug]{ ;wg v]tL k|0ffnLn] df6f]sf] x|f; s]xL dfqfdf a9\g ;S5 . pGgt hftsf] ufO{ j:t'sf] k|j{wgaf6 h+undf yk rfk a9\g klg ;S5 t/ ufO{j:t'nfO{ uf]7df afWg] k|yfnfO{ k|j{wg ul/of] eg] pQm ;d:of sd x'G5 . cfof]hgfn] kl/sNkgf u/]sf] s[lifpkh ;+sng s]Gb|, b'Uw lr:ofg s]Gb|, e08f/0fsf ;'ljwfx?, ;-;fgf l;+rfO{sf ;'ljwfx? h:tf ;fgf k"jf{wf/sf sfo{qmdx?n] jftfj/0fdf Tolt 7"nf] gs/fTds c;/ kfg]{ ;Defjgf sd} 5 . oBkL s]xL ;fgfltgf c;/x?nfO{ gsfg{ eg] ;lsb}g . cfof]hgfn] ;+/lIft If]qleq / ;+/lIft If]qx?sf] ;|f]tx?df e/kg]{ sfo{qmdx?nfO{ 5gf}6 gug]{ x'bf cfof]hgfn] h+unL hgfj/ / k|fs[lts jf;:yfgdf klg gs/fTds c;/ kfg]{ b]lvb}g .
Jfftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkgsf] ?k/]vfJfftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkgsf] ?k/]vfJfftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkgsf] ?k/]vfJfftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkgsf] ?k/]vf
at{dfg jftfj/0fLo cj:yfsf] a:t'l:ylt cfsng, g]kfn ;/sf/ / laZj a}+ssf] jftfj/0fLo gLltsf] cWoog Pj+ ;ldIff, g]kfn s[lif tyf vfB ;'/Iff cfof]hgfaf6 kg{ ;Sg] jftfj/0fLo k|efjx?sf] cf+sngsf cfwf/df o; jftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkgsf] ?k/]vf tof/ ul/Psf]5 . pNn]lvt jftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkgsf] ?k/]vfdf jftfj/0fLo k|efjsf] k|f/+lDes 5gf}6sf] lgb]{lzsf, jftfj/0fLo k|efjsf] n]vfhf]vfsf]nflu lgb]{lzsf, pkcfof]hgfsf] jftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkg of]hgfsf] gd'gf, ;f] Joj:yfkg of]hgf sfof{Gjogsfnflu ;+:yfut Joj:yf, cfof]hgf txdf jftfj/0fLo k|efj cg'udgsf] ?k/]vf, Ifdtf ;'b[l9s/0f of]hgf, k/fdz{sf} ?k/]vf / jftfj/0f ;+/If0fsf] nfuL ckgfpg' kg]{ ljlwx? ;ldl6Psf 5g . k|:t't Jfftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkgsf] ?k/]vfdf lgGg kIfx? /x]sf 5g\ M
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page ix
-s_ pkcfof]hgfx?sf] 5gf}6 / jlu{s/0f lgb]{lzsf ;j} pkcfof]hgfx?sf] jftfj/0fLo hf]lvdsf] cf+sng ul/g] 5 . cfof]hgfsf] ;d'bfo txdf sfo{ ug]{ ;dfh kl/rfns / cfof]hgfsf] lhNnf ;xof]u OsfOn] tf]s]sf] clws[tn] jftfj/0fLo hf]lvdsf cwf/df pkcfof]hgfx?nfO{ P, aL, l; / l8 au{df alu{s/0f ug]{5g . P au{df kg]{ pkcfof]hgf eGgfn] pRr jftfj/0fLo hf]lvd ePsf / jftfj/0Lo k|efj d'Nofsg cfjZos kg]{ nfO{ hgfp5 / o:tf pkcfof]hgfx? g]]kfn s[lif tyf vfB ;'/Iff cfof]hgf dfkm{t ;+rfng ul/g] 5}gg . aL au{df kg]{ pkcfof]hgfx?af6 dWod lsl;dsf] jftfj/0Lo k|efj kg]{nfO{ hgfp5 / pkcfof]hgf :jLs[t x'g' k"j{ k|f/lDes jftfj/0Lo kl/If0f cfjZos kg{ ;Sb5 . o:tf pkcfof]hgfsf] jftfj/0Lo Joj:yfkg of]hgf cfjZos kg]{5 . ;L au{sf pkcfof]hgfaf6 Go"g jftfj/0fLo k|efj kg]{ ePsf]n] o:tf pkcfof]hgfx?sf] xsdf jftfj/0f ;+/If0fsf] nfuL ckgfpg' kg]{ ljlwx? (Environmental code of practices) ckgfpg' kof{Kt x'g] b]lvG5 . -v_ jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg of]hgf k|f/lDes jftfj/0fLo kl/If0f cfjZos kg]{ ;j} pkcfof]hgfx/sf] jftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkg of]hgf tof/ ug{' kg]{5 . pQm Joj:yfkg of]hgfdf b]xfcg';f/sf d"Vo ;+efux/ /xg] 5g M s_ pkcfof]hgfsf] ljj/0f v_ pkcfof]hgfaf6 kg{ ;Sg] ;efJo jftfj/0fLo hf]lvd u_ k|efjx?sf] lg?k0f (mitigation) sf pkfox? 3_ cg'udg of]hgf / ª_ Ifdtf ljsf;sf /0fgLlt . o; b:tfa]hsf] cg';'lr * df pkcfof]hgfx/sf] jftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkg of]hgfsf] gd'gf ;dfa]z ul/Psf]5 . -u_ jftfj/0fLo Joj:yfkg ?k/]vf nfu' ug{ cfjZos ;+u7gfTds 9f“rf cfof]hgf Joj:yfkg sfof{nodf cjl:yt k|fljlws laz]if1x?sf] 6f]nLdf Pshgf jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg ;DalGw laz]if1 ;d]t /xg]5 . jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg laz]if1n] g} cfof]hgfsf] jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg ;DalGw ;Dk'0f{ lqmofsnfkx?sf] ;dGjo ug]{5 . o;sf] cnfjf cfof]hgfsf] k|fljlws ;dGjo ;ldtLsf] dftxt /xg] u/L cfof]hgf lgb]{zssf] ;+of]hsTjdf Ps jftfj/0f tyf ;fdflhs Joj:yfkg ;ldlt ;d]t u7g ul/g]5 . o; ;ldltsf] cGo ;b:ox?df s[lif ljsf; dGqfno n}+lus ;dtf tyf jftfj/0f dxfzfvf, s[lif ljefu tyf kz' ;]jf ljefu cGtu{tsf ;DalGwt k|fljlws lgb]{zgfnox?, sfof{nox?, aLpaLhg u'0f:t/ lgoGq0f s]Gb|, vfB k|ljlw tyf u'0f lgoGq0f ljefu cflbsf k|ltlglwx? /xg]5g\ eg] cfj:ostf cg';f/ laifo laz]if1x?nfO{ ;d]t cfdGq0f ul/g]5 . To;} ul/ lhNnftxdf klg lhNnf cfof]hgf ;xof]u PsfO{df ;lrjfno /xg] ul/ Pp6f lhNnf jftfj/0f tyf ;fdflhs Joj:yfkg ;ldltsf] u7g ul/g]5 . of] ;ldltsf] cWoIftf lhNnf cfof]hgf ;xof]u PsfOsf] ;+of]hsn] ug]{5 . o; ;ldltsf] cGo ;b:ox?df jfnL ;+/If0f clws[t, lhNnf kz' ;]jf sfof{no, lhNNff jg sfof{no, lhNnf e';+/If0f sfof{no, lhNnf ljsf; ;ldltsf] sfof{no, dlxnf ljsf; sfof{no, :yflgo ;]jf k|bfos / cfof]hgfsf] nlIftju{sf k|ltlgwLx? /xg]5g\ . jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg laz]if1nn] cfof]hgf sfof{Gjog ePsf :yfg jf ;d'bfosf] e|d0f tyf cjnf]sg / ;/f]sf/jfnfx?;+usf] k/fdz{sf] cfwf/df s[lif ljsf; dGqfnodf /x]sf] s[lif tyf jftfj/0f ;+/If0f ;ldltn] :jLs[t ug]{ u/L k|f/lDes jftfj/0fLo k|efj cWoog ;DalGw sfof{b]z tof/ kfg]{5 . k|f/lDes jftfj/0fLo k|efj cWoog ug'{ kg]{ ePdf lhNnf cfof]hgf ;xof]u PsfO jf ;xof]u PsfOn] lgo'Qm u/]sf] :jtGq ljz]if1n] ug]{5 . o;/L ul/Psf] k|f/lDes jftfj/0fLo k|efj cWoogsf] k|ltj]bgnfO{ jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg laz]if1 / jftfj/0f tyf ;fdflhs Joj:yfkg ;ldltn] cWoog u/L :jLs[tLsf] nfuL dGqfnodf /x]sf] s[lif tyf jftfj/0f ;+/If0f ;ldltdf k]z ug]{5 .
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page x
-3_ jftfj/0f cg'udg ?k/]vf g]kfn s[lif tyf vfB ;'/Iff cfof]hgfn] cfwf/e't ;e]{If0f, cg'kfng (Compliance) tyf k|efj d'Nof+sg / Ps :jtGq cg'udgsf] dfWodaf6 cfof]hgfsf] jftfj/0fLo e'ldsfsf] cg'udg ug]{5 . cfwf/e't ;e]{If0fn] cfof]hgf If]qdf ePsf jftfj/0f ;DalGw ;+efux?sf] ;"rs tof/ kfg]{5 / oLg} ;"rssf] cfwf/df rf}dfl;s ?kdf ul/g] cg'kfng tyf k|efj d"Nof+sg dfkm{t nIf cg';f/ jftfj/0f ;+/If0f ;DalGw lqmofsnfkx? ;+rfng eP gePsf] tyf cfof]hgfsf] lqmofsnfkx?n] jftfj/0fdf gsf/fTds c;/ k/] gk/]sf] ;d]t cg'udg ul/g]5 . o;sf cnjf, s[lif ljsf; dGqfno, n}+lus ;dtf tyf jftfj/0f dxfzfvfn] aflif{s ?kdf cfof]hgfsf] jftfj/0f ;DalGw ;du| e'ldsfsf] cg'udg ug]{5 . -ª_ Ifdtf ljsf; of]hgf jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg ;DalGw k|:t't ?k/]vfn] o; ;DaGwdf Ifdtf ljsf;sf] of]hgf ;d]t k|:t't u/]sf] 5 . h; cg';f/ cfof]hgfsf] k|fljlws ;xfotf 6f]nLdf Pshgf jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg laz]if1 /xg] Joj:yf, n}+lus ;dtf tyf jftfj/0f dxfzfvf / cfof]hgf sfof{Gjog ;+u ;DalGwt sd{rf/Lx?nfO{ tflnd tyf e|d0fsf] Joj:yfsf cnfjf nlIft jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg ;DalGw ;r]tgf sfo{qmdx? ;d]tsf] Joj:yf ul/Psf] 5 . -r_ k/fdz{sf] 9f“rf Jfftfj/l0fo Aoj:yfkg ?k/]vfn] ;/f]sf/jfnfx?;u clgjfo{ k/fdz{ u/L ;+rfng ug'kg]{ sfo{x?sf] ;'lr agfPsf] 5 . ;fy} ;Defljt ;/f]sf/jfnf / Jfftfj/l0fo Aoj:yfkgsf] sfof{Gjog k4ltdf plgx?sf] ljleGg r/0fdf xg] ;xeflutfnfO{ ;d]t ;'lglZrt u/]sf] 5 . ;DjlGwt ;/f]sf/jfnfx? ;+usf] k/fdz{ pkcfof]hgfx?sf] klxrfg, 5gf}6, jftfj/0fLo alu{s/0f, k|f/+les jftfj/0fLo k|efj cWoog / cg'udgsf r/0fx?df cfjZos kg]{5 . -5_ jftfj/0f ;+/If0fsf] nfuL ckgfpg' kg]{ ljlwx? (Environmental code of practices)
o; Jfftfj/l0fo Aoj:yfkg ?k/]vfn] ;du| ?kdf jftfj/0f ;+/If0fsf] nfuL ckgfpg' kg]{ ljlwx? pk/ hf]8 lbPsf] 5 / pk cfof]hgfx?;u ;DalGwt lglZrt ljlwx? pk cfof]hgf sfof{Gjogsf] r/0fdf cfaZostf cg'?k jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg ljz}if1sf] ;xof]udf tof/ u/L nfu' ul/g]] 5 . -h_ jftfj/0f Joj:yfkg ?k/]vf nfu' ug{ cfjZos cg'dfgLt ah]6 cfof]hgfsf] k'/f cjlwe/df o; Jfftfj/l0fo Aoj:yfkg ?k/]vf sfof{Gjogsf nflu s'n la; s/f]8 g]kfnL ?“kof cfaZos kg]{ cgdfg u/]sf] 5 h;df ;/f]sf/jfnfx?nfO{ ;';'lrt ug]{, dfgj ;+;fwg ljsf; / cg'udg tyf d'Nof+sgnfO{ ;dfj]z ul/Psf] 5 . pk cfof]hgf / ;f] sf]\ sfo{of]hgf sfof{Gjogdf jftfj/0f ;+/If0fsf] nfuL ckgfpg' kg]{ ljlwx?sf] nflu pQm pk cfof]hgfs} s'n cg'dflgt ah]6df ;dfj]z ug]{ u/L Aoj:yf ldnfOg] 5 .
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page xi
Executive Summary
The GoN is proposing to implement a Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project (NAFSP) which
aims to improve food security situation of poor and marginal groups of population by increasing
agricultural production, increasing livelihood options and household income, and improving
utilization of food. The project has four main components: technology development and adaptation;
technology dissemination and adoption; food security and livelihood enhancement; and nutritional
status enhancement. The priority target groups of the project are small and marginal farmers, landless
households, indigenous population, and Dalits. The project is to be implemented in the in 19 hill and
mountain districts of the mid- and far-western development regions of Nepal. The Ministry of
Agriculture Development (MoAD) is the main implementing agency of this project. The World Bank
(WB) is the supervising entity. This study assesses current status of environment in project area,
reviews environmental policies of the GoN and the WB, identifies overall impacts of the proposed
project activities on the environment, and prepares an Environmental Management Framework (EMF)
for the NAFSP.
Current State of Environment in Project Area
The project area is relatively drier compared to other regions of Nepal. Climatic conditions vary sub-
tropical to alpine. Soil degradation problem is pervasive. About 76 percent of soil samples tested in
far-west had low organic matter content compared to 62 percent samples in the mid-west. On the
other hand, soil in the mid-west was more acidic than the soil in the far-west. In general, organic
matter content of soil in terai is lower than that of the soil in hill and mountain. Acidity is higher in
the soils of hill and mountain than in terai.The use of chemical fertilizer and pesticides is low in these
regions especially in the hills and mountains, where project activities will be implemented. However,
the use of pesticides is growing in some commercial vegetable production areas of Terai districts.
Anecdotal evidences indicate that global warming is beginning to have some impact in these regions.
Forest area as a proportion of total area in mid- and far-western regions was 37.44 percent and 49.18
percent respectively which compares well with the national average of 39.6 percent. There is an
increasing trend towards participatory management of forests. The numbers of community forestry
users groups (CGUF) in the mid- and far-western regions were 3,294 and 2,567 respectively. The
numbers of leasehold forest users groups (LFUGs) in the mid-west and far-west regions were 1,015
and 887 respectively. Project area houses important national parks, wildlife and hunting reserves, and
conservation areas. Project area is rich in forest and agricultural biodiversity.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page xii
Forests are sources of fodder, fuelwood, and timber. Forests provide bedding materials for livestock
which are also inputs for compost making. Compost manure is an important source of crop nutrients
in hills and mountain districts. Income from the collection of medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs)
such as Yarshagumba(Cordicepssinensis) provide important buffer against food insecurity to poor
households in some mountain districts. Existing threats to forests include encroachment, excessive
grazing, forest fire, landslides, river cutting, and timber smuggling. The status of government
managed forests continues to deteriorate. However, the status of community managed forests and
protected areas have shown some improvement over time.
