Upload
phamthuy
View
228
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Local Conservation Groups in Nepal –
Partnerships for conservation and
development
David Thomas (BirdLife Secretariat)
and Ishana Thapa (Bird Conservation Nepal)
December 2010
Booth for collecting fees from picnickers at
Phulchoki IBA
1
About this report
The Important Bird Area (IBA) Programme of BirdLife International aims to identify, monitor
and protect a global network of IBAs for the conservation of the world's birds and other
biodiversity. IBAs are key sites for conservation – small enough to be conserved in their
entirety and often already part of a protected-area network.
Working in partnership with communities and other stakeholders at IBAs towards shared
objectives of conservation and sustainable resource management is one of a range of
different approaches being adopted by BirdLife Partners to help conserve IBAs. Working
with people at IBAs helps to engage a mainly local constituency in IBA conservation. It builds
on what are often strong connections – be they economic, cultural, historical – between
people and the sites where they live, work and engage in recreation.
The way in which BirdLife Partners work with, coordinate and support individuals and groups
involved in the IBA Local Conservation Group (IBA LCG) approach varies across the BirdLife
network, reflecting the diverse contexts of the over 100 countries where BirdLife Partners
are working. However, shared features include: the attachment to a particular IBA, a
commitment to support the IBA’s conservation and sustainable use, a link to the national
BirdLife Partner, and being compromised mainly of volunteers. In Europe these local
volunteers are known as IBA-Caretakers, in Africa they are known as Site Support Groups,
and other terms are used to describe them regionally and nationally within BirdLife.
Several BirdLife Partners are demonstrating success in establishing and coordinating Local
Conservation Networks. This report is part of a project which aims to capture, document and
disseminate these experiences and the lessons learned from them. It is based on a visit to
Nepal by David Thomas in November 2010, and is based on discussions between DT and
Ishana Thapa (Senior Conservation Officer) and a visit together to LCGs at Phulchoki IBA.
2
Contents
1. Background: Important Bird Areas in Nepal 3
2. Local Conservation Groups in Nepal 4
Communications 6
Networking 7
Membership 8
Funding 8
Motivation and benefits 8
Challenges and successes 9
3. Case study: Phulchoki 9
4. Lessons learned 13
3
NP001 Annapurna Conservation Area NP010 Kanchenjungha Conservation Area NP019 Phulchowki Mountain forests
NP002 Barandabhar forests and wetlands NP011 Khaptad National Park NP020 Rampur valley
NP003 Bardia National Park NP012 Koshi Tappu WR and Koshi Barrage NP021 Rara National Park
NP004 Chitwan National Park NP013 Langtang National Park NP022 Sagarmatha National Park
NP005 Dang Deukhuri forests/w. Rapti wetlands NP014 Farmlands in Lumbini area NP023 Shey-Phoksundo National Park
NP006 Dharan forests NP015 Mai Valley forests NP024 Shivapuri National Park
NP007 Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve NP016 Makalu Barun National Park NP025 Sukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve
NP008 Ghodaghodi Lake NP017 Nawalparasi forests NP026 Tamur valley and Watershed
NP009 Jagdishpur Reservoir NP018 Parsa Wildlife Reserve NP027 Urlabari forest groves
1. Background: Important Bird Areas in Nepal
Bird Conservation Nepal (BCN) is the largest and oldest civil society organisation
dedicated to the interests of ornithologists, birdwatchers and conservationists in Nepal.
It has a varied membership, which includes students, teachers, professionals, bird
enthusiasts, conservationists, and the general public. Its objectives include to : promote
an interest in birds among the general public; encourage research on bird biology and
ecology; identify the major threats to birds and act to conserve birds and their habitats.
Habitats in Nepal range from alpine scrub and pastures in the mountain region to
tropical forests and wetlands in the lowlands. This diversity of habitats supports 862 bird
species, 31 of which are globally threatened (Baral and Inskipp 1995).
In 2005 BCN published Important Birds Areas in Nepal: key sites for conservation1. The
book was a joint effort by BCN and BirdLife towards protecting the country's critically
important biodiversity hotspots.
