|
Forestry
Sector Primary Development Programmes
His Majesty's Government
of Nepal has endeavoured to empower people through their active participation
in managing forest resources every since the democratic government was
restored in 1990. Forest resources are therefore clearly seen in two management
regimes i.e. (i) community managed forest resources, and (ii) government
managed forest resources.
Community Managed
Forest Resources
Five forest types
come under this category.
- Community Forests
- Leasehold Forests
- Private Forests
- Religious Forests
- Rangelands
Community Forests
Community forestry
has a successful history ever since it was conceived during 1976 when
the National Forestry Plan was prepared. It has gone through various evolutionary
processes. Later on it was guided by NCS (1988), the MPFS (1988), the
Decentralization Act (1982), the Forest Act (1993), and the Forest Regulations
(1995). Community forestry transfers the control over the common lands
from the state to the village communities, but this need not include ownership
of land. However, there should a perfect demarcation to indicate which
parts are controlled by whom. Main obstacles to this process are generally
attributed to the bureaucracy and the political power who live by controlling
the region.
Community forestry
means a national forest land handed over to a user's group through an
interactive/democratic process. The Forest Act legally empowers the Community
Forest User's Group (CFUG) for conservation, sustainable use and sharing
of benefits that flow from the resources. The CFUGs are required to be
abided by an operational plan endorsed by the office of District Forest
Officer. The government has also recognised a national body called the
Federation of Community Forestry Users-Nepal (FECOFUN) to ensure stronger
community rights and responsibilities in the process of building productive
relationship between the people and the government.
The number of CFUGs
is ever increasing in the database of the ministry. About 8000 CFUGs are
managing over 700,000 ha. of forestland. It encompasses half a million
household in the mid-hills of Nepal. A number of success stories associated
with CF is available. Some them may be cited as following:
"At least in Diyargaon,
however, the village forests have a different story. The village is
surrounded by mountains on the north, east, south, and south-west, and
they are either covered by pine forests or are in the process of being
so. The village women, whose exclusive task is to bring firewood from
the forest, do not have to walk more than twenty minutes to reach the
forest.
The villagers use
forest products rather liberally under the conviction, apparently borne
out by experience, that the forests today are more dense than in the
past. To substantiate their claim, they point to one of the mountain
sides which was once known as eklo sallo or, "the lonely pine",
and which had only one big pine tree on it. Today, there are pines growing
in thousands on the slope. It is said that the villagers, under the
influence of the government's Community Forestry Programme, abandoned
the traditional practice of burning the slopes ten years ago, and this
resulted in better grass yields for livestock and such, through nascent,
massive regeneration of forest.
The conflict between
the communities of people residing in the proximity of protected areas
and government authorities policing them emerged as the main threat
for biodiversity conservation in Nepal's protected areas. Army personnel
were being mobilised to protect animals such as tigers and rhinoceros,
and scarce government resources were being spent for protecting animals
while people felt marginalised and humiliated. "People are far less
worth than animals ..... government cares more for animals and least
for the people". Such were the feelings among the people during the
decade of 1970s. Nepal's conservation community from government as well
as the non-government organisations took serious note of it, and a shift
of conservation policy and management paradigm began to take place during
mid eighties when the National Conservation Strategy for Nepal was being
developed and endorsed.
Baghmara Community
Forest lies in Bachhauli Village Development Committee (VDC) in the
buffer zone of the Royal Chitwan National Park (RCNP). The Baghmara
forest was within the government jurisdiction and mainly used for fuelwood
and fodder to meet subsistence needs of the surrounding communities
until 1988. People also used this forest to earn extra cash by selling
the grass. Establishment of a nearby paper industry was seen by local
people as an opportunity to make extra earnings through grass selling
to the factory. For some years, grass cutting helped to increasing the
income of people but did not prove sustainable. Over-exploitation of
grass and other forest resources without a legal provision and a proper
management system started to rapidly deteriorate the resource base.
Confrontation between the community and the District Forest Officer
was a day to day affair. The forest-dependent communities soon realized
the situation, and initiated steps to find a long-term solution. In
1988, local people unanimously decided to conserve the Baghmara forest
and the first step was the controlled grazing. This effort helped but
was not enough. The community decided to go for Community Forest.
The King Mahendra
Trust for Nature Conservation (KMTNC) came to the help of Baghmara village.
Within a couple of years, KMTNC facilitated the community to constitute
CFUG. The constitution and operational plan was finally approved in
1995, although conservation measures started much earlier.