These regions are rich in water resources. The major river systems include Mahakali, Seti, Karnali,
Bheri, and Rapti. These regions have many wetlands. Out of ten ramsar sites in Nepal (wetlands of
international importance), three are located in these regions. However, water resource potential of
these regions remains largely untapped.
Existing Environmental Issues
Flooding and river cutting are main environmental problems in Terai districts of mid- and far-western
regions. The regions are getting major floods every few years. The hilly VDCs of Kailali and
Kanchanpur also suffer from landslides problems. Rate of deforestation is high especially in Chure
area due to the practice of open grazing, and illegal encroachment. Timber smuggling is high. Land
slide and soil erosion are the major environmental problems in hills and mountains of both mid- and
far-west regions. Deforestation is also a problem in hills and mountains, especially in government
managed forests. Soil degradation is a problem in all ecological regions. Soil acidity is high in hills
and mountains. Soil organic matter content is low especially in Terai plain areas. The use of
agricultural chemicals is increasing in some commercial vegetable production area in Tarai1.
There are both natural and human induced causes for environmental problems. Consultations in Jumla
and Rukum districts indicated that forest fire lead to deforestation and loss of biodiversity. People in
some parts of hills and mountain districts deliberately set fire in forests because they believe that
doing so would lead to the growth of green grasses for grazing their animals in the subsequent
periods. People in the hills and mountains also have a system of taking their livestock to forests for
grazing for few summer months during the year. These people construct temporary sheds for animals
and also for their own dwelling in the forest area which leads to deforestation. The demand for
fuelwood is high in the mountain district because fuelwood is the main source of cooking as well as
the heating needed to protect people from harsh cold weather, which has put pressure on forest
resources. Improper and over-harvesting of medicinal and aromatic plants has caused the loss of
biodiversity in high mountain areas. The practice of farming in marginal slopy land, and haphazard
road construction has contributed to soil erosion and landslides. However, natural factors such as
geology of the area are also responsible for soil erosion and landslides.
1 The project is to be implemented only in hill and mountain districts.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page xiii
Potential Impact of NAFSP on Environment
The project interventions and activities include: trials, demonstrations, training and capacity building
for source seed production and improving livestock (goat and poultry) breeding lines; disseminating
improved crop varieties and practices; supporting improved backyard poultry, goat keeping, and
dairy; local seed production, micro-irrigation including rehabilitation and maintenance of existing
small farmers managed irrigation channels; establishment of community managed food security
initiatives such as revolving funds and crop stores, promoting producer groups in market-oriented
enterprises, and training of local youth in technical trades and employment-oriented skills; nutrition
education/ behavior change communication, kitchen gardens and small livestock rearing, improved
home preparation and preservation of food; and more appropriate feeding and caring practices;
promoting “women-friendly” household assets/devices/ practices such as treadle pumps, improved
cooking stoves, biogas plants; etc.
Environmental concerns of the project are related mainly to subprojects and activities for improving
the crops and livestock productions and productivity, and the small scale demand-driven
infrastructures such as micro-irrigation, rain water conservation pond, rural marketing shed, etc.
The assessment indicates that the adverse impact of the proposed project on environment is expected
to be limited in nature. As discussed earlier, soil degradation is an existing problem and pervasive in
these regions. Project activities such as intensification of farming may worsen soil degradation
problem somewhat by removing more nutrients from soil if corrective measures are not taken. The
promotion of improved livestock breeds may increase pressure on forest resources. However, the
promotion of stall feeding would help to alleviate this risk. Infrastructure programs envisioned by
NAFSP such as agriculture produce collection centers, milk chilling centers, storage facilities, micro-
irrigation etc are small in size and are unlikely to cause highly significant adverse environmental
impact although minor issues may be encountered. Impacts on wildlife and natural habitat is expected
to be minimal as any project intervention located in or dependent on resources from core protected
area is ineligible for project support.
Some activities such as vegetable cultivation in homestead gardens, seed production, and promotion
of improved varieties envisioned by the NAFSP may indirectly induce some increase in the use of
pesticides. However, the level of increase in pesticide use and its adverse impact is not expected to be
significant because the project as a general rule discourage use of chemical pesticide: WHO Category
I and II pesticides are not permitted, bio-pesticides are preferred when needed, only low risk pesticide
as part of an IPM program is permissible as a last resort when there is no other option available.
Environmental screening and EMP of respective activity will address pesticide issues if relevant.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page xiv
Environmental Management Framework (EMF)
Based on the assessments of present environmental situation, review of environmental policies of the
GoN and the WB, and assessment of likely environmental impacts of the project, this study has
developed an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) for the NAFSP. The EMF consists of
environmental screening guidelines, environmental assessment guidelines, sample sub-project level
EMP, institutional arrangements for the implementation of the EMF, project level environmental
monitoring framework, capacity strengthening plan, consultation framework, and environmental code
of practices.
Screening and Categorization of Sub-projects: All sub-projects will be screened for potential
environmental risks. The Social mobilizer of the local service provider and the relevant expert
assigned by the District Project Support Unit (DPSU) will conduct environmental screening, and
categorize sub-projects as A, B, or C based on the risk levels. Category A sub-projects are high of risk
and need to do an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA). NAFSP will not fund category A sub-
projects. Category B sub-projects are of moderate environmental risks and may require to do an Initial
Environmental Examination (IEE2) before they can be approved for implementation. These sub-
projects require an Environment Management Plan (EMP). Category C sub-projects pose no or lower
level of environmental risks. An Environmental Code of Practices (ECoP) will be adequate for these
sub-projects.
Environment Management Plan: All sub-projects that need to do IEE are required to prepare an EMP.
The EMP will consist of the following main components: (i) Description of the sub-project, (ii)
potential environmental risk of the sub-project, (iii) mitigation measures, (iv) monitoring plan, and (v)
capacity building strategy. Annex 8 of this EMF provides a sample EMP for sub-projects.
Institutional Arrangement for the Implementation of the EMF: The Technical Assistance (TA) Team
at the PMU would include an Environmental Specialist (ES) position. The ES would coordinate all
environment related activities of the project. The PMU would have a Project Environment and Social
Management Committee (PESMC) as a sub-committee of proposed Technical Committee. The
Project Director (PD) of NAFSP would chair the PESMC. Other members of the PESMC would
include representatives from GEED, technical directores and offices under DoA and DLS, Departmen
of Food Technology and Quality Control, Seed Quality Control Center etc. It may also invite
environmental experts from other line agencies as per need. At district level, a District Environment
and Social Management Committee (DESMC) would be formed at DPSU. The DPSU coordinator
will chair the DESMC. Other members of DESMC would include plant protection officer of DADO,
representatives from DLSO, DFO, DSWCO, DDC, DWDO, LSP, and Project Affected People.
The ES will be responsible for preparing the ToR for IEE. The ES will visit sub-project sites and hold
consultations with different stakeholders during the preparation of the ToR for IEE. The Agriculture
and Environment Conservation Committee at the MoAC will approve IEE ToR. The DPSU or the
independent consultant hired by the DPSU will conduct IEE and prepare report. The ES and the
2 IEE is legal term used in Nepal legislation referring limited Environmental Assessment.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page xv
PESMC will review IEE report and forward it to the Agriculture and Environment Conservation
Committee for approval.
Environmental Monitoring Framework: NAFSP will ensure the following three levels of monitoring:
a baseline survey, compliance and impact monitoring, and an independent monitoring of the overall
environmental performance of the project. The baseline survey will prepare indicators for major
components of environment in sub-project area. The compliance and impact monitoring will quarterly
monitor whether the project implementers are implementing environmental mitigation measures they
have committed, and also monitor the impact of sub-projects activities on the baseline situation of the
environment. In addition, independent consultants will annually monitor the overall environmental
performance of the project.
Capacity Strengthening Plan: The EMF provides a capacity strengthening plan which consists of
staffing, and training for Gender Equity and Environment Division, Project management Unit, and
District project Support Unit as well as targeted environmental awareness and orientation activities.
Consultation Framework: The EMF identifies potential tasks for which the consultation is needed. It
also provides a list of potential stakeholders and suggests consultation mechanisms. Consultations
with relevant stakeholders are required during identification and selection of subproject,
environmental screening and categorization, IEE process, and monitoring.
Environmental Code of Practices: This EMF provides a generic ECoPs for the NAFSP. The
Environmental Consultant will prepare sub-project level ECoPs.
EMF implementation cost. Implementation of the EMF is estimated to about NRs 20 million over the
project period. This will cover orientation/ trainings, human resources, and monitoring. Subproject or
activity specific mitigation cost will have to be included at the overall cost of the subproject or
activity.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 1
Environment Management Framework for
Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
With funding support from the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), the
government of Nepal is proposing to implement the Nepal Agriculture and Food security Project
(NEFSP) project in Nepal. The project aims to improve food security situation of poor and marginal
groups of population by increasing agricultural production, increasing livelihood options and household income, and improving utilization of food. The primary target groups of the projects are
food insecure households – marginal and small farmers, landless households, Dalits, indigenous, and
other vulnerable groups of population. The Ministry of Agriculture Development (MoAD) of Nepal is
the main implementing agency of this project. The World Bank is the supervising agency for the
project.
The implementation of development projects such as NAFSP could have both adverse and positive
impacts on environment. The national policies, laws, and regulations of Nepal, and the policies of the
World Bank require that the project should avoid adverse impacts and enhance positive impacts on the
environment. If some adverse environmental impacts are unavoidable, the project should devise
proper mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts and implement them. This study assesses
current status of environment in project area, identifies overall impacts of the proposed project
activities on the environment, and prepares an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) for the
NAFSP. The main purpose of the EMF is to minimize and mitigate adverse impacts and maximize
positive impacts of project activities on the environment.
1.2 Objectives
The specific objectives of assignment are to:
a. To assess environmental risks and concerns associated with proposed project
components/activities.
b. To review environmental policy, acts/ regulations, guidelines and directives of Nepal and
with reference to the World Bank safeguard policies including Environmental Health and
Safety Guidelines of IFC in order to identify applicable provisions in the proposed project (component and activities).
c. To determine the environmental capacity of the institutions involved in the program,
including the environmental mandates, roles and responsibilities, functions & practices; to
define specific environmental mandates, functions and responsibilities of institutions during
implementation of the proposed project; and to develop a plan for addressing the identified
capacity gaps.
d To develop an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) for use during project
implementation with clear steps, processes, procedures and responsibilities including
various tools and summarize the EMF for inclusion in the Project Implementation
Manual (PIM) as well as prepare a brochure (in Nepali) on environmental approach of
the proposed program.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 2
1.3 Methodology
The study methodology includes the review and analysis of secondary information/data on
environment policies, acts, regulations, and current status of environment in the project area; and
stakeholder consultations. Several stakeholder consultations were held at central, regional, district,
and village levels. Stakeholders consulted included: donor agencies, government and non-
governmental organizations, and potential project beneficiaries. District level stakeholder
consultations were held in Nepalgunj (Banke), Dhangadi (Kailali), Martadi (Bajura), Silgadi (Doti),
Musikot (Rukum), and Khalang (Jumla). Focus group discussions were held with farmers in the above
six districts. The findings of focus group discussions and stakeholder consultations were reviewed at
regional validation workshops in Dipayal, Surkhet, and Khajura. Consultation reports are available
separately.3 The draft EMF was presented and discussed at a national workshop. The draft EMF will
be posted at websites of MoAD and the World Bank.
1.4 Organization of the Report
The remaining part of the report is organized as follows. Section two presents a brief description of
project. Section three examines current state of environment in project area, and existing
environmental management practices. Section four presents a review of World Bank’s and Nepal’s
policies on environment. Sectional five discusses institutional arrangements for environment
management and assesses capacity of those institutions. Section six explores potential impacts of the
project on environment in project area. Section sevendevelops an Environment Management
Framework (EMF) for NAFSP.
2. Project Description
2.1 Location of the Project
Project area covers two – mid-western development region (MWDR) and far-western development
region (FWDR) – out of five development regions of Nepal. It includes 24 out of 75 districts of Nepal.4 The MWDR has an area 42,373 square kilometer (28.79% of Nepal’ area) and the FWDR has
an area of 19,546 square kilometer (13.28% of Nepal’s area).5 Table 2.1 presents the number of
districts in different ecological zones of these two regions. Figure 2.1 presents map of these districts.
The project will give priority to 8 mountain districts (in red color in the map).
Table 2.1:Number of districts in the project area
Development/Ecological
Regions
Number of
Districts
Districts
Mid-west mountain 5 Humla, Jumla, Dolpa, Mugu, Kalikot
Mid-west hill 7 Pyuthan, Rolpa, Rukum, Salyan, Jajarkot, Dailekh, Surkhet
Mid-west Terai 3 Dang, Banke, Bardiya
Far-west mountain 3 Darchula, Bajhang, Bajura
Far-west hill 4 Dadeldhura, Baitadi, Doti, Achham
Far-west Terai 2 Kanchanpur, Kailali
Total 24
3Upadhyaya, Singh, and Aryal (2012).
4It was later decided that the NAFSP would be implemented only in 19 hills and mountain districts. However,
many regional offices are located in terai and project activities aimed to strengthen them would be undertaken
interai. 5The total area of Nepal is 147,181 square kilometer.
Environment Management Framework 2012
Figure2.1 : NAFSP Project Districts
2.2 Project Objective
The project development objective is to enhance household food security through increased
agricultural productivity, household incomes, and improved nutritional practices.
2.3 Project Components
The project has the following four main components:
1. Technology Development and Adaptation: The purpose of this component is to identify,
test, and adapt new and improved technologies that best fit the social, environmental, and
economic context of the mid- and far-western development regions and that will contribute to increased productivity of crops and livestock by making available appropriate technology,
resources (seeds and breeds) and taking research and development closer to farmers to ensure
proper varietal testing and adequate farmer feedback.. There are two sub components: (i)
Crops and (ii) Livestock. The crops sub-component comprises varietal development, selection
and maintenance; validation of integrated crop management technologies; and source seed
production. The livestock sub-component comprises improving breeding lines for goat and
poultry production, and development of improved management practices. Activities under this
component include: the development and release of improved crop varieties and related
agronomic packages (soil, water and plant management); breed improvement of goat and
backyard poultry, cattle, buffalo, and pond fish; husbandry (fodder, health and care) practices
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 4
and improved management 9low cost feed, stall feeding, silvi-pasture); and production and
supply of quality seed and breeding materials. The main expected outputs from this
component will be release of improved crop and livestock varieties, improved production
packages for crop production, more problem-focused research and better extension support.
2. Technology Dissemination and Adoption: The purpose of this component is to disseminate
improved technologies and management practices among farmers (especially those developed
and promoted under Component 1).The component has five sub-components: (i) Crop
Production (disseminating improved varieties and practices through Farmers Field School);
(ii) Livestock Production (supporting backyard poultry in mountain districts, goat keeping in
mid-hill districts, and dairy in selected locations near markets); (iii) Local Seed Production
through farmers groups; (iv) Micro-irrigation (such as rehabilitation or improvement of
existing farmers managed irrigation channels) and On-farm Investments; and (v) Community
Mobilization and Extension Support. Items to be financed under this component include
group mobilization, training at different level, demonstrations and adoption support to farmers
and small-scale productive assets. At the ground level, farmer groups and para-workers/NGO
service providers will be involved, and will be technically backed up by respective line
departments. The expected results from this component are adoption of improved crop
varieties and practices by farmers, take-up of poultry and improved goat production and
enhanced availability of good quality seed for farmers at the local level.
3. Food Security and LivelihoodEnhancement: The purpose of this component is to enhance
livelihood by increasing income of targeted beneficiaries, ensuring better farm-gate prices to
farmers, and reducing vulnerability. The proposed activities under this componentinclude: agro-based income generation activities such as vegetable cultivation, and seed production;
and provision of small-infrastructure support such as micro-irrigation, agriculture produce
collection centres. There are three sub-components: (i) Vulnerability Reduction (involving
community level coping mechanisms, including revolving funds); (ii) Supporting
Producer/Enterprise Groups (from group organization around specific livelihood activities
through technical assistance on business development to marketing extension); and (iii) Skills
Training (enhancing employability and improving returns to labor).