1 Hem Sagar Barall and Carol Inskipp (2005) Important Bird Areas in Nepal: key Sites for Conservation. Bird
Conservation Nepal and BirdLife International, Kathmandu and Cambridge.
4
The book identifies 27 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) that merit some form of protection.
15 of these IBAs are included within existing protected areas while the other 12 are still
unprotected. Since this inventory was published BCN have identified a further 5 sites
that qualify as potential IBAs (NP28 Bagmati Valley; NP29 Forests and Grasslands of
Dadeldhura and Baitadi Districts; NP30 Khandbari-Num Forests; NP31 Manaslu
Conservation Area and NP32 Reshunga Forest).
The list of threats facing Nepal’s IBAs sounds familiar: it includes forest clearance and
degradation, drainage and pollution of wetlands, the cultivation and over-grazing of
grasslands, hunting and inappropriate development. Yet IBA conservation in Nepal faces
many special challenges. The mountainous terrain makes many IBAs accessible only by
foot, mule or helicopter flight. As a consequence it can be costly and time consuming to
visit the IBA network on a regular basis. Poverty levels in Nepal are the second highest in
Asia (according to the UN’s Human Development Index for 2010 – Nepal comes second
only after Afghanistan) and for many poor people living in remote, rural areas IBAs and
the goods and services they provide form the main source of livelihood. Nepal has also
come through a turbulent period politically, and local government has for a long time
been weak and ineffective.
However, the failure of local government, especially during the 10 year ‘People’s
Revolution’ that ended in 2006, has also created a ‘space’ in which communities have
organised themselves to manage resources and deliver services. The culture of self help,
institution building and resource management at the local level has helped to create
organisations which have become local-level partners with BCN for IBA conservation.
2. Local Conservation Groups in Nepal
Initially BCN’s work with local communities at IBAs was focused on research and survey
objectives. Faced with the challenge of delivering projects with limited staff and a small
budget they had to decide how most effectively, efficiently and sustainably to deliver
results. Their decision was to invest in people at the local level (rather than hire staff at
BCN) – and so began working with local groups as a sustainable approach to delivering
conservation (and development) at IBAs.
In every case LCGs are formed around existing community-based institutions of one kind
or another. At Phulchoki for example the LCGs are the various Forest User Groups that
have the rights and responsibility to conserve, manage and use the forests and
resources of this IBA. Because the FUGs have been active at the site for many years they
form natural partners to work with BCN. The FUGs have worked to restore degraded
forest land in the lower parts of the IBA, planting trees and rehabilitating forest for the
products and services it provides to communities (see section 3).
A stimulus for the development of the LCG network in Nepal came through funding from
CEPF to support the development of a civil society network for conservation in Nepal.
5
Although partly inspired by the experience of the Indian Bird Conservation Network
there are important differences. Most significant is that the network in Nepal involves
local, community-based civil society organisations attached mainly to IBAs (compared to
the IBCN focus on individual birdwatchers, many with a university or professional
background).
As Ishana explains, working with local people through LCGs is extremely valuable –
members know the local context and their local knowledge is invaluable in addressing
local resource management and conservation. BCN encourages LCGs to come up with
their own ideas as much as possible, so that their initiatives are genuinely initiated and
led from the local level.
There are now Local Conservation groups at 17 of Nepal’s 27 IBAs, and at many of the
IBAs there are several Local Conservation Groups (table below). For example at the Mai
Valley Forests IBA there are seven LCGs.
IBA Local Conservation Group(s)
name
Type of organisation (e.g.
FUG, Youth Group, local NGO)
Member of the
NBCN?