Since them protection
and plantation has been simultaneous. Currently 56% of the area is covered
by tree plantation, 20% is under natural regeneration, 17% consists
of mixed plantations, and only 2.6% is under grassland coverage. This
forest supplies 475 tons of fuelwood from thinning and pruning, 1850
tons of dead-and-dry fuelwood, 390 tons of thatch grass and about 7,250
tons of fodder. Thus, this forest is now able to sustain the needs of
over 3,600 human and 4,000 livestock population of the VDC. Baghmara
community forest has an advantage of having direct land-linkage with
RCNP. This park is a favorite destination of several thousand tourists
and is well known for the conservation of one-horned Rhino and the Royal
Bengal tiger. The park generates significant revenues for the government
through eco-tourism. The users of Baghmara CF saw eco-tourism potential
of their forest to generate additional income to the community.
The forest, once
degraded and deprived of wildlife has now become a vibrant habitat for
over 20 species of mammals and 162 species of birds. It is inhabited
by sloth bears, leopards and deer. Tigers are also occasionally sighted.
About 10 rhinos reside in the Baghmara forest. Rhinoceros and other
wildlife, once considered as the foes of farmers and peasants are now
the source of income for the communities. The communities are now partners
for managing park and are involved in controlling rhino poaching. These
days, killing rhino is like slaughtering the goose that lay golden eggs.
The Rapti is a perennial
river that flows across the Baghmara community forest, and there were
no crocodiles in it before the area was designated as CF. In the process
of enhancing eco-tourism, the users group also rehabilitated fresh water
wetland habitats. Now fishing is controlled and fish poisoning is strictly
prohibited. These days, about 20 rare Gharial crocodiles are present
in the Rapti river and their population is in increasing line. Further,
many water holes and ponds are created within forest and grassland areas.
These ponds attract birds and wildlife. Visitors easily sight rhinos
around the ponds and Gharials in the Rapti, while birds are in plenty.
Local nature guides
take visitors for the CF-safari tours and make wages. Nabin Adhikari
is one of them. He says that visitors prefer CF for animal sighting
since the grass swards in CF are shorter and riding on elephant back
to sight rhinos and tigers are equally exciting. The second reason is
the entry fee that visitors pay i.e., NRs 100/- per individual for jungle
walk, NRs. 650/- elephant riding and animal sighting. Visitors get additional
satisfaction due to the fact that their spending go directly to the
local community. Besides, it also helps minimizing pressure in the core
area of the park.
Annually, Baghmara
CFUG is making 1 to 1.3 million rupees from eco-tourism and this figure
is much higher than the amount obtained from selling of grasses. The
users group decides to use their earnings in maintaining forest quality
and in applying protection measures due to wildlife depredation. A major
share of income goes in local development activities like trail maintenance,
bridge construction, culverts, irrigation, river embankments, flood
control, check dams, non-formal education and so on. Bishnu Aryal, the
chairperson of Baghmara CFUG informed that the annual income is largely
being spent on restoring ecological integrity of the forest including
silviculture practices, tourism infrastructures like toilets, trails,
bridges and view towers. Certain proportion goes into the Community
Trust Fund. The demonstration effect of this community management has
prompted people of other adjoining area to establish eco-tourism based
community forest (IUCN Nepal 2000).
The joint technical
review of community based forest resource management presented the case
of high altitude forest management in its issue paper no 10 (Kumud Shrestha,
Ram Chhetri and NACRMP 2000). The paper cites the case of Gorkha district
where the status of forest over a ten year period has increased in spite
of increased population of people and their livestock (A study requoted
from Fox 1993). Similarly the case of Bagan Chhap area of Kabhre district
has been described as a success indicator of community forestry (Miller,
1999).
Community Forestry
of Nepal has been quoted oft and on in a large number of literatures.
However there are some limitations, deficiencies, irregularities, and
inconsistency in administrative as well as legal procedures. Major points
to consider are as following:
Ecological Considerations
-
CF in Tarai and
Madhesh has a set of separate issues due to the commercial value of
Tarai forests and ready market across the border. It can not be compared
with the situation in Hills/Mountains. Community forestry is understood
to be meant for fulfilling basic needs of local communities in general
and not for commercial purposes. The CF of Tarai, Madhesh and Chure
lie in the Tropical Zone and largely consists of Sal trees. It's a
legally band