4. Nutritional Status Enhancement: The purpose of this component is to improve nutritional
status of targeted beneficiaries through provision of dietary support, increased supply of
nutritious foods, promotion of appropriate nutrition, health, and hygiene practices. The target
group comprises pregnant and breast-feeding women, children under two years and
adolescent girls. The activities include food quality regulation and a pilot on social transfers
for pregnant women in food insecure areas and community based education program for
nutrition, health, and hygiene; production diversification (e.g, kitchen gardens and small
livestock rearing); improved home preparation and preservation of food; more appropriate
feeding and caring practices for pregnant/nursing women and 0-24 months old children;
improving micronutrient intakes during Critical Life-Stages; promoting “Women-friendly”
Household Investments and Practices such as treadle pumps, improved cooking stoves, biogas
plants and so on.
2.4 Project Alternative
The low productivity of crops compels farmers in the hills and mountain of these regions to cultivate
fragile lands causing landslides and soil erosion. The high rate of poverty has led to high dependence
of people on public natural resources for food and fuel which leads to loss of valuable biodiversity.
The alternative to the project is to continue these practices which lead to further deprivation of people
and environmental destruction.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 5
3. Current Status of Environment
Nepal is blessed with rich and diverse ecological resources. Climatic conditions vary from sub-
tropical to temperate. The altitude varies from a few hundred meters above the sea level to the highest
peak of the world. Environmental conditions differ across development and ecological regions. This
section examines current status of environment in mid- and far-western regions of Nepal.
3.1 Climate
The MWDR and FWDR of Nepal are relatively drier. These regions receive less amount of annual
rainfall than other regions of Nepal. More than 80 percent of rainfall occurs in rainy season. There are
also wide variations in rainfall patterns among the districts of these regions. The average annual
rainfall of Dolpa, which lies in the rain shadow area, is less than 500 mm. The average annual rainfall
of Jumla lies between 500 mm to 1,000 mm. The average annual rainfall of Kanchanpur, Kailali, Doti,
Salyan, Baitadi, Dailekh, and Dadeldhura lies between 1000 mm to 2000 mm. The average annual
rainfall of Darchula and Rukum (Musikot) lies between 2000 mm to 3000 mm. Some districts like
Dolpa falls under rain shadow area and receive very little amount of rainfall. Monsoon starts late.
However, these regions get more winter rains than other regions.6 The climate varies from sub-
tropical in Terai districts to temperate and alpine in the northern part of mountain districts.
3.2 Land and Soil
Land is a valuable environmental resource. Given that the livelihood of people in mid-western and
far-western regions are heavily dependent in agriculture, the quality and proper utilization of land are
crucial for ensuring food security of people in these regions. Poverty in these regions is closely linked
with the quality of land and other environmental resources.7 Table 3.1 presents land use pattern in
these regions (Figures 2.1 and 3.1). As the table shows, the agricultural land as a proportion of total
land area is lowest in mid-west mountain (3.21 percent) and highest in far-west Terai (41.43 percent).
The proportion of agricultural land is also low in mid-west hills and far-west mountain. More than
one-third area of the mid-west and far-west mountains is covered by snow. Annex 1 presents district
wise land use patterns in project area.
Table 3.1: Land use in Mid- and Far-western Regions
Area in hectare
Land Use Mid-west Far-West Nepal
Mountain Hills Terai Mountain Hills Terai
Forest 386,662
(18.06)
959340
(67.25)
373757
(54.28)
223075
(27.40)
418949
(62.33)
896152
(52.19)
5599760
(37.89)
Shrub 40,215
(1.88)
64207
(4.50)
22994
(3.34)
94913
(11.66)
73275
(10.90)
185156
(3.48)
1283231
(8.68)
6 See ANZDEC (2000).
7 See Upadhyaya (2010).
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 6
Agriculture 68,769
(3.21)
199545
(13.99)
264218
(38.37)
108013
(13.27)
167668
(24.94)
477388
(41.43)
4061631
(27.48)
Water bodies 3,139
(0.15)
3804
(0.27)
6198
(0.90)
1295
(0.16)
1315
(0.20)
6301
(0.76)
64664
(0.43)
Barren Land 873272
(40.78)
171828
(12.05)
21395
(3.11)
101686
(12.49)
10803
(1.61)
122884
(2.13)
1683493
(11.39)
Snow 769298
(35.93)
27701
(1.54)
688562
(0)
285064
(35.02)
164
(0.02)
0
1974003
(11.36)
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 108377
Total 2141355
(100)
1426425
(100)
1066495
(100)
814046
(100)
672174
(100)
486889
14775159
Source: CBS (2008).
*Figures in parentheses are percent of total area.
Figure 3.2 present organic matter content of soil in mid- and far-western regions. About 76 percent of
soil samples tested in far-west had low organic matter content compared to 62 percent samples in the
mid-west. On the other hand, soil in mid-west was more acidic than the soil in the far-west. Annex 2
and 3 present district wise results of soil tests in these regions. In general, organic matter content of
soil in terai is lower than that of the soil in hill and mountain. Acidity is higher in the soils of hill and
mountain than in terai.
Environment Management Framework 2012
Figure 3.1: Landuse map of mid-western region
Environment Management Framework 2012
Figure3.2: Landuse map of far-western region
Environment Management Framework 2012
Figure3.3: Organic matter content of soil in mid-west and far-west development regions
Mid-West Far-West
Figure 3.4: Soil PH in mid- and far-west development regions
Mid-West Far-West
Organic
Matter,
Low,
54.8,
62%
Organic
Matter,
Medium
, 27.2,
31%
Organic
Matter,
High,
6.5, 7%
Organic Matter
Content
Low
Medium
HighOrganic
Matter,
Low,
60.5,
76%
Organic
Matter,
Medium
, 15.7,
20%
Organic
Matter,
High,
3.4, 4%
Organic Matter
Content
Low
Medium
High
PH,
Acidic,
58, 58%
PH,
Neutral,
34.6,
35%
PH,
Alkaline,
7, 7%
PH
Acidic
Neutral
Alkaline
PH,
Acidic,
33.03,
32%
PH,
Neutral,
45.3,
44%
PH,
Alkaline,
24.06,
24%
PH
Acidic
Neutral
Alkaline
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 10
3.3 Forest Resources
Forest Act and Regulation classify Nepal’s forest into six main categories: government managed
forests, protected areas, community forests, leasehold forests, religious forests, and private forests.
The ownership of first five categories of forests rests with the GoN. Community and leasehold forests
are managed by local communities. Area under forests and shrubs as a proportion of total area in mid-
western and far-western regions was 37.44% and 49.18% respectively which compares well with the
national average of 39.6%.
There are some discrepancies of data on total forest area among different sources. CBS data, which is based on 1999 Department of Forest Research and Survey data, indicate that the total area of forest in
the MWDR is 1,586,600 hectare (37.44 percent of the region’s area) whereas according to the mid-
western regional Forestry Directorate the total forest area in the region is 1,646,390.5 hectare. About
48 percent of forest area in this region is community managed (Table 3.2). There are 3,924
Community Forestry Users’ Groups (CFUGs) in this region managing 787,653 hectare of forest area
benefiting 474,124 households. Table 3.3 presents number of leasehold forests and its area. There are
1,015 leasehold forest users groups covering 10,715 hectare forest area. Protected areas and government managed forests comprise about 51 percent of total forest area in the MWDR. Table 3.4
presents protected areas and their associated buffer zone areas in this region.8 Out of the total of 10
national parks of the country, the MWDR houses 4 national parks with a total area of 5,179 square
kilometer (about 47.78 percent of total national park area of Nepal). Three protected areas are located
in terai, one is located in hill, and two are located in mountain.
Table 3.2: Community Forests in Mid-Western Development Region
SN District Number of
Community
Forest Users
Groups
Area (ha) Number of
Beneficiary
Households
1 Dang 481 97897 89829
2 Banke 159 262929 31400
3 Bardia 279 17951 43883
4 Pyuthan 373 44994 51669
5 Rolpa 470 32807 38211
6 Salyan 481 46092 40499
7 Rukum 419 21418 40075
8 Jajarkot 197 27642 19096
9 Surkhet 327 54620 47042
10 Dailekh 273 19698 30078
11 Kalikot 121 77772 14305
12 Jumla 143 21357 11897
13 Dolpa 51 22911 3990
14 Mugu 77 8764.2 6353
15 Humla 73 30801 5797
Total 3,924 787,653 474,124
Source: Mid-west Regional Forest Directorate, 2068.
8 Buffer zone is defined as the peripheral areas of national parks defined under section 3a of the National
Protected Area and Wildlife Conservation Act (1973).
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 11
Table3.3: Leasehold Forests in Mid-Western Development Region
SN District Number of
Community
Forest Users
Groups
Area (ha) Number of
Beneficiary
Households
1 Pyuthan 153 1908 9707
2 Rolpa 50 179.7 186
3 Salyan 196 1068 1822
4 Rukum 81 348.8 563
5 Jajarkot 70 866.2 733
6 Dailekh 66 323.8 586
7 Kalikot 42 468.5 661
8 Jumla 137 2143 2060
9 Dolpa 69 299.8 483
10 Mugu 29 688 472
11 Humla 122 2422 1876
Total 1,015 10,715 19,149
Source: Mid-west Regional Forest Directorate, 2068.
Table3.4: Protected Areas in Mid-western Development Region
Protected Area Area Buffer Zone
Area (Sq
Km)
District VDCc
Bardia National
Park
968 328 Bardia Baniyabhar, Magaraghadi, Dhadhawar,
Deudakala, Motipur, Belawa, Baganaha,
Neulapur, Shivapur, Thakurdwara,
Suryapatuwa, Manau, Pasupatinagar, Gola,
Patabhar
Banke Chisapani
Surkhet Chinchu, Lekhparajul, Hariharpur, Siddhachuli
Taranga
Banke National
Park
550 343
Krisnasar
Conservation
Area
Bardia Gularia Municipality
Rara National
Park
106 198 Mugu Rara, Shreenagar, Karkibada, Pina, Seri,
Khamale
Jumla Bumramadichaur, BotaMalika, Kankasundari
Shey-Foksundo
National Park
3,555 1,349 Dolpa Phoksundo, Saldang, Vijen. Dhow, Rah,
Tripurakot, Pahada
Mugu Kirmi, Dolphu
Dhorpatan
Hunting Reserve
Rukum Ranmaikot, Kankri, Taksera
Total 5,179 2,218
Source: Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation.
The total forest area in the FWDR varies from 9,476,990 hectare (far-west regional Directorate data)
to 9,613,000 hectare (CBS data). Based on CBS data, about 49 percent of the total area of this region
is covered by the forest. There are 2,567 CFUGs in this region covering a total forest area of 246,623
hectare (Table 3.5). Similarly, there are 887 leasehold forest users groups covering 7, 032 hectare of
forest area and benefiting 10,980 poor households (Table 3.6). The government managed forest and
protected area cover more than 95 percent of total forest area. There is one national park, Khaptad
national park, and a wildlife reserve (Shuklaphanta Wildlife Reserve) in this region Table 3.7).
Khaptad national park has an area of 225 square kilometer which is about 2.07 percent of the total
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 12
national park area. Shuklaphanta wildlife reserve has an area of 305 square kilometer which is 13.23
percent of the total wildlife reserve area of Nepal. The buffer zone of Khaptad national park covers an
area of 216 square kilometer. The buffer zone of Shuklaphanta wildlife reserve has an area of 243.5
square kilometer. Together, the buffer zones of these protected areas constitute about 8.47 percent of
total national buffer zone area. In 2010, the Apinampa Conservation Area with an area of 1903 square
kilometer was established in the Darchula district of this region.
Table3.5: Community Forests in Far-Western Development Region
SN District Number of
Community
Forest Users
Groups
Area (ha) Number of
Beneficiary
Households
1 Kanchanpur 77 12567 19469
2 Kailali 288 28651.22 67474
3 Dadeldhura 437 40368.9 34375
4 Doti 326 50975.78 28597
5 Achham 314 33127.9 45611
6 Baitadi 314 26191.99 29731
7 Darchula 260 19999 19348
8 Bajhang 304 19931.24 22850
9 Bajura 247 14809.68 20774
Total 2,567 246,623 2,88,229
Source: Far-west Regional Forest Directorate, 2068.
Table 3.6: Leasehold Forests in Far-Western Development Region
SN District Number of
Leasehold
Forest Users
Groups
Area (ha) Number of
Beneficiary
Households
Beneficiary
Population
3 Dadeldhura 143 717.7 1598 13788
4 Doti 190 840.03 1752 10316
5 Achham 134 614.1 1426 9402
6 Baitadi 144 415.05 1489 8959
8 Bajhang 119 2236.17 2133 12798
9 Bajura 157 2209.09 2582 14706
Total 887 7,032 10,980 69,969
Source: Far-west Regional Forest Directorate, 2068.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 13
Table 3.7: Protected Area in Far-western Region
Protected Area Area Buffer
Zone
Area (Sq
Km)
Districts VDCs
Khaptad National
Park
225 216.0 Bajhang Ghadraya, Parakatne, Kotbhairab, Koiralakot,
Pauwaghadi, Lamatola, Manjhigaon, Kalukhati,
Patadewal
Bajura Kanda, Jaya, Bageswori
Doti Gairagaon, Kadamandu, Doud, Toleni,
Baglekha
Achham Khaptad, Devisthan, Budakot, Duni, Patlekot
Shuklaphanta
Wildlife Reserve
305 243.5 Kanchanpur Shankarpur, Rampur Bilaspur, RauteliBichawa,
Suda, Dekhatbhuli, Daiji, Beldadi, Dodhara,
Jhalari, Chandani, Pipaladi, Mahendranagar
Municipality
Apinampa
Conservation Area
2010 Darchula Baysa, Rapla, Ghusa, Khandeswori, Sunsera,
Airkot, Sitola, Guljar, Hikila, Dhoulakot,
Pipalchouri, Huti, Tapovan, Bramadev, Dhari,
Chapari, Sipti, Seri, Latinath
Total 2540 459.5
Source: Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation.
Forest Use and Threats to Forests
Forests play important role in ensuring food and nutrition security of people in the mid- and far-
western regions. Agriculture remains main source of livelihood and employment for people in these
regions. Forests are main sources of fodder for livestock. Marginal and landless households depend on
forests for raising livestock. Forest also provides bedding materials for livestock which are inputs to
compost making. Compost manure are important source of crop nutrients especially in the hill and
mountain. Forests of these regions are rich in biodiversity, non-timber forest products (NTFPs), and
medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs). Out of 18 biodiversity rich districts of Nepal, three (Achham,
Bajura, and Kalikot) are located in mid- and far-west regions. Income from collection and sale of
MAPs and NTFPs help vulnerable households to cope with food insecurity. Forests in mid- and far-
western terai serve as biological corridor for the movement of wild animals.
Threats to forests include encroachment, excessive grazing, forest fire, landslides, river cutting,
timber, smuggling, etc. Chure forests are fragile and prone to flash floods and landslides. The legal
and illegal settlements of various groups of people such as ex-Kamaiyas, landless households, and
flood and landslide victims have also put pressure on forests especially in terai. Forest areas have been
used for the construction of roads, schools, and buildings for security agencies. Timber smugglings
from forests in Terai, and smuggling of timber and NTFPs from forests in high mountains have posed
threats to forest biodiversity. High dependency on fuelwood as source of energy for cooking and
heating also put pressure on forest especially in high mountains. Farmers in the mid-west and far-west
regions keep a large number of unproductive cattle mainly for manure and draft purposes. There is an
open grazing system. This has put pressure on forest resources leading to deforestation and loss of
valuable biodiversity.
There have also been some positive developments in forest managements. The introduction of
community and leasehold forestry programs has led to noticeable improvements in forest cover. The
Environment Management Framework 2012
establishment of protected areas and buffer zones has also helped in forest and biodiversity
conservation.