Shree Janajagriti Youth Club Youth Club Yes
Golden Valley Youth Club Youth Club Yes
Shree Bhagyashali Youth Club Youth Club Yes
Shree Himali Pragati Samaj local NGO Yes
Shree Deep Jyoti Youth Club Youth Club Yes
Human Right Consciousness and
Development Centre
local NGO Yes
Mai Valley Forests
Shree High Altitude Herbal
Production and Conservation
Institute
local NGO Yes
Godawari Kunda CFUG FUG
Patale Muldol CFUG FUG
Jai Bhadre CFUG FUG
Naudhara CFUG FUG
Triveni CFUG FUG
Phulchowki
Mountain Forests
Diyale Dada CFUG
Kalika CFUG FUG Yes
Narti Community Forest
Conservation Committee
local NGO
Dang Deukhuri
forests/west Rapti
wetlands
Environmental Sustainable
Development and Research
Centre
local NGO yes
Jatayu Restaurant Management
Committee
CBO yes
Bishwo Jyoti Bikash Pratisthan CBO
Nawalparasi
Forests
Sunwal Community
Development Centre
CBO
The Earth CBO Ghodaghodi Lake
Samaiji CFUG FUG
Jagdishpur Jagdishpur Lake Conservation local NGO
6
Reservoir and Tourism Promotion Centre
Barandabhar
Forests and
Wetlands
Bird Education Society local NGO
Chitwan National
Park
Bird Education Society local NGO
Kanchenjungha
Conservation Area
Himali Conservation Forum local NGO Yes
Rampur Valley Khaireni CFUG FUG
Sukla Phanta
Wildlife Reserve
Nature Guide Association of
Suklaphanta
local NGO
Urlabari Forest
Groves
Madan Memorial School local School
Farmlands of
Lumbini area
Nature Guide Association of
Rupandehi
CBO
Koshi Tappu
Wildlife Reserve
Kamala Wetland Fisheries Group CBO
Annapurna
Conservation Area
Ghachowk Jatayu Management
Committee
CBO
Janata CFUG FUG
Betana CFUG FUG
Dharan Forests
Raja Rani CFUG FUG
Bardia National
Park
Bardia Nature Conservation Club CBO
Communications
The main means of communication across the NBCN has been their newsletter, of which
there have been 5 issues. However, limited funding (the end of the CEPF funded project)
has meant that it hasn’t been possible to continue with the production and distribution
of this publication. Nevertheless, some networking activities that were begun with CEPF
support have been continued. Although the CEPF project was focused on LCGs at just
two IBAs (Kanchenjunga Conservation Area and Mai Valley) the funding provided an
opportunity for a much wider development. Training in monitoring has been provided,
and by holding the training at IBAs this allowed exchange visits and valuable
connections to be made between different LCGs.
The main purpose of the network is shared learning. For example, the LCG at Ilam IBA
(Shree High Altitude Herbal Production and Conservation Institute) has expertise in the
cultivation of medicinal plants which is relevant to communities at other IBAs such as
Kanchenjunga Conservation Area; and the LCG at Jagdishpur IBA has experience in the
design, production and marketing of handicrafts suitable for Nepal’s tourist market
which is highly relevant to communities at other wetland sites, such as Koshi Tappu
Wildlife Reserve IBA, where there are similar raw materials for communities to work
with.
7
As in other developing countries communications between remote rural communities is
a challenge. Many don’t have easy access to computers, the internet or email. However,
mobile phones provide an extremely effective way of staying in touch and this is the
main way in which people at individual LCGs communicate. In some cases LCGs have
been able to move a stage further. The Deep Jyoti Youth Club – an LCG in the Mai Valley
that was supported by BCN – is one such example. Following the capacity-building
provided by BCN they were able to apply – successfully – for a grant from CEPF. As a
result they now have computers and other equipment allowing them to communicate
more effectively – as well as achieve much more (and apply for more funds through the
capacity such equipment brings).
The networking structure is informal. In some cases the LCGs are networking directly
amongst themselves. Those LCGs working on vulture conservation are the most obvious
example of this. There are 10 such LCGs, all of which have visited and learnt from the
first vulture restaurant at Pithouli, Nawalparasi. This direct personal contact, and the
exchange of phone numbers and contact details, has allowed an ongoing exchange of
experience and information between the LCGs involved in this particular activity. Similar
networking may take place between LCGs that have been introduced to one another
through exchange visits or participating in workshops and training together. Proximity
provides another factor in effective LCG to LCG networking. However for others BCN will
act as a ‘hub’ connecting LCGs.