Figure3.5:Protected Areas of Nepal
3.4 Water Resources
Project area is rich in water resources. Out of the four major Himalayan river system of Nepal, two are
located in the project area. Karnaliriver, the longest river of Nepal, flows through mid-western region.
Mahakaliriver flows through far-western development region. Both of these rivers have huge
untapped hydropower potential. Karnali and Mahakali rivers have annual discharge of 44 and 18
billion cubic meters respectively. Karnali river basin has 1,361 glaciers with 1,740 square kilometer
area and 907 glacial lakes with 37.7 square kilometer area. Similarly, Mahakali river basin has 87
glaciers with 143 square kilometer area and 16 glacial lakes with 0.4 square kilometer area.9
Other major rivers include Bheri and Rapti in the MWDR and Seti in the FWDR. Other smaller rivers
in the mid-west include Tila, Babai, Jhimruk, Sarada, LuhamKhola, MarmaKhola, ArjunKhola, Mas
Khola, Man Khola, LohoreKhola, Chamgad, and ParajuliKhola. Similarly, smaller rivers in the far-
west include Chamelia, Budiganga, Darganga, Suniya, Dhikgad, Hoprigad, Rangun, Doteligad,
Rupalgad, Khutiya, Mohana, Sisaiya, and Banara.
9 See CBS (2008).
Environment Management Framework 2012
These river systems have huge hydropower and irrigation potential. A 12.3 MW hydropower plant has
been generating electricity from the Jhimrukriver in Pyuthan district. A 30 MW
Chameliyahydropower project is under construction in Chamelia river of Darchula district. A number
of micro-hydropower projects have been built in the hill and mountain districts.Tilariver has been
important source of irrigation in Jumla district. Few irrigation canals have been built in mid- and far-
west terai from rivers such as Babai and Mahakali. Karnaliriver attracts tourists for rafting. However,
the potential of these river systems remains still untapped.
The project area has many wetlands. Kailali district has the largest number of wetlands among the 75
districts of Nepal. Out of 10 Ramsar sites of Nepal, three are located in the project area.10 These
Ramsar sites are: SheyPhoksundolake in Dolpa and Rara lake of Mugu districts of the MWDR and
Ghodaghodi lake area in Kailali district of the FWDR (Figure 3.4). Other prominent lakes include
Jhilmila and Betkot Tal in Kanchanpur, Alital in Dadeldhura, Chatiwan Tal in Doti, and Khaptad Tal.
Figure3.6:Ramsar Listed Wetlands of Nepal
3.5 Energy Use
Fuelwood is the main source of fuel for cooking. The dependence on fuelwood is higher in hills and
mountains of those regions.
10
Ramsar sites lists wetlands of international importance. Till now, 1,828 wetlands from 158 countries are
listed as Ramsar sites. See Bhandari, 2009.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 16
Table3.8: Percent of Households using different sources of fuel for cooking
Regions Wood Cowdung/leaves
/thatch
LPG Kerosene Other Fuels Total
Eastern 61.4 24.2 10.7 0.1 3.6 100
Central 51.5 15.5 29.0 1.0 3.0 100
Western 64.4 10.7 18.5 0.3 6.1 100
Mid-western 89.5 0.9 6.0 0.2 3.4 100
Far-western 91.3 1.0 3.9 0.6 3.2 100
Mid- and
Far-western
Hills and
Mountains
97.2 0.4 2.0 0 5.6 100
Mid- and
Far-western
Terai
86.7 0.8 5.5 0 7.0 100
Nepal 64.4 13.6 17.7 0.5 3.8 100
Source: NLSS (2012).
3.6 Pesticide Use
The level of use of pesticide is low in Nepal, about 142 gm/hectare (though there are some questions
about the reliability of data). The use of pesticide is highest in Terai (12% of land area) followed by
hill (4.9% of land area) and mountains (0.7% of land area). However, overuse and misuse of
pesticides have been reported in some areas and for some crops, mostly off-season commercial
vegetable production areas. In general, the use of pesticides in the mid- and far-western regions is
much lower than the national average. Districts using higher doses of pesticide in these regions
include Dang, Banke, Kailali, and Kanchanpur (G.C., 2012).11
Common pesticides used in these
regions include: Nuvan, Diethane M 45, cypermethrin, endosulfan, chlropyriphos, butachlor, 2,4-D,
malathion, Bordeaux mixture, etc.12
Awareness of the farmers on proper use of chemical pesticides is
low.
3.7 Climate Change
Scientific studies on the impact of climate change in the project area are lacking. However, anecdotal
evidences, based on consultation with the local people, suggest that climate change is beginning to
have impact on in these regions. Local people said that climatic patterns are becoming erratic. Rainfall
does not occur for a long spell of time but when it occurs it would be high intensity leading to
landslides and other problems. Early flowering of some plants such as rhododendron was also
reported. Insect problems are increasing in cold places of mountain districts where there were no such
problems before. Locals also say that some crops like millet, maize, and chilly can be now grown at
higher altitude colder places perhaps due to farming.
3.8 Agro-biodiversity in Project Area
Given the diversity of climatic conditions, the project area is rich in agro-biodiversity. JumliMarshi, a
native variety of rice in Jumla, is the highest altitude rice in the World.13 The presence of wild rice
(Oryzarufipogan) has been identified in Ghodaghodi Lake Complex in Kailali. Indigenous crops such
as buckwheat, chino, millet, and kaguno are grown in the mountain districts of mid- and far-west
11
The Pesticide Registration and Management Section of the Plant Protection Directorate is in the process of
updating pesticide use data in Nepal which it hopes to make available soon. 12
Most of these pesticides fall under non-hazardous to moderately hazardous under WHO classification. 13
See MoFSC (2002).
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 17
development regions. These regions have also superior indigenous livestock breeds which include:
AcchamiNaumuthe, Khaila, and Yak of cattle; Lime, Parkote, Gaddi of buffalo; Khari, Sinhal, and
Chyangra of goats; Bhyanglung, Baruwal, and Lampuchhre of sheep; Bampudke, and Chwanche of
pigs; Sakini, GhantiKhuile, and PuwankhUlte of Poultry; and Jumli Horse. The introduction of
modern improved varieties has posed threat to the existence of these indigenous crop varieties and
livestock breeds.
3.9 Physical Cultural Resources in the Project Area
As stated earlier, the project area houses three Ramsar sites (wetlands of international importance) –
two in mid-west mountain districts, and one in far-west terai. The famous Swargadwari temple is
located in Pyuthan district of the mid-western region. A historical fort, Amaragadi, is located in
Dadeldhura district. There are numerous less known cultural sites such as temples, monasteries,
cremation grounds, caves, etc. which are of local significance.
3.10 Existing Environmental Issues and Management Practices
Existing Environmental Issues: Table 3.9 presents existing major environmental issues as identified
by the participants of stakeholder consultations and focus group discussions in six survey districts.
Flooding and river cutting are main environmental problems in Tarai14 districts of mid- and far-
western regions. These regions are getting major floods every few years.15 Floods have washed away
people’s private crop lands and led to the death of livestock such as goats by spreading animal
diseases.16
There are both natural and human-induced causes of flooding. Landslides from hills and
mountains bring debris to the rivers and streams in Terai and raise river beds that lead to flooding.
Construction of dams in India near Nepal’s boarder has also caused flooding in some areas.
The hilly VDCs of Kailali and Kanchanpur also suffer from landslides problems. Chure hills are
geologically fragile and prone to soil erosion and landslides. Rate of deforestation is high especially in
Chure area due to the practice of open grazing, and illegal encroachment. Timber smuggling is high.
The use of agricultural chemicals is increasing rapidly in commercial vegetable production area in
Tarai. The leakage of chemical fertilizers from agricultural land has led to eutrophication of some
important wetlands in Tarai such as Ghodaghodi lake complex of Kailali district.17
Crop intensification, inadequate and unbalanced application of chemical fertilizers, and inadequate
use of compost manures have led to soil degradation problems in Tarai. The practice of application of
compost manure in crop fields is declining due to lack of fodder, and shortage of labor. Consequently,
organic matter content of soil in Tarai is quite low.
Land slide and soil erosion are the major environmental problems in hills and mountains of both mid-
and far-west regions. Fragile geology, steep slopes, farming of the marginal lands, high intensity
rainfall within a short-period of time, and deforestation are the main causes of landslides and soil
erosion in the hills and mountains. Jumla is a bit of an exception. People in Jumla reported that the
landslide was not a major problem in that district as much of the Jumla is a valley and the cultivated
land there is less steep than the lands in other hill and mountain districts of these regions. Most of the
14
Plain Tarai districts are excluded from project. 15
See also Bann, Kandel, and Upadhyaya (2011). 16
Based on focus group discussions at Sonbarsha (Rapti East) of Banke district and Dhangingpur VDC of Kailali
district. 17
See Bann, Kandel, and Upadhyaya (2011).
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 18
paddy fields in the hills and mountain districts are located near the banks of rivers, and river cutting is
a problem in such areas.18
Consultations in Jumla and Rukum districts indicated that forest fire lead to deforestation and loss of
biodiversity. People in some parts of hills and mountain districts deliberately set fire in forests
because they believe that doing so would lead to the growth of green grasses for grazing their animals
in the subsequent periods. People in the hills and mountains also have a system of taking their
livestock to forests for grazing for few summer months during the year. These people construct
temporary sheds for animals and also for their own dwelling in the forest area which leads to
deforestation. The demand for fuelwood is high in the mountain district because fuelwood is the main
source of cooking as well as the heating needed protect people from harsh cold weather, which has
put pressure on forest resources. Improper and over-harvesting of medicinal and aromatic plants such
as Yarshagumba has caused the loss of biodiversity in high mountain areas. In general, the status of
government forests has deteriorated over time but the status of community managed forests and
protected areas have improved.
As discusses earlier, soil degradation problem is pervasive in hills and mountains too. Farming in the
marginal sloppy lands, washing of top soil by rains and soil erosion, landslides due to deforestation
and haphazard road construction, inadequate application of chemical fertilizers and declining use of
compost manures are main reasons for soil degradation.
As discussed in earlier section, the effects of climate change are beginning to show up. Studies have
shown that the rate of increase in temperature is higher in the hills and mountain districts of Nepal
than in terai.19
People also indicated a change in rainfall pattern, a long dry period followed by high
intensity rain, for example.
18
The study team observed, on the way to Martadi from Sanfebagar, a tract of paddy land in Bajura district
deserted through river cutting by Budi Ganga river. 19
See Baidya et al (2007).
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 19
Table3.9: Existing environmental issues in survey districts
District Environmental Issues
Banke (Terai) • Soil degradation
• Flooding.
• Water pollution.
Rukum (Hill) • Landslides.
• Flooding.
• Soil degradation.
• Practice of forest fire.
• Increase in insect problem.
• Mosquito and other insects are moving in higher colder belts.
Jumla (Mountain) • Forest fire.
• High demand of timber for construction has led to deforestation.
• Khoriakheti (shifting cultivation).
• Wide use of plastic.
• Drying of water sources.
• Effects of climate change
- Alternate bearing of apple.
- Maize, millet, and chilly can now be grown in colder places where they
could not be grown before.
Far West
Kailali (Tarai) • Misuse and overuse of pesticides in some commercial vegetable cultivation
pockets..
• Use of carbide in banana and mango is increasing.
• River cutting.
• Flash Floods.
• Deforestation.
- Open grazing.
- Timber smuggling.
- Forest encroachment.
• Indoor air pollution.
• Pollution from pig and poultry farming.
• Effects of climate change.
- Disease patterns are changing and new diseases are emerging in animals.
- Early heating in animals.
Doti (Hill) • Landslides/soil erosion.
• River cutting.
• Soil degradation.
• Deforestation.
• Effects of climate change.
- Does not rain but when it rains it rains heavily.
Bajura (Mountain) • Landslides/soil erosion.
• Drying of water sources.
• Deforestation due to
- Open grazing.
- Goth (shed) construction in forests.
- Conversion of forest land for agriculture.
- Fuelwood collection.
• Effect of climate change.
- Change on production pattern, for example, rice can be grown in colder
places now where it could not be grown 10 years back.
Source: Field Survey, February – March, 2012.
Existing Environmental ManagementPractices: After the passage of environmental acts and
regulations, all development projects in Nepal are required to assess its impact on environment.
Depending on the scope of the project and magnitude of risked posed by it, the project proposer may
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 20
need to prepare an Initial Environment Examination (IEE), or an Environment Impact Assessment
(EIA) before the project could be implemented. The sectoral ministry or the agency designated by the
ministry has the authority to approve or disapprove IEE. The EIA needs to be approved by the
Ministry of Environment. All development projects required to do IEE or EIA do so. However, there
are often complains that IEE and EIA are not done sincerely and the mitigation measures proposed by the project are not fully implemented. Monitoring is weak due to inadequate staff and budgetary
resources in the monitoring agencies. It often takes a long time to complete an EIA process, and get
approval for project implementation.
The use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides is low in mid- and far-western regions especially in the
hills and mountains. Lack of road infrastructure makes it difficult to transport fertilizers in the
mountain districts of these regions. Mountain districts have been practicing organic farming by
default. Jumla DDC has formally declared Jumla as an organic district. Rukum DDC has a policy to
practice organic farming in its 20 remote VDCs. Many recent development projects in these regions
have encouraged the use of IPM technologies, and in many instances, practice of organic farming
emphasizing on the use of bio-pesticides and farm yard manures. The IPM program in Nepal started
in mid-1990s and has expanded to 63 districts since then. An intensive National IPM program funded
by NORAD is helping to promote IPM technology in 17 districts of Nepal including Banke, Bardia,
Surkeht, Jumla, Kailali, and Dadeldhura of the mid- and far-western regions. Other projects such as
Project on Agriculture Commercialization and Trade (PACT), Integrated Water Resources
Management Project (IWRMP), and Sustainable Soil Management Project (SSMP) are promoting Integrated Plant Nutrient Management System (IPNMS) to address soil fertility problem.
The Government of Nepal (GoN) and donors have also launched projects to combat deforestation and
promote biodiversity conservation. Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) program, implemented by the World
Wildlife Fund (WWF), has been working in those regions for many years. TAL aims to develop
biological corridors linking protected areas of Nepal and adjoining protected areas of India for the
movement of wild animals. The USAID-funded Hario Ban (Green Forest) project was launched last
year which has forest conservation programs in mid- and far-west Tarai. The Western Tarai
Landscape Complex Project (WTLCP), funded by UNDP, is working on biodiversity conservation in
mid- and far-west Tarai. Leasehold Forestry Program is being implemented in hills and mountain
districts of those regions. An UNDP funded Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands of Nepal
(CSUWN) project has been working for the conservation of Ghodaghodilake of Kailali.20
A National Agriculture Genetic Resources Conservation Centre (Gene Bank) was established under
Nepal Agriculture Research Council (NARC) in late 2010 for ex-situ conservation of crops and
animal genetic resources. However, facilities for the conservation of animal genetic resources are yet
to be developed. The long load shedding hours in Nepal has hampered the works of this gene bank. The government has recently allocated budget for the construction of a direct feeder line for electricity
supply to this facility and the regular supply of electricity is expected to start soon.21
Some efforts are being made for the in-situ conservation of indigenous crop varieties by non-
governmental organizations through programs such as community seed bank. It was also learnt that
the Department of Livestock Services (DoLS) is implementing programs for the conservation of
indigenous animal breeds such as lulu and achhami cattle, bampudke pig, line and parkote buffaloes
in some selected districts. NARC and Nepal Agriculture Research and Development Fund
(NARDAF) have supported research projects for the assessment of animal biodiversity.22
20
See Bann, Kandel, and Upadhyaya (2010). 21
Based on consultation with the chief of the gene bank. 22
Based on consultation with the chief of the National Animal Science Research Institute (NASRI), Khultar.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 21
4. Environmental Policies, Laws, and Regulations
4.1 World Bank’s Policy on Environment
The World Bank’s policy is to prevent any adverse impacts on the environment. If adverse impacts
are unavoidable the Bank aims to minimize or mitigate such impacts by adopting appropriate
measures. Policy documents guiding World Bank’s policies on physical environment and human
health that are relevant for NAFSP include: OP 4.01 Environment Assessment; OP 4.36 Forests; OP
4.04 Natural Habitats; OP 4.09 Pest Management; and OP 7.50 Projects on International Waterways.
OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment:According to this OP, environmental assessment (EA) should
include evaluation of the impact of the proposed project on the natural environment (air, water, and
land), human health and safety, and transboundary and global environmental aspects. EA also requires
assessment of borrower country’s national policies and legislation related to environment. This OP
requires the environmental screening of all projects to determine the scope of environment assessment
needed. Based on environmental screening, projects are classified into four different categories:
(i) Category A: Projects with significant adverse environmental impacts.
(ii) Category B: Projects with potential adverse environmental impact but less adverse than
those of Category A projects.
(iii) Category C: Projects with minimal or no adverse environmental impacts.
(iv) Category D: Projects that are funded through a financial intermediary.
Category A projects normally requires a full Environment Impact Assessment (EIA). These projects
require an Environment Management Plan (EMP) that covers mitigation measures, monitoring, and
capacity building. Annex C of OP 4.01 provides an outline of an EMP. Some category B projects may
also need an EMP. Category C projects do not require further actions beyond initial screening.
For projects which include different sub-projects/activities whose impacts cannot be determined until
the program or sub-projects details have been identified, an Environmental Management Framework
(EMF) is needed. The EMF contains guidelines and procedures to assess environmental impacts,
measures and plans to reduce, mitigate, and /or offset adverse impacts and enhance positive impacts,
provisions for estimating and budgeting the costs of such measures, and information on agency or
agencies responsible for addressing project impacts.
OP 4.09 Pest Management: This policy favors the use of biological or environmental control methods
for controlling pests. It recommends that the integrated pest management (IPM) be used for
controlling agricultural pests with limited and safe use of pesticides when it is necessary. If a project
leads to significant use of pesticides, a pest management plan is needed.Since some proposed project
activities such as vegetable cultivation may induce use of pesticides, an assessment of the
environmental impact of NAFSP in light of this policy is needed.
OP 4.36 Forests: This policy prohibits the Bank from financing projects that “would involve
significant conversion or degradation of critical forest areas or related critical natural habitats.” If
deforestation of some critical non-forest areas is unavoidable and if there are no other feasible
alternatives, appropriate mitigation measures should be adopted. Since some project activities such as
livestock farming relates to the use of forest, an assessment of the risk of project activities on forest
resources is needed.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 22
OP 4.04 Natural Habitats: This policy aims to promote rehabilitation of degraded natural habitats, and
prohibits WB’s support to projects that involve the significant conversion or degradation of critical
natural habitats. As per this policy, WB does not support projects “involving the significant
conversion of natural habitats unless there are no feasible alternatives for the project and its sitting,
and comprehensive analysis demonstrates that overall benefits from the project substantially outweigh
the environmental costs.” As discussed earlier, the NAFSP project area houses important national
parks, wildlife reserves, conservation areas, and Ramsar wetlands. Hence, it is necessary to assess if
the proposed project activities violates OP 4.04.
OP 7.50 Projects on International Waterways: This policy requires the state proposing the project
(beneficiary state) to inform all riparian states if the proposed project leads to adverse changes in the
quality, or quantity of water flows to the riparian states. Since one of the proposed activities of the
NAFSP is related to irrigation technologies, an assessment is needed if such project activities meet the
requirements of OP 7.50.
4.2 Environment Policies, Laws, and Regulations of Nepal
The Government of Nepal (GoN) began to play active role in environment management when it
nationalized forest in late 1950s. The fifth five year plan implicitly considered environmental issues
by introducing regional concept of development and divided the country in three eco-regions viz.
mountain, hills, and the Tarai. The plan advocated for development programs to exploit comparative
advantages of those regions. However, the government began to play active role in environmental
management only in late 1980s. A national conservation strategy for Nepal was prepared in 1988
which was followed by the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector in 1989 and Nepal Environmental
Policy and Action Plan in 1993. Current policy documents influencing environmental policies of the
GoN include the Interim Constitution of Nepal (2007), periodic development plans, the Agriculture
Perspective Plan (1995-2015), National Agriculture Policy (2004), Forestry Sector Policy (2000) and
the Climate Change Policy (2011).
Interim Constitution of Nepal (2007). The Interim Constitution of Nepal ensures that “every person
has the right to live in a healthy environment.” In its State Policies the constitution expresses that "the
state shall make necessary arrangements to maintain the natural environment. The State shall give
priority to special protection of the environment, and rare wildlife, and prevent further damage due to
physical development activities by increasing awareness of the general public about environmental
cleanliness. Provisions shall be made for the protection of the forest, vegetation and biodiversity, their
sustainable use and equitable distribution of benefits derived from them.23
”
Agriculture Perspective Plan (1995-2015):The APP has emphasized the importance of environment
for sustainable growth of agriculture. The Plan recognizes that programs to accelerate agriculture
growth may have adverse impacts on environment. APP argues that the intensification of farming in
more favorable areas would reduce the need for cultivating marginal lands and reduce environmental
degradation. APP advocates for the plantation of tree and fruit crops on the steep slopes of hills and
mountains for minimizing environmental problems. The Plan also recommends the adoption of
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) technologies to avoid environmental problems associated with
increased use of pesticides.
23
See UNDP (2008).
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 23
National Agricultural Policy (2004): This policy advocates for the development and dissemination
of environment friendly technologies.
Agriculture Biodiversity Policy (2007): This policy aims to protect ecological balance by protecting
and promoting agricultural biodiversity.
The Interim Three Year Plan (2010/11-2012/13): This Plan has devoted a separate chapter for
environment and climate change. The Plan aims to promote the concept of green development by
encouraging human and development activities to be environment friendly. The Plan also aims to
maintain natural beauty of the rural areas. Programs include, among others, adoption of
bioengineering in infrastructure development projects for controlling soil erosion, safe disposal of
harmful pesticides, and streamlining EIA procedures.
Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal (2003). The GoN prepared a sustainable development
agenda in 2003 as a follow up to its commitments to the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development (1992) and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). The
SDAN aims to guide national level development plans and policies up to 2017. The SDAN requires
environmental impact assessment and analyses of alternatives for all projects. It also argues for the
protection of land against degradation, biodiversity conservation, conservation of rangelands, and
promotion of sustainable harvest and management of non-timber forest products.24
National Fertilizer Policy (2058). This policy recommends the adoption of Integrated Plant
Nutrients System (IPNS) to prevent deterioration of soil fertility and minimize adverse impacts on
environment caused by the use of chemical fertilizers. IPNS encourages farmers to make balanced use
of chemical fertilizers based on soil test. It also encourages farmers to use organic manures.
Forestry Sector Policy (2000):The objectives of the forestry sector policy include: contribution to
food production through effective interaction between forestry and farming practices; and protection
of land from degradation by soil erosion, landslides, desertification, and other ecological disturbances.
This policy forbids conversion of forest, shrub, and grasslands into cultivation. The policy aims to
manage and utilize land and forest resources according to their ecological advantage. The policy states
that forests in the mountains would be managed with users’ participation. It introduces the concept of
collaborative forest management in Terai where the government and households living adjacent to
forests will form a partnership in managing forests.
Climate Change Policy (2011): This policy incorporates climate adaptation and disaster risk
reduction measures. The policy advocates for the adoption of low carbon development path by
encouraging use of renewable energy and increasing carbon sequestration through proper
management of forests. Bridges, dams, river flood control, and other infrastructures would be made
resilient to climate change. Drought and flood resistant crop varieties would be developed and
disseminated. A Climate Change Fund would be established and at least 80 percent of this fund would
be allocated to programme implementation at community level.
Acts and Regulations
Environmental Protection Act, 2053 (1997) and Regulations 2054 (1997):These Act and
regulation are the main legislation guiding environmental management in Nepal. The Environment
Protection Act requires projects to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), or the Initial
Environment Examination (IEE) depending on the size and scope of projects.
24
See NPC and MoPE (2003).
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 24
Seeds Act, 2045 (1988) and Regulations, 2054 (1997):This Act aims to increase crop production by
making high quality seeds available. This Act has established a National Seed Board. The Act also
made provisions for the established of seed certifying agency and a central seed testing laboratory. As
per this Act, the government can specify minimum germination level and purity of seeds and can prohibit the sale of seeds not meeting such specifications. The Act can also prohibit export and import
of seeds notified by the government. However, Seed Act is hardly implemented in practice.
Plant Protection Act, 2029 (1972) and Regulations, 2031(1974): This Act requires individuals and
organizations importing plant products, biological control agents, beneficial insects, and medium for
growing plants such as soil to obtain permission from the designated authorities. As per the Act, the
government can declare certain area as pest affected areas and adopt necessary measures to destroy
pests in those areas.
Pesticides Act, 2048 (1991) and Regulations, 2050 (1993):This Act requires all importers, exporters,
users, sellers, and producers of pesticides to register such pesticides with the authority designated by
the Government. The government publishes names of such pesticides in the national Gazette. Annex 4
presents list of pesticides registered in Nepal. As per the Pesticides Regulation 1993, the registration
agency needs to evaluate the impacts of such pesticides on human, animal, and environment. The
authority can cancel such registration any time if the general use of those pesticides is found to make
adverse impacts on human, animal, and environment. Annex5 presents a list of banned pesticides in
Nepal.Pesticide retailers and sprayers also need to be registered. National Plant Quarantine Office is
the designated authority.
Animal Health and Animal Services Act, 2055 (1998) and Regulations, 2056 (1999): This Act requires individuals and organizations importing animals and animal products to obtain quarantine
certificates from the designated authorities. The Act also makes provisions for the issuance of
quarantine certificates for the exporters of animal and animal products..
Slaughterhouse and Meat Inspection Act, 2055 (1998) and Regulations, 2056 (1999):This Act
aims to protect human health by regulating meat quality through proper management of
slaughterhouse and meat sale.
Animal Feeds Act, 2033 (1976): This Act prohibits production, sale, export, import, and storage of
adulterated animal feeds.
Food Act, 2023 (1966) and Regulations, 2027 (1970): This Act prohibits production, sale,
distribution, export, and import of adulterated and low quality food products. This Act also requires
truthful labeling of food products.
Aquatic Animals Protection Act 1961 and Amended in 1999: This Act prohibits use of harmful
poisons for capturing and killing aquatic animals. It also prohibits any obstructions in the movement
of fish.
Forest Act, 2049 (1993) and Forest Regulations 2051(1995): According to these Act and
Regulations, the GoN can acquire any private land to include in the forest by compensating owners of
such land. The Act bans activities such as cultivation of forest land, grazing, unauthorized harvesting
of forest products, and extraction of soil, sand, stones, etc from forests. However, the government can
give permission to use parts of forests to implement projects of national priority if no alternatives
other than using forest area are available.
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973 (fourth amendment in 1993): This Act
authorizes government to declare a part of forest area as a protected area.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 25
Buffer Zone Management Regulations, 1996and Buffer Zone Management Guidelines, 1999.
These regulations and guidelines determine what kinds of development activities could be undertaken
in buffer zone area. These acts and regulations also guide the use of revenue for protected areas
allocated for the buffer zone.
Soil and Watershed Conservation Act (1982) and Soil and Watershed Management Regulations
(1995): These Act and Regulation authorizes the government to declare certain critical watershed as
protected watersheds.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 26
5. Institutional Capacity Assessment
The MoAD has a Gender Equity and Environment Division (GEED) which is responsible for
overseeing the agriculture-related environmental activities.The GEED is headed by a Joint Secretary.
The GEED has three units: Agriculture and Biodiversity Unit, Gender Equity Unit, and Gender
Coordination Unit.25
However, the GEED lacks adequate human and budgetary resources to undertake
its responsibilities. There is a 9 member Agriculture and Environment Conservation Committee
(AECC)at the MoAD headed by Joint Secretary of the GEED. This committee provides advice to the
MoAD in all matters related to the environment including IEE and EIA.
There are no environmental divisions at DoA and DoLS. The regional and district level offices of the
DoA and DoLS also do not have any units to deal with environmental issues. The Nepal Agriculture
Research Council (NARC), main organization responsible for agriculture research in Nepal, has an
Environment Section within its Planning and Coordination Division which mainly deals with
agriculture biodiversity issues.
The DoA and DoLS have made some institutional arrangements for the control of plant and animal
diseases, and soil management. Plant Protection Directorate (PDD) of the Department of Agriculture
(DOA) is responsible for implementing national plant protection programs as specified by Pesticide
Act (2048), Pesticide Regulations (2050), and Plant Protection Act (2064). The Directorate also helps
government to formulate plant protection policies. The Directorate has three major activities: control
import and export of disease and pests infected plants and plant products; registration and
management of pesticides; and control of crops disease and pests. The quarantine program of the
Directorate is responsible for ensuring that the traded plants and plant products are free from diseases
and pests. There are two regional plant quarantine offices in mid- and far-west regions – one in
Nepalgunj (Banke) and one in Gaddachowki (Kanchanpur). In addition, there is one plant quarantine
sub-check post in Jhulalghat of Baitadi.Regional Plant Protection Laboratories (RPPL) are responsible
for the control of pests and diseases of crops within the regions. There are two regional RPPLs in the
project area – one in Khajura (Banke) and one in Sundarpur (Kanchanpur). The RPPLs work with
Plant Protection Officers (PPOs) of District Agriculture Development Offices (DADOs). The
Pesticide Registration and Management Section (PRMS) of the PPD are responsible for the
registration and management of pesticides in Nepal. The PRMS issues licenses to importers,
formulators, and retailers of pesticides and also monitors the use of pesticides. Discussion with
concerned stakeholders indicated that this office lacks adequate staff and laboratory facility to execute
its functions effectively. For example, the PRMS has not been able to use its laboratory facility
adequately as it does not have budget to buy a generator for back up power sources for load shedding
hours. Updated data on the quantity of pesticide used in Nepal is not available. The PRMS has the
responsibility to collect such data but it has not been able to do so due to lack of adequate
manpower.26
The DoA has a Soil Management Directorate (SMD) at the central level in Kathmandu and 5 regional
soil testing laboratories for the management of soil. There are two regional soil testing laboratories in
the project area – one at Khajura (Banke) in the mid-western region and one at Sundarpur(Kanchapur)
in the far-western region. However, the soil testing laboratories are not properly equipped.
25
Based on stakeholder consultation with the GEED officials. 26
Consultation with the Chief of PRMS on February 12, 2012.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 27
The DoLS has central and regional laboratories for the control of animal diseases. There are two
regional animal health laboratories in the project area, one each in mid- and far-west development
regions. There are 2 animal quarantine check posts in mid-west and 4 animal quarantine check posts
in the far-west.27
The Department of Food Technology and Quality Control (DFTQC) is primarily responsible for
implementing Food Act and ensuring safety of food products.28Moreover, the presence of DFTQC in
the mid- and far-western regions is weak. It has five regional offices two of which are located in the
mid- and far-western regions – one each at Nepalgunj and Mahandranagar. The regional office has a
small lab and about 10 staff, although only 5 to 6 staff are usually working. The Department has one
food inspector, located at the District Administration Office, in each of the 20 Tarai districts of Nepal
including the Taerai districts of mid- and far-western regions. There are no food inspectors in the hills
and mountain districts of these regions. The regional offices have the mandate to look after food
safety of hill and mountain districts but due to inadequate staff and budgetary resources they visit
those districts only once or twice a year. The DFTQC has 4 food quarantine check posts in Nepal only
one of which is located in the mid- and far-western regions (located in Mahendranagar of
Kanchanpur district). The quarantine check posts are equipped with small lab facility.