Networking
At present the NBCN comprises a very loose network with no strict criteria.
Organisations must be community-based, local and not-for-profit organisations – the
goal and purpose of the network as a whole are not defined but reflect those of BCN as
a whole. MoUs aren’t signed between the LCGs and BCN, but (at least to begin with)
BNC charges a small membership fee to join. For those LCGs with which it has worked as
part of a project this fee has been paid from project funds, but as projects have ended
payments have also ceased – but BCN have been keen to maintain the relationship
because of the mutual benefits that it provides. As a result only about half of the total
30 LCGs that are part of the NBCN have paid the current year’s fee.
Because it works with existing organisations BCN has limited influence on the structure,
membership or governance of organisations. However, it does aim to have influence, in
line with its own values and principles, wherever it can. A first step before taking on any
organisation as an LCG partner of BCN is to carry out an organisational assessment to
find out more about its structure, membership, capacity etc. In some cases – for
example where the LCG is an FUG – members are elected from the wider community. At
others this may not be the case, but based on the results of the organisational
assessment BCN will usually suggest changes that should be made – for example the
election of officers and the inclusion of more women or people from lower castes. In
some cases BCN has initiated projects which have involved the creation of a separate
8
working group within the organisation/LCG for project implementation. In such cases
they have more influence and can apply criteria to that group – such as minimum levels
of participation by women for example.
Membership
Through experience BCN have learnt that Youth Clubs form effective partners for IBA
conservation. Members are more energetic and active than CFUGs and community-
based organisations comprised more of older members of the community. “Previously
they were just playing football” explains Ishana, “but then they got interested in the
work of BCN”. They are motivated by a number of things, including the opportunity to
diversify their knowledge, experience and capacity in the conservation field, the
opportunities the work provides for continuing work with other conservation NGOs (for
example members of Deep Jyoti Youth Club LCG are now working with the Red Panda
Network) and the income and career opportunities that working with BCN provides. Of
course many are also motivated by an interest in biodiversity and an interest in
conserving the nature and resources around them!
Although youthful and energetic, Youth Club members are often less influential than
older people from the community. However, it has been BCN’s experience that the
benefits outweigh this disadvantage – working with senior officials of Village
Development Committees, for example, has proven to give painfully slow progress. But
in order to ensure that older members of the community are involved, engaged,
informed and supportive they are often enrolled as ‘advisors’ to the Youth Group.
Funding
Some LCGs have their own funds – Forest User Groups in particular often have
mechanisms for fundraising based on licences for use of forest products for example,
and there are several funding schemes nationally focused on FUGs (for example the
DFID Forest Livelihoods Programme). However, to hold the network together and allow
it to function effectively as a network BCN see increased funding, both for individual
LCGs and for BCN’s coordination role, as critical. Funding to BCN would help them to
carry out their role – of coordination, training (especially on bird identification and
monitoring), and provision of essential equipment, such as binoculars and field guides.
Motivation and benefits
LCGs see a number of benefits from being part of NBCN and the relationship with BCN.
These include:
o The regular receipt of information from BCN
o Opportunities to engage with BCN in activities at the site (LCG) level and nationally
o Greater status and profile from working with a national organisation.
9
o Enhanced fundraising prospects – this is a significant benefit. For example, the
relationship with BCN acts as a ‘reference’ meaning that donors are more likely to
work with the LCG. Funding that some LCGs have received through the CEPF as well
as the DFID Livelihoods and Forestry Programme is an example of this.
o More respect and different treatment from government officers, e.g. the District
Forest Officer (again, a consequence of the association with a national organisation)
o Increased prospects of becoming involved in new projects coming to the area. This is
probably related to evidence of experience of project work, the profile and
‘reference’ that comes from having worked with a national organisation, and the
desire of new organisations entering an area to maintain continuity. This has
happened at Koshi Tappu IBA, where the LCG with which BCN was working is now a
local partner of a UNDP wetlands project.