At district level, most DADOs have one Plant Protection Officer (PPO) who is primarily responsible
for plant protection activities within the district. The PPOs provide backstop services to Agriculture
Service Centres (ASCs) within the district. The DLSOs have technicians trained in veterinary
medicine and animal sciences who are responsible for monitoring the use of animal growth hormones
and veterinary medicines. However, the coverage by DADOSs and DLSOs is highly inadequate. The
District Forest Office (DFO) and the District Soil and Watershed Conservation Office (DSWCO) are
responsible for monitoring forest and soil conditions within the district. In practice, development
projects set up separate institutional arrangements for dealing with environmental and social issues.
Most NGOs do not have separate units in their organization to deal with environmental issues.
However, NGOs have experience in dealing with environmental problems as most donor projects
these days have made environmental management component mandatory. National level NGOs
working in the mid-western and far-western development regions such as CEAPRED, LIBIRD, and
SAPPROS have good experience and expertise in environment management.
6. Potential Impact of Project Activities on Environment
Most projects activities envisioned by NAFSP would have minimal or moderate, but no highly
significant adverse environmental impacts. Main environmental concerns that are likely to occur are
as follows:
Soil degradation
NAFSP project activities such as use of improved crop varieties could aggravate existing soil
degradation problems as improved varieties need more plant nutrients. The project expects to test and
validate 17 improved crop varieties for different agro-ecological regions within the project area. These
27
The animal quarantine check posts in the mid-west are located at Bhansar road (Nepalgunj), and Gulariya
(Bardiya). The check posts in the far-west are located in Khakroula (Kailali), Belauri (Kanchanpur), GaddaChouki
(Kanchanpur), and Darchula. 28
The following is based on stakeholder consultation at DFTQC on January 16, 2012.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 28
include potato and barley in the Upper Mountain region; maize, barley, wheat, buckwheat, millet,
mustard and rice in the Lower Mountains; maize, soybean, wheat, mustard, black gram, potato and
vegetables in the rain-fed Mid-Hills; and rice, wheat, potato, vegetables and lentil in the irrigated mid-
Hills. The improvement/ maintenance of minor irrigation infrastructure such as small farmer managed
micro-irrigation channel and collection centres could also lead to soil erosion if not done properly.
Project activities such as livestock farming could lead to deforestation which, in turn, may cause soil
erosion and landslides. However, the scale of the physical infrastructure is quite small.
Pressure on forest and forest resources
Breed improvement and promotion of livestock breeds could increase pressure on forest resources and
lead to deforestation if these activities lead to increase in the number of animals and if open grazing is
practiced. The project plans to make available over 6000 improved cross-bred goats and over 4000
improved parental poultry stock in the 19 project districts. Pressure on forest and forest resources may
also be caused by irrigation channel improvement and other infrastructure construction, if these are
located in or close to forest area.
Biodiversity
Promotion of improved varieties of crops may lead to loss of agro-biodiversity if it leads to
monoculture. Breed improvement may cause loss of animal bio-diversity if it leads to extinctions of
local breeds of livestock. Promotion of livestock breeds may cause deforestation which, in turn, may
lead to loss of forest biodiversity.Although activity in core protected area is not eligible for support
under the project, it is possible that some of the project activities are implemented in or close to
protected area buffer zones. Impacts on wild biodiversity from the project activity, particularly from
livestock grazing and fodder, in or near the buffer zone or any forest may not be ruled out.
Pressure on Water Resources
Promotion of improved crop varieties may also increase water requirements by crops which may put
additional pressure on water resources. However, as the project intends to promote the use of drought
tolerant varieties and improve water management efficiency at the farm level the increased pressure
on water resources would be minimum. There are also concerns that project activities related to
irrigation improvement may lead to adverse changes in the quality, or quantity of water flows to the
downstream. However, irrigation related activities envisaged by the NAFSP include micro-irrigation
technologies such as treadle pump, drip irrigation, sprinkler irrigation, and rain-water harvesting, and
rehabilitation or maintenance of already existing farmer-managed irrigation channel. Theproject
activities are geared more towards enhancing water use efficiency. These activities will not affect any
aquatic life like migration of fishes. These activities also do not cause any adverse change in the
quality except localized turbidity around the construction sites when construction site is close to a
stream, or quantity of water flows to the downstream.
Pesticide use
NAFSP project does not subsidize purchase of pesticides. Use of chemical pesticides that fall in the
World Health Organization (WHO) classes IA and IB and/or banned in Nepal are not permissible in
the project supported activities. Project encourages and supports participating districts in organic
approach, and in using bio-pesticides as far as possible. Nevertheless, experience from other parts of
Nepal indicates that some activities such as vegetable cultivation, seed production, and promotion of
improved varieties envisioned by the NAFSP may induce some increase in the use of pesticides. Low
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 29
risk chemical pesticide may be used as part of Integrated Pest Management (IMP) when there is no
other option. However, the level of increase in pesticide use and its adverse impact is not expected to
be significant mainly for four reasons: (i) the current use of pesticides in these regions is fairly low;
(ii) IPM programs are already on-going in these regions; (iii) target groups of this project are small
and marginal farmers who practice labor intensive farming; (iv) some hill and mountain districts have
already adopted a policy to practice organic farming. This, however, should not imply that NAFSP
project could ignore pesticide management issues. The project needs to take precautionary measures
by minimize environmental risks from the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides: this should form
part of environmental screening and environmental management of each activity under the project.
Mitigation Measures:For each activity, specific mitigation measures will have to be specified during
implementation through the process of environmental screening, assessment and management plan for
that activity. It should be noted that most of risks identified above could be mitigated with a bit of
efforts and caution.
Soil degradation problem could be mitigated by promoting soil fertility improvement techniques
through the use of composting, intercropping with legumes, cover-cropping and balanced use of
inorganic fertilizers. The pressure on local forest could be minimized by increasing the availability of
fodder through fodder plantation in private as well as community lands, and promoting stall feeding.
Soil erosion and landslides related to agricultural and construction activities can be mitigated by the
use of conservation farming practices and bio-engineering. Pressure on water resources could be
minimized by increasing water use efficiency and developing drought resistant varieties which the
NAFSP proposes to do.
The promotion of stall feeding and restriction on open grazing will help to mitigate forest biodiversity
loss. To avoid loss of biodiversity from protected areas, the project should not support activities in
protected areas, and activities that depend on resources from protected areas. In the case of buffer
zone, the project may support activity only if it is included in the buffer zone management plan
approved by the protected area authority. The project should coordinate with the National Agriculture
Genetic Resources Conservation Centre (Gene Bank) for ex-situ conservation of plant and animal
genetic resources of the project area. The project should also coordinate and support on-going
initiatives for in-situ conservation of agriculture genetic resources such as the community seed banks.
The project should support research studies for the identification of indigenous animal breeds and
assessment of population of those breeds in the project area. The project should also work with non-
governmental organizations for in-situ conservation of indigenous animal breeds. Awareness
programs on agricultural bio-diversity policy, value of indigenous animal breeds, and value of
indigenous crops, and native varieties of crops are needed.
The risk associated with increased use of pesticides could be mitigated by promoting IPM and organic
technologies. The problem associated with the induced increase in the use of pesticides could be
minimized by providing training to the users as well as the extension agents on safe, correct and
efficient use of safe (green label) pesticides, and by ensuring that “waiting period” is observed as per
WHO recommendation. Bio-pesticides should be given preference to chemical pesticides when
pesticide needs to be used. IPM technologies will be promoted. Evidences indicate that the use of IPM
technologies could lead to higher yield compared to chemical technologies in smaller farms.29
29
Based on personal conversation with the Chief of Plant Protection Directorate (PDD), Nepal.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 30
National and local level policies are favorable for the adoption of IPM and organic technologies.
Jumla, mountain district, has declared itself as organic. The chances of using chemical pesticides are
higher in the Tarai belt but the proposed project will not be implemented in the Tarai. NAFSP has
also proposed to promote disease and pests resistant varieties. Thus, the adoption of proper
Environmental Code of Practices (ECoPs) would be adequate to mitigate risks associated with
induced increase in the use of pesticides.
Positive Impact: NAFSP project could also make positive impact on the environment and human.
For example, increase in crop productivity by intensification of farming in more suitable lands would
reduce the need to cultivate marginal lands which would have positive impact on the environment.
The upgrading of livestock breed could reduce the number of unproductive cattle and thus reduce
pressure on forests. The increase in vegetable, meat, and milk production due to project activities
could lead to improved diet of households and improve nutritional status of people.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 31
7. Environmental Management Framework
The EMF consists of environmental screening guidelines, environmental assessment guidelines,
sample activity level EMP, institutional arrangements for EMF, project level environmental
monitoring framework, capacity strengthening plan, consultation framework, and environmental code
of practices.
7.1 Environmental Screening and Categorization Guidelines
Environmental screening helps to determine what level of environmental study is required for the
proposed sub-project. It also provides early environmental information/feedback to sub-project
planning and design. The following steps will be used for the initial screening of sub-projects:
1. Name of the project proposer.
2. Location of the sub-project.
3. Brief description of the sub-project.
4. Identify potential adverse/positive environmental impacts of the sub-project. The following
generic checklist will be used to understand potential environmental risks:
a. Does the sub-project cause air pollution?
b. Does the sub-project cause soil erosion?
c. Does the sub-project cause landslides?
d. Does the sub-project lead to the depletion of organic matter content of the soil?
e. Does the sub-project increase acidity of soil?
f. Does the sub-project lead to increase in the use of pesticides?
g. Does the sub-project lead to deforestation?
h. Is the sub-project located in core protected areas proposed for protection, or legally
not-protected but area known for high conservation value? Are subproject activities
dependent on resources from the mentioned areas?
i. Is the sub-project located in buffer zone areas of protected areas? Is there approved
buffer zone management plan? Are subproject activities permitted under the approved
buffer zone management plan?
j. Does the sub-project lead to the increase in the use of animal growth hormones?
k. Does the sub-project lead to loss of productive land?
l. Does the subproject lead to loss of local crop species?
m. Does the subproject lead to loss of local livestock species?
n. What are the positive environmental impacts of sub-projects?
5. Consult Appendix 2 of the Environment Protection Regulations (1997), and assess the risk
level of the sub-project to determine if the sub-project needs to do an Environment Impact
Assessment (EIA).According to the World Bank (WB) guidelines, some sub-projects may
need to do an EIA even if the EPR criteria may not require EIA if the District Environment
and Social Management Committee (DESMC) determines that such sub-projects poses high
risks to the environment of the area. The Environment Specialist at the PMU will review such
findings of the DPSU.
6. Consult Appendix 1 of the Environment Protection Regulations (1997) and Agriculture Sector
Initial Environment Examination Guidelines, 2065 issued by the GEED of the MoAD, and
assess the risk level of the sub-project to determine if the sub-project needs to do an Initial
Environment Examination (IEE).WB environment guideline may require some sub-projects to
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 32
do an IEE even if the EPR criteria may not require IEE if the District Environment and Social
Management Committee (DESMC) determines that such sub-projects poses significant risks
to the environment of the area, and in such cases, the Environment Specialist at the PMU will
review decision of the DESMC..
7. Review of the findings of initial environment screening by the District Environment and
Social Management Committee (DESMC) under DPSU.
8. Revise conclusions of initial environment screening based on such discussions.
Categorization of Sub-Projects
Based on the findings of environmental screening, the projects will be categorized as follows:
Category A:Sub-Projects with significant adverse environmental impacts. These sub-projects will be
ineligible for funding. Examples of such projects include:
i. Sub-projects/activities with risk of having significant loss or degradation of critical natural
habitats.
ii. Sub-projects/activities located in or dependent on resources from legally protected or
officially proposed for protection, or unprotected but area knownas high conservation value.
iii. Sub-projects/activities that use and/or depend on the use of chemical pesticides that fall in
the World Health Organization (WHO) classes IA and IB and/or banned in Nepal.
iv. Sub-projects requiring full EIA.
v. Sub-projects/activities located in sites of national or international significance such as
World Heritage Sites, Ramsar Sites, etc.
Category B: Projects with potential adverse environmental impact but less adverse than those of
Category A projects. These projects may require to do IEE, not only on the basis of GoN EPA/ EPR
but also considering the potential environmental risks.
Category C: Projects with minimal or no adverse environmental impacts.An Environmental Code of
Practices (ECoP) is adequate for these projects.
7.2 Environment Assessment Guidelines
NAFSP will not fund Category A sub-projects. Sub-projects that fall under category B based on
environmental screening will require an IEE, before it could be approved.The first step in conducting
an IEE is the preparation of a Terms of Reference (ToR) for IEE. Annex 6 presents a generic ToR for
IEE which will be customized by the Environmental Specialist of the project for different sub-
projects. The Environment Specialist (ES) at the TA team under Project Management Unit (PMU)
will prepare the ToR for IEE. TheToR needs to be approved by the Secretary of the MoADon the
recommendation from the Agriculture and Environment Conservation Committee at the MoAD which
is chaired by the Joint Secreatry of the GEED. After the approval of the ToR, the DPSU, or the
consultant hired by the DPSU conducts IEE, and prepares a report. Annex 7of this report presents a
format of IEE report. The Environment Specialist at the TA of the PMU and the Project Environment
and Social Management Committee (PESMC) will review the IEE report and forward it to the GEED
of the MoAD. The GEED will review the IEE report at the Agriculture and Environment
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 33
Conservation Committee meeting and get it approved by the Secretary of MoAD. Sub-projects that
require IEE also need an Environment Management Plan (EMP).
7.3 Environment Management Plan (EMP)
The EMP of a sub-project consists of “the set of mitigation, monitoring, and institutional measures to
be taken during implementation and operation to eliminate adverse environmental and social impacts,
offset them, or reduce them to acceptable levels.”30
All sub-projects would be required to prepare
environment management plans. The details of the EMP would depend on the magnitude of
environmental risks posed by the sub-project. However, the EMP would consist of the following main
components: (i) Description of the sub-project, (ii) Potential environmental risk of the sub-project,
(iii) Mitigation measures, (iv) Monitoring, and (v) capacity building. Annex 8 of this report presents a
sample EMP for a type of subproject likely to be supported under the NAFSP.
7.4 Institutional Arrangement for EMF Implementation
Figure 7.1 presents proposed project implementation arrangement for NAFSP. The MoAD is main
implementing agency of the project. NARC will implement component 1 of the project. DoA and
DoLS will implement component two. Department of Health (DoH) will implement Behavior Change
Communication (BCC) sub-component of component 4. A Project Management Unit (PMU) would
be established under MoAD which will be located in Kathmandu. The MoAD will delegate a Joint
Secretary Level officer to lead the PMU. The technical assistance for NAFSP will be provided by
FAO. The MoAD structure under DoA and DoLS at the district and regional level will have major
implementation roles.
There would be two Regional Project Support Units (RPSUs) for two development regions. The
Regional Director (RD) of the Regional Agriculture Directorate, or the RD of Regional Livestock
Services Directorate will be designated as the coordinator of RPSU. The RPSU for mid-western
development regions would be located in Surkhet, and the RPSU for far-western development region
would be located in Dipayal. Each program district would have a District Project Support Unit
(DPSU) for the filed level implementation of the project. The chief of DOAD, or the chief of DLSO
would lead the DPSU. The DPSU would work closely with the District Agriculture Development
Committee (DADC), District Food and Nutrition Committee (DFNC), and District Development
Committee (DDC).
NAFSP has also proposed institutional mechanisms for governance oversight and coordination. These
include: a Steering Committee chaired by the Secretary of Agriculture, a Technical Committee
chaired by a Joint Secretary at the MoAD, two Regional Project Coordination Committee chaired
either by the RD of Agriculture, or the RD of Livestock Services, and District Project Coordination
Committee chaired either by the Chief of DADO or by the Chief of DLSO.
The technical assistance team will have an Environmental Specialist (ES) position. The ES would
assist PMU in coordination and implementation of all environment related activities of the project.At
district level, the DPSU can draw on environmental expertise of DADC members. In addition, the
DPSU would identify a focal person for environmental management.