Opportunities for greater influence in sub-national and national policy are not
considered to be an important reason or expected benefit for organisations joining the
NBCN.
Challenges and successes
One of the key challenges that BCN have faced in working with LCGs has been the very
limited knowledge of birds. Whilst many people will have a good knowledge of
plants/trees – reflecting their many uses for medicine, foods, timber, etc., far fewer will
know about birds or see their relevance to them and their livelihoods. BCN has
therefore had to work hard to create an interest and motivate LCG members to work for
bird conservation. The answer has been to link bird issues to broader natural resource
management issues. At their project at the Mai Valley IBA for example, they have linked
bird monitoring to forest patrolling and broader issues of forest quality – so that the
monitoring becomes a part of existing activities and relates to livelihoods benefits from
the forest.
BCN consider the success with vulture projects to be one of the most significant
achievements of the LCG network to date. From a single LCG to begin with the
development of vulture restaurants and measures for vulture conservation have now
been replicated in 6 places, with 6 LCGs, as the groups learn from one another and share
their experiences. BCN puts this success down to the way in which conservation work
has been intertwined with Income Generating Activities for the LCGs.
3. Case study: Phulchoki
Most of Nepal’s forests (that are not official protected areas) are managed as
community forests. Community ‘Forest User Groups’ (FUGs) manage allocated areas of
forest in accordance with management plans approved by the District Forest Office.
There are over 14,000 FUGs in Nepal, and most are coordinated and represented by an
umbrella organisation, FECOFUN (Federation of Community Forestry Users, Nepal).
10
Several IBAs in Nepal are managed in this way, and the FUGs are therefore natural local
partners to work with BCN for conservation and development of these sites.
Phulchoki Mountain, the highest peak on
the rim of the Kathmandu Valley, lies 16
km southeast of Kathmandu. With its high
rainfall the mountain supports a luxuriant
growth of subtropical broadleaved forests
on the lower slopes, with mixed oak and
rhododendron and patches of bamboo
higher up. 288 bird species have been
recorded on Phulchoki and the site is
particularly important for the restricted-
range species Spiny Babbler and Hoary-
throated Barwing and for populations of
characteristic species of the Sino-Himalayan Subtropical Forest biome.
Previous loss of tree cover resulted in a considerable reduction of water in streams
flowing from Phulchoki. At the mountain’s base there lies the Mahedeva temple and
two springs, revered by Hindus, where a major festival 'Singh Asta Mela' is held every 12
years. Loss of tree cover during the eighties caused disruption in the stream flow and
the previously clear stream waters became laden with muddy silt. However, in 1995 the
government of Nepal gave a large area of these forests into the safekeeping of the
nearby villages of the Godavari area (and the core of the Phulchoki forest, an area of
500 sq km (5000 ha) at higher altitude, has since been designated a Conservation
Forest). Each village ward has been designated a certain tract of forest to care for and
protect. These community forests have become successful and the forest has shown
significant regrowth. Conservation by communities has done much to reverse the
degradation of services such as water supply.
Phulchoki lies only 40 minutes from the
centre of Kathmandu, and as such it is a
popular location for Nepalis escaping the city
at weekends. The presence of the national
Botanic garden and the Mahedeva temple are
additional attractions. (All from BirdLife
International (2010) Important Bird Areas
factsheet: Phulchowki Mountain forests.
Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on
10/12/2010).
11
BCN has been working with 6 of the FUGs at Phulchoki, which vary in size 57 to 338
members, and manage areas of forest ranging from 34.75 to 283 ha. Their structure and
governance is similar in each case, following a nationally-approved model – members
are from the local community and pay an annual membership fee of about 100 Rupees
(about £10). Members elect an 11 member Committee, which is supposed to include at
least 6 women. In practise most of the FUGs at Phulchoki fail to do this as few women
come forward for election, being unable to find the time because of their domestic
commitments at home. Each FUG will agree a 5 year management plan with the District
Forest Office, which will stipulate permitted levels of harvest and other management
arrangements. The FUG also takes on the responsibility of patrolling the forest – using
funds from the membership fees and other revenue generating activities members are
paid to patrol the forest on a regular
basis, according to an agreed timetable.