30
See WB OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment, January 1999.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 34
Figure 7.2 shows institutional arrangements for the implementation of the EMF. The Technical
Assistance (TA) Team at the PMU would include an Environmental Specialist (ES) position. The ES
would coordinate all environment related activities of the project. The PMU would have a Project
Environment and Social Management Committee (PESMC) as a sub-committee of proposed
Technical Committee. The Project Director (PD) of NAFSP would chair the PESMC. Other members
of the PESMC would include representatives from GEED, plant protection directorate, soil
management directorate, animal production and animal health directorate, Department of Food
Technology and Quality Control, and National Seed Board. It may also invite environmental experts
from other line agencies as per need. At district level, a District Environment and Social Management
Committee (DESMC) would be formed at DPSU. The DPSU coordinator will chair the DESMC.
Other members of DESMC would include plant protection officer of DADO, representatives from
DLSO, DFO, DSWCO, DDC, DWDO, LSP, and Project Affected People.
Table 7.1 presents sub-project cycle and environmental steps for the NAFSP.The ES at the TA team
prepares manuals, guidelines, and sub-project specific screening checklists. The Social mobilizer of
the local service provider and the relevant expert assigned by the District Project Support Unit
(DPSU) will conduct environmental screening, and categorize sub-projects as A, B, or C based on the
risk levels based on such checklists.Sub-project concept note would not be accepted without the
findings of environmental screening.The DESMC will review findings of such screenings and makes
recommendations. The DPSU forwards its recommendations to PMU. The PESMC of the PMU
reviews environmental recommendation of DPSU and makes appropriate decisions. If the sub-project
needs to do an IEE, the ES of the TA team at the PMU would prepare a TOR and get it approved by
the MoAD. The DPSU would conduct, or hire an independent consultant to conduct IEE. The findings
of the IEE will be forwarded to MoAD through PESMC for approval. The DESMC will prepare sub-
project specific EMPs and ECoP. The DPSU would incorporate findings of IEE, EMPs, and ECoPs in
sub-project proposal. The DESMC and PESMC would review sub-project proposals and examine
whether environmental concerns are included in the proposal or not.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 35
Figure7.1: Proposed Project Implementation Arrangement_ NAFSP
Project Steering Committee
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
Project Management Unit
Regional Project Support Units
MoAD Departments NARC
Regional Directorates; DoA, DLS, DoH
RegionalResearchCenter, NARC
Nepal Peasant Coalition (Regional level)
Representatives from development partners
Invitees:
Regional Coordination
Committees
District Agriculture Development Offices
District Livestock Development Offices
District Development Committees
District Agriculture Development
Coordination Committees
District Project Support Unit
(either at DADO or DLSO)
Agriculture Service Centers
Livestock Service Centers
Village Development Committees
Beneficiary groups in the communities, villages
Partner NGOs (Local
NGOs)
Service
Provider
TA Team (ES)
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 36
Figure7.2: Institutional Arrangement for EMF Implementation
Table7.1: Sub-project cycle and environmental steps
Activity Responsibility
Preparation of environment guidelines, manuals, etc. PMU – PESMC
ES at TA Team
Preparation of the concept note of the sub-project DPSU
Environmental screening and categorization Relevant Expert assigned by the DPSU from among
the members of DESMCand social mobilizer of local
service providers. Concept note would not be accepted
without the findings of environmental screening.
Review of findings of environmental screening DPSU – DESMC
Approval of environmental screening PMU – PESMC
Preparation of ToR for IEE for projects that need to do
IEE
ES at TA Team
PMU – PESMC
Undertake IEE for projects that require IEE Independent consultant hired by DPSU
Approval of IEE PMU – PESMC and agricultural and environment
committee of GEED
Preparation of site specific EMP and ECP for projects
not requiring IEE
DPSU – DESMC
Preparation of detail project proposal incorporating
findings of IEE, EMP, and IEE
DPSU, Project proposer
Review of project proposal to evaluate whether
environmental recommendations are incorporated or
not
DESMC
PESMC
Environmental monitoring DESMC
PESMC
ES at the TA Team
GEED
7.5 Project Level Environment Monitoring Framework
NAFSP will ensure the following three levels of monitoring: a baseline survey, compliance and
impact monitoring, and an independent monitoring of the overall environmental performance of the
project.
(i) Baseline Survey: During the preparation of sub-projects, the DPSU with the help of
DESMC will assess environmental situation in sub-project area and prepare indicators for
TA Team (ES)
TA Provider
(SM)
PMU PESMC
DPSU DESMC
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 37
major components of environment. The indicators would include: forest area and quality,
level of pesticide use, level of use of growth hormones in animals, conditions of soil,
awareness about the proper use of pesticides, awareness about the proper use of compost
manure, level of use of chemical fertilizers, etc.
(ii) Compliance and Impact Monitoring:The DESMC under the DPSU would regularly monitor
whether the project proposers/implementing entities are implementing environmental
mitigation measures they have committed in their Environment Management Plan (EMP),
and ECPs. The DESMC/DPSU will also monitor the impact of sub-project activities on the
baseline situation of the environment. Compliance and impact monitoring would be done on
a quarterly basis. The release of fund would be made conditional on the compliance of
environmental commitments. The DPSU would send monitoring reports to the PMU. The
ES consultant at the TA Team would review and prepare an annual monitoring report and
submit it to the PMU. The ES may visit sample sub-project sites to cross check, if needed.
(iii) Independent Monitoring Overall Environmental Performance of NAFSP:The GEED will be
responsible for monitoring the overall environmental performance of the project.The GEED
may use its own staff, or mobilize experts from within the MoAD structures, or hire
independent consultants as per the need. NAFSP will provide financial support to cover the
costs of such independent consultants. Independent monitoring will be conducted annually
beginning from the second year of the project on sample sites.
7.6 Capacity Strengthening Plan
NAFSP would undertake the following measures for capacity strengthening:
(i) Strengthening of the Gender Equity and Environment Division (GEED) of the MoAD:
NAFSP will provide refresher trainings including orientation of this EMF and exposure
visits to environmental officers of the GEED. The Environment Consultant of the project
may also provide advice on environmental matters to GEED, if such advice is sought from
GEED.
(ii) Project Management Unit (PMU): The PMU would include an Environment
Specialist (ES) at its TA team. The ES would prepare environmental guidelines, screening
checklists for specific sub-projects, prepare TOR for IEE, monitoring frameworks and
monitoring reports.
(iii) District Project Support Unit (DPSU): EMF orientations would be given to members
of DESMC. DESMC members would also receive trainings on environmental monitoring.
(iv) Department of Agriculture (DoA) and Department of Livestock Services (DoLS): The
project will provide trainings to staffs of the DoA and DoLS dealing with environmental
matters to encourage DoA and DoLS to take initiatives in establishing environmental units.
(v) Environment awareness campaigns and training: The project would provide
environmental awareness training to different stakeholders including agricultural extension
workers (agrovets, LRPs, frontline government extension workers), farmers, local NGOs,
and consumers. Training topics would include: balanced and judicious use of chemical
fertilizers and pesticides, IPM technologies, proper handling of pesticides, compost making
and application techniques, biodiversity issues, climate change, value of indigenous crops,
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 38
and native varieties of crops, value of indigenous breeds of livestock, etc. Environmental
awareness campaigns would be conducted through local FM, local newspapers, hoarding
boards, and eco-clubs of local schools.
(vi) NAFSP would support special studies related to environment and project in the
project area including climate change issues, monitoring of pesticide use, etc. as determined
by the PESMC.
7.7 Consultation Framework
Stakeholder consultation would be held for the following tasks among others:
(i) Identification and selection of sub-projects: The purpose of such consultation is to
ensure that sub-projects selected for funding for funding match the needs of people. The
DPSU or other project proposers would be involved in such consultation.
(ii) Environmental screening and categorization: The DPSU and social mobilizers of
local service providers would be responsible for such consultation.
(iii) Preparation of the scope of work for IEE: The ES at PMU would be responsible for such
consultation.
(iv) Sharing of findings of IEE: The IEE consultant and DESMC members would participate in
this consultation.
(v) Baseline survey for preparing environmental monitoring indicators: The DPSU and
DESMC would be responsible for such consultation.
(vi) Compliance monitoring: The DPSU and DESMC would be responsible for such
consultation.
(vii) Impact evaluation: The DESMC members would be responsible for such consultation.
(viii) Independent evaluation of environmental performance: Independent evaluation consultants
would participate in such consultations.
The stakeholders would consist of all people who are directly, or indirectly affected by the project
activities; and all other groups and individuals who can influence project, and those who are
influenced by the projects but not directly affected. The main stakeholders groups are:
(i) Project beneficiaries.
(ii) Other people affected by the project.
(iii) Local NGOs.
(iv) Local government bodies (VDC, DDC).
(v) District level government line agencies (agriculture, livestock, forestry, health,
education, cottage industry, Women Development Office).
(vi) VDC level institutions (ASC, LSC, health posts, schools).
(vii) Regional level government agencies (Plant protection, soil, food technology).
(viii) Central level government agencies (DoA, DoLS, DoH).
(ix) Farmers groups.
(x) Women’s groups
(xi) Dalits groups.
(xii) Indigenous people groups.
(xiii) Other community groups (mothers’ groups, community forestry users’ groups, youth
clubs).
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 39
A variety of consultation mechanisms including Focus Group Discussion (FGD), key informant
survey, interviews, formal and informal meetings, etc would be used. Stakeholders would be informed
about the time, place, and agenda of the consultation well ahead of time. People who will be most
affected by the implementation of the sub-project would be given more say during the
consultation.31
Comments and suggestions of participants of consultations would be addressed on time
to the extent possible and if they cannot be addressed, people would be given proper explanation, if
they ask for it.
7.8 Environment Code of Practices
The project will promote following Environment Code of Practices (ECP)
1. Pesticide and Agro-chemical Use
a. Train users as well as extension agents on safe, correct, and efficient use of
pesticides.
b. Promote use of safe pesticides (green label) based on WHO recommendation.
c. Ensure adequate pre-harvesting waiting period for vegetables sprayed with pesticides
before they are sold.
d. Promote IPM technology for agricultural pest control.
e. Promote use of bio-pesticides.
f. Control unhealthy practices such as dipping of vegetables in pesticides to keep shiny
and fresh.
g. Encourage organic farming in more remote locations.
h. Avoid use of growth hormones in animals.
i. Avoid using chemicals for harvesting fish.
2. Soil Degradation
a. An integrated approach by agriculture, livestock, soil conservation, and forest
agencies is needed to tackle soil degradation problems.
b. Promote balanced use of chemical fertilizers.
c. Promote improved compost making techniques.
d. Promote proper techniques for compost application.
e. Promote inter-cropping with legumes.
f. Disseminate cultivation of green manure in Terai and under irrigated conditions.
g. Promote fodder trees and ground grasses widely by making seed and saplings
available. Fodder and grasses should be promoted in private lands, community and
leasehold forests, and community lands.
h. Promote cover-crops to reduce soil erosion.
i. Promote use of conservation farming (no or zero tillage), when feasible.
j. Adoption of Sloping Agriculture Land Technology (SALT) for farming in steep
slopes.
k. Promote use of lime widely to neutralize soil acidity.
3. Avoid using heavy machinery for construction activities.
31
See Upadhyaya (2002). See also WCD (2000).
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 40
4. Encourage tree plantation on the sides of agricultural roads.
5. Economize on the use of water resources.
6. NAFSP would set aside some resources for water source conservation in project funded
irrigation and water supply sub-projects. The project could also introduce Payments for
Environmental Services (PES) under which water users would be encouraged to make certain
payments watershed communities to encourage them to protect water sources.32
7. NAFSP would take permission from the GON’s Department of National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation (DNPWC) to implement programs within buffer zone areas. NAFSP sub-projects
in such areas would comply with the Management Plans of the protected areas and their buffer
zones. A no objection letter from the buffer zone management committee, or the park authority
would be obtained for the implementation of programs within the buffer zone. In cases where the
Management Plans have not been prepared, the project would help DNPWC to prepare such
Management Plans before planning any interventions in buffer zone areas.
7.9 Estimated Budget for the Implementation of EMF
Budget
Item Rate Total Amount
(NRs.)
Salary
Environment Specialist 200,000 x 6 x 5 6,000,000
Consultants (for independent monitoring) 250,000 x 4 1,000,000
Travel Expenses
Environment Specialist 500,000
Consultants (for independent monitoring) 400,000
Operational Expenses for PESMC and DESMC 2,000,000
Training Expenses
EMF Orientation Training to GEED staff and PESMC
Members
100,000
2 Regional EMF Orientations Training to DESMC
Members
400,000
Environmental Awareness Training in Project Districts 200,000 x 19 3,800,000
Monitoring Costs
Baseline survey, compliance and impact monitoring
by DESMC
200,000 x 19 3,800,000
Special Focus Study 1,000,000
Miscellaneous 1,000,000
Total 20,000,000
32
See Upadhyaya (2005) for an example of PES mechanism in Kulekhani watershed of Nepal.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 41
References
ANZDEC Limited. 2002. Nepal Agricultural Sector Performance Review (ADB TA No. 3536 NEP),
Final Report. ANZDEC Limited, New Zealand in association with CMS Limited, Nepal.
APROSC/Nepal and JMA/USA. 1995. Nepal Agriculture Perspective Plan. Kathmandu: Agriculture
Projects Services Centre and John Mellor Associates, Inc.
Bann, Camille, Keshav R. Kanel, and Shyam K. Upadhyaya. "An Economic Valuation Tool for the
Wetlands of Nepal," A Report submitted to the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands in
Nepal (CSUWN)/UNDP, December 2010.
Baidya, Saraju K., Ramesh K. Regmi, and Madan L. Shrestha. 2007. Climate Profile, Observed
Climate Change and Climate Variability in Nepal. Final Draft. Department of Hydrology and
Meteorology, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Bhandari, B. B. “Wise use of wetlands in Nepal,” BankoJanakari: A Journal of forestry information
for Nepal. Special Issue, February 2009.
CBS. 2008. Environment Statistics of Nepal 2008. Government of Nepal, National Planning
Commission, Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS).
DWIDP. 2010. Annual Disaster Review. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Irrigation, Department of
Water Induced Disaster Prevention (DWIDP), Kathmandu, Nepal.
Far-West Regional Soil Testing Laboratory. Annual Progress and Study Report. FY 2067/68.
Regional Soil Testing Laboratory, Sundarpur,Kanchanpur.
Far-Western Regional Forest Directorate. Annual Report, FY 2067/68. Dhangadhi, Kailali.
G.C., YubakDhoj. “Status of Pesticide use in Nepal and future strategy for their safe and alternative
uses.” In Annual Plant Protection Programs and Implementation Process, 2066/067. Plant Protection
Directorate, HariharBhawan, Lalitpur. 2011.
Ghimire, Shree Ram. “Environmental Concern in Nepalese Agriculture,” The Journal of Agriculture
and Environment, vol. 9, June 2008.
Koirala, P., S. Dhakal, and A. S, Tamarakr. Pesticide application and food safety issue in Nepal. The
Journal of Agriculture and Environment, Vol. 10, June 2009.
Mid-West Regional Soil Testing Laboratory. Annual Progress and Soil and Fertilizers Analysis
Report. FY 2067/68. Regional Soil Testing Laboratory, Khajura, Banke.
Mid-Western Regional Forest Directorate. Annual Report, FY 2067/68. Surkhet, 2068 Srawan.
NPC and MOPE. 2003. Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal. Government of Nepal, National
Planning Commission (NPC) and Ministry of Population and Environment (MOPE), Kathmandu,
Nepal.
Upadhyaya, Shyam K., Bishwa B. R. Singh, and Shankar Aryal. Consultation Report for the
Situational Assessment for the Preparation of Nepal Agriculture and Food Security Project. Draft
Report Submitted to International Food Policy Research Institute by Institute for Integrated
Development Studies (IIDS), June 2012.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 42
Upadhyaya, Shyam K. " Upland Poverty in Nepal: the Role of Environment" Paper presented at the
Conference on the "Environment of the Poor," 24-26 November, 2010, New Delhi, Organized by the
Asian Development Bank (ADB), Institute for Integrated Development Studies (IIDS), Nepal,
December 2010.
Upadhyaya, Shyam K. “Payments for environmental services: sharing hydropower benefits with
upland communities,” RUPES Kulekhani Working Paper 1, Winrock International, Nepal, August,
2005.
Upadhyaya, Shyam K. Hydropower Development in Nepal: Issues of Equity and Justice. Equitable
Hydro Working Paper 1, Winrock International, Nepal, December 2002.
WCD. Dams and development: a new framework for decision-making. The Report
of the World Commission on Dams. UK and US: Earth scan Publications Ltd.,
November 2000.
MOPE. Initial National Communication to the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ministry of Population and Environment (MOPE),
Kathmandu, Nepal, 2004.
MoFSC. Nepal Biodiversity Strategy. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Government of
Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2002.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 43
Annexes
Annex 1: Land Use Patterns in Project Districts
District
Total Forest
Area Shrub
Agricultural/Grass
Land
Water
bodies
Barren
Land Snow Others Total
Dolpa 60603 3910 77 764 474881 249817 0 790052
Jumla 110531 1118 19819 338 98595 18566 0 248967
Kalikot 87165 3846 15560 0 48264 9588 0 164423
Mugu 87312 9387 20729 1360 139358 69568 0 327714
Humla 41051 21954 12584 677 112174 421759 0 610199
Bajura 72507 23982 31414 264 32110 63897 0 224174
Bajhang 92391 39713 43697 440 38826 139599 0 354666
Dolpa 60603 3910 77 764 474881 249817 0 790052
Jumla 110531 1118 19819 338 98595 18566 0 248967
Kalikot 87165 3846 15560 0 48264 9588 0 164423
Mugu 87312 9387 20729 1360 139358 69568 0 327714
Humla 41051 21954 12584 677 112174 421759 0 610199
Pyuthan 93042 3919 24587 526 8547 0 0 130621
Rolpa 150095 486 16458 67 19027 0 0 186133
Rukum 174725 2130 12961 130 77148 23253 0 290347
Salyan 143786 2610 36419 526 7337 0 0 190678
Jajarkot 151306 1088 24126 489 43401 4095 0 224505
Dailekh 88699 20705 36341 167 8812 353 0 155077
Surkhet 157687 33269 48653 1899 7556 0 0 249064
Dang 170124 8233 106934 1727 10343 0 0 297361
Banke 104269 9461 71475 1923 6296 0 0 193424
Bardia 99364 5300 85809 2548 4756 0 0 197777
Bajura 72507 23982 31414 264 32110 63897 0 224174
Bajhang 92391 39713 43697 440 38826 139599 0 354666
Darchula 58177 31218 32902 591 30750 81568 0 235206
Achham 99144 16967 45102 422 6219 154 0 168008
Doti 141848 17277 44839 311 2049 10 0 206334
Baitadi 72020 27751 46368 370 1229 0 0 147738
Dadeldhura 105937 11280 31359 212 1306 0 0 150094
Kailali 169708 14761 129769 2330 4715 0 0 321283
Kanchanpur 84420 2207 71938 1361 5680 0 0 165606
Source: CBS (2008).
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 44
Annex 2: Soil Test Results, 2060/61 – 2067/68 (in %)
District
No.
of
Sam
ple
PH Organic Matter Nitrogen Phosphorus Potash
Acid
ic
Neut
ral
Alka
line
Lo
w
Medi
um
Hig
h Low
Medi
um
Hig
h Low
Me
diu
m
High Low
Me
diu
m
High
Kailali 1677 18.2 46.7 35.1 85.0 14.5 0.5 65.5 32.4 2.1 23.9 25.9 50.2 22.1 58.0 19.9
Kanchan
pur 1200 28.8 48.7 22.5 84.4 15.5 0.1 71.5 27.1 1.4 14.9 27.0 58.1 22.4 56.1 21.5
FW Terai 2877 22.6 47.6 29.8 84.7 14.9 0.4 67.9 30.3 1.8 20.2 26.3 53.5 22.2 57.2 20.6
Dadeldhu
ra 136 40.3 44.5 15.2 78.0 18.6 3.4 55.9 38.6 5.5 32.6 18.2 49.2 14.4 39.8 45.8
Doti 171 67.8 28.1 4.1 61.4 31.4 7.2 47.1 40.5 12.4 8.6 24.5 66.9 5.0 30.2 64.8
Achham 351 76.1 22.5 1.4 71.5 25.6 2.9 55.3 34.7 10.0 24.0 56.2 19.8 0.9 39.9 59.2
Baitadi 178 33.1 57.9 9.0 25.9 34.8 39.3 15.2 36.0 48.8 15.7 29.8 54.5 1.1 12.9 86.0
FW Mid-
hills 836 57.4 35.8 6.8 62.6 26.6 10.8 46.3 36.9 16.8 21.7 29.4 48.9 5.1 33.0 61.9
Darchula 74 50.8 39.0 10.2 50.8 49.2 - 27.1 72.9 - 4.7 12.5 82.8 - 37.3 62.7
Bajhang 42 73.8 23.8 2.4 16.7 33.3 50.0 7.5 37.5 55.0 - 2.5 97.5 7.5 15.0 77.5
Bajura 62 53.2 38.7 8.1 50.0 40.3 9.7 35.5 46.8 17.7 17.7 21.0 61.3 8.1 35.5 56.4
FW
High-
hills
168 57.7 35.0 7.3 41.7 41.7 16.6 25.5 54.0 20.5 8.4 13.3 78.3 5.0 31.0 64.0
Source: Regional Soil Testing Laboratory, Sundarpur, Kanchanpur, 2067/68.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 45
Annex 3: Soil Sample Results in Mid-western Districts, 2062/63 – 2066/2067 (in %)
District
No.
of
Samp
le
PH Organic Matter Nitrogen Phosphorus Potash
Acidic Neutr
al
Alkali
ne Low
Mediu
m
Hig
h Low
Mediu
m
Hig
h Low
Mediu
m
Hig
h
Lo
w
Mediu
m High
Banke 353 42.7 43.9 13.3 97 3 0 54 31 15 49 18 33 28 40 32
Bardia 490 29.8 50.2 20.0 79 21 0 24 70 6 33 20 47 11 62 27
Dang 377 80.3 22.7 7.2 25 43 32 9 38 53 46 16 38 6 35 59
Rukum 33 63.6 36.3 0 15 82 3 9 24 67 12 12 76 0 42 58
Salyan 308 66 33 1 49 47 4 38 48 14 36 21 43 7 39 54
Jajarkot 179 72.6 35.3 6.5 34 49 17 13 51 36 26 21 53 9 56 35
Surkhet 709 51.7 42.6 6.2 65 29 6 25 45 30 22 22 56 3 36 61
Dailekh 63 98.4 1.59 0 43 54 3 11 72 17 16 10 74 5 14 81
Dolpa 56 17.8 67.8 14.2 54 32 14 16 59 25 25 21 54 11 68 21
Jumla 297 91.5 8.4 0 25 43 32 9 38 53 46 16 38 6 35 59
Humla 27 59.2 40.7 0 37 56 7 11 41 48 26 41 33 0 7 93
Mugu 55 40.9 49.09 1.82 50 50 0 23 27 50 23 23 54 4 8 88
Kalikot 27 62.9 37.04 0 11 70 19 0 19 81 15 26 59 0 0 100
Regional 2974 58.04 34.6 7.03 54.8 27.2 6.5 22.3 44.08 22.4 29.8 18.1 40.8 8.9 39.2 41.5
Source: Regional Soil Testing Laboratory, Kajura, Banke, 2067/68.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 46
Annex 4: List of registered pesticides in Nepal
SN Types of Pesticides Trade Names Common names
1 Insecticides 391 49
2 Fungicides 170 35
3 Rodenticides 7 2
4 Weedicides 62 14
5 Bio-pesticides 15 6
6 Bactericides 4 1
Total 650 107
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 47
Annex 5: List of banned pesticides in Nepal
SN Name of Pesticide Remarks
1 Chlordane Persistent organic pollutant
2 DDT Persistent organic pollutant
3 Dieldrin Persistent organic pollutant
4 Endrin Persistent organic pollutant
5 Aldrin Persistent organic pollutant
6 Heptachlor Persistent organic pollutant
7 Toxafen Persistent organic pollutant
8 Mirex Persistent organic pollutant
9 BHC
10 Lindane
11 Phosphamidon
12 Organo mercury fungicides
13 Methyl parathion
14 Monocroptophus
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 48
Annex 6: Terms of Reference (ToR) for IEE
1. Name and address of the individual or institution preparing the report
2. Description of the sub-project
3. Relevance of the sub-project
4. Methodology
5. Review of policies, laws, and regulations related to Sub-project
6. Time and Estimated Cost for the IEE Study
7. Impact of the Sub-project implementation on environment
a. Social Impact – impact on vulnerable groups including women, indigenous people,
and Dalits.
b. Physical environment – forest, soil, loss of productive land, soil erosion,etc.
c. Chemical Impact – pesticide use, use of animal growth hormones, water quality
changes, etc.
d. Biological Impact – biodiversity, impact on human and animal health, etc.
8. Analysis of alternatives
a. Potential for design changes.
b. Change of sub-project locations.
c. Change of technology, implementation modalities, time schedule, and raw
materials used.
d. Any other matters.
9. Mitigation Measures to reduce adverse impacts of sub-projects
10. Monitoring of environmental impacts
11. Other necessary matters
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 49
Annex 7: Content of IEE Report
1. Name and address of individual or institution preparing the Report
2. Summary of the Proposal
a. Objectives and importance of the proposal,
b. Sub-project activities,
c. Impact of the sub-project on the environment,
d. Analysis of alternatives,
e. Mitigation measures, (f) Monitoring,
.
3. Review of policies, laws, and regulations related to sub-project
4. Description of the Sub-project
a. Objectives of the sub-project b. Relevance of the sub-project to the NAFSP project
c. Sub-project activities
d. Implementation modality
e. Project beneficiary
f. Stakeholder analysis
5. Impact of Sub-Project on Environment a. Social impact
b. Physical impact
c. Chemical impact
d. Biological impact
6. Analysis of Alternatives
a. Design b. Project site
c. Implementation modality
d. Time schedule
7. Mitigation measures
8. Monitoring Mechanism
9. Other Necessary Matters
10. References
11. Annexes – data, maps, schedule, graphs, figures, etc.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 50
Annex8: Sample Subproject Level EMP: Improved Goat Farming
All projects with significant environment risks should prepare environment management plans. The
EMPs consists of a set of mitigation, monitoring, capacity building, and implementation measures for
mitigating environmental risks of projects. One of the sub-projects proposed by the NAFSF is
promotion of improved goat farming in hill districts of mid- and far-western regions. This section
provides a sample of how the management plan for this sub-project should look like.
Sub-project: Promotion of improved goat farming in Garpa village of Rukum district
Description of the sub-project
Garpa village is a hilly settlement located at about 3 hours walking distance from the district
headquarters of the Rukum district (Musikot). There are about 150 households in this village. The
caste/ethnicity distribution of population in the village is as follows: magars (indigenous population) –
65 percent; dalits – 25 percent; and others – 5 percent. Most households own less than 0.5 hectare of
bari land (upland) with no irrigation facility. Few households also own some khet (flat land) located at
the banks of small stream at the bottom of the village. Maize and millet are main crops in bari land
and paddy and wheat are grown in khet. Food production from own land is enough to feed themselves
for less than 3 months for about 75 percent of households.
Goat farming is an important component of farming system in this village. Goat farming is a source of
cash income for marginal, and landless farm households. Majority of the households keep at least few
goats. However, most dalits and poorest households from other communities do not own goats. All
goats in this village are local breeds. Farmers castrate their best male goats and save inferior male
goats for breeding purposes. This practice of using inferior goats for breeding and inbreeding
problems has greatly reduced the quality and productivity of local breeds of goats.
There is a government forest, called Sirubari forest, located at a few hours walking distance from the
village. There is also a community forest, Garpa community forest, located nearby the village.
Presently, farmers take their goats for grazing in the Sirubari forest which is highly degraded. The
Garpa community forest has restricted grazing but some farmers resort to cheating and take their goats
for grazing in Garpa community forest which leads to disputes in the community. Farmers usually
keep goats at a corner in the ground floor of their houses.
The NAFSP proposes to introduce improved goat farming in Garpa village. The project aims to
improve the breeds of goats of the farmers who are already keeping goats. The project also aims to
encourage Dalits and other poor households who do not keep goats currently to practice goat farming.
The expectation is that the productivity of goats would increase which will increase household income
and improve food and nutrition security. The project will form groups of Dalit and poor households
and provide 2 improved goats per households. The project will also provide one improved male goat
for a group of 15 to 20 households for breeding purposes.
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 51
Potential Environmental Risks of the Sub-project
i. Increased pressure on forest due to increased feed requirement leading to
deforestation: For farmers who are already keeping goats, this sub-project is not adding extra
number of goats. Instead, the project proposes to replace the current low productive local
breeds by improved breeds. However, the sub-project provides additional number goats to
Dalits and poorer households who are not practicing goat farming currently. So, it is possible
that the sub-project may lead to increase in the number of goats the village. In general,
improved goats require more feed than local breeds. As a consequence, feed requirements for
goats might increase which will put pressure on Sirubari and Garpa forests if the current
practice of open grazing is continued.
ii. Landslides due to deforestation: Open grazing reduces ground grass cover. The
increased deforestation may triggers more landslides.
iii. Drying of water sources: Scientific research also indicate that deforestation may lead
to drying of water sources. Forests help to absorb and retain rain water which will be
released in dry seasons. Deforestation increases run-off of rain water.
iv. Loss of biodiversity due to open grazing: Uncontrolled grazing leads to loss of
biodiversity as goats feed upon young growing plants.
v. Pollution and human health problems: As farmers keep goat inside their own
dwelling, the increase in number of goats may lead to deterioration of sanitary conditions
posing risks to human health.
vi. Transmission of goat diseases to goats of other households not participating in the
program: The introduction of improved goats may bring new animal disease in the village
vii. Increase in the use of animal growth hormones: Experiences from other areas of
Nepal where commercial goat farming have been practiced indicate that farmers use growth
hormones to accelerate the growth of goats. Excessive use of such growth hormones poses
risks to human health. So, there is some risk that the use of growth hormones will increased
in this village also although the probability of such increase is low.
Mitigation Measures
i. Promotion of stall feeding by increasing fodder plantation in private marginal lands,
in degraded community lands, and by practicing agro-forestry in degraded areas of
community forests. Such increase in feed availability and control of open grazing of goats
would reduce deforestation and other problems associated with deforestation such as
landslides, drying of water sources, and loss of biodiversity. Costs for the project to adopt
this measure include: training on fodder plantation techniques, costs of acquiring fodder
seeds/saplings, and possibly some subsidy on fodder seeds/saplings to encourage farmers to
plant fodders.
ii. Construction of separate sheds for goats: The construction of goat sheds outside
human dwelling would help to mitigate risks associated with human health. The sub-project
would ensure that farmers put in place proper goat sheds before providing them
Environment Management Framework 2012
N e p a l A g r i c u l t u r e a n d F o o d S e c u r i t y P r o j e c t
Page 52
goats.NAFSP project may need to bear some costs of construction of goat sheds to
encourage farmers in this activity.
iii. Vaccination goats against major diseases: Vaccination of goats against major diseases
and prompt treatment of sick animals would reduce the risks of transmission of disease to
other goats. NAFSP project needs to bear the costs of vaccines at least in the initial years of
the project.
Monitoring
Monitoring indicators
j. Area and quality of Garpa community forest.
k. Quality of Sirubari government forest.
l. Number of goat farmer households who have separate goat sheds
m. Incidence of new goat diseases.
n. Use of growth hormones in goats.
o. Number of households adopting stall feeding for goats.
p. Area under fodder plantation in private land, community forests, and public lands.
Monitoring Responsibility
District Environment and Social Management Committee (DESMC) under DPSU at Rukum district.
Monitoring Costs
Costs include time and field expenses of DESMC involved in monitoring.
Capacity Building
• Fodder plantation training.
• Training on improved goat management practices.
• Awareness building on environmental issues.
• EMF orientation trainings to DESMC members.
Major costs include training expenses.