The forest is used by local people for a
range of forest products, most
important of which are fuelwood, fodder
(for livestock) and leaf mulch (used as a
bedding for livestock, and as a
fertilizer/soil improver) – see table
below. Most members of the FUGs are
gathering these products on a regular
basis, mainly for their own use rather
than for barter or sale. Other products harvested include medicinal herbs, flowers,
timber (for construction) and other materials for domestic use (e.g. construction of
brooms).
Use Plants
Medicine Nepal Pepper,
Fruit/Vegetable Fern, yam, mushroom, Nepalese hog plum, Bay berry
Fuel Wood Schima, Castanopsis, Oak
Fodder Quercus glauca
Leaf mulch
Decoration Orchid, Rhododendron
At a larger scale, the forest is an important watershed. Rivers and streams originating
from Phulchoki supply water to the local town of Godawari and beyond , and the water
is used for irrigating farmland adjacent to the forest. In Kathmandu water shortages are
a common problem in the summer months, so the FUGs also sell water, which is
collected by tanker and delivered to hotels and other institutional users in the capital.
Another significant source of revenue for one FUG (Godavari Kunda) comes at the time
of the annual Dashain festival which is also celebrated at the Mahedeva temple and the
Naudhara temple (where the sacrifices take place) that lie on the edge of the forest. The
12
festival is celebrated throughout the country by the sacrifice of goats, hundreds of
which are corralled in fields around the temple. The Government contract the FUG to
provide fodder for the goats – buying about 75 truck loads each year.
The forest is only 16 km from
Kathmandu, and many people are
attracted there at weekends, to
picnic in ‘parklands’ on the forests
boundary. Visiting in winter, when
the forests and hills are
transformed by a blanket of snow,
is also a popular activity. Much of
BCN’s support to the FUGs has been
focused on enhancing the revenue
that the FUGs capture from these
visitors. Several years ago, with
support from the Whitley Fund,
they helped 5 FUGs (Godavari Kunda CFUG, Patale Muldol CFUG, Jai Bhadre CFUG,
Naudhara CFUG and Diyale Dada CFUG) to improve facilities and put in place a more
organised system for charging. Each LCG identified their own priorities, which included
improving the water supply, constructing toilets, building tables, chairs and shelters,
fencing and erecting signboards. Their efforts have made a significant difference to the
income that the FUGs receive. At Godavari Kunda for example, the community were
receiving about Rs5000 from picnickers. Since the improvements to the picnic area they
have ‘auctioned’ the lease to the interested members of user group on their picnic site
each year and now receive about 65,000 Rs. These funds contribute to forest patrolling
and FUG management costs, but they are also used for projects in the village – including
improvements to the roads and bursaries for school children from some of the poorest
households.
There has also been an attempt to improve
incomes from bird-guiding in the forest, and
BCN has provided training to some FUG
members. However outcomes have been
disappointing – there has been little interest
from national visitors, and specialist tours have
tended to bypass the
community and FUGs,
instead going directly into
the forest (on a public road)
using tour company guides.
13
Although the Whitley Funded project has now ended, BCN has maintained close contact
with the FUGs that it worked with at that time and regular trips to the forest for birding
allow contact to be maintained.
4. Lessons learned
• It is better to work with Youth Groups – they are more energetic and motivated to
engage.
• It is important to keep elders involved because of their influence – including them as
‘advisors’ to the (youth-based) LCGs has been an effective way of doing this.
• It is important to include livelihood aspects of biodiversity conservation as this helps
to ensure the long-term engagement of local communities
• Institutional development and capacity building at the local level are very important
for sustainable biodiversity conservation.
• Network and communication among the LCGs is essential for knowledge
enhancement, sharing and spreading innovations, and generating new ideas for
supporting conservation at the local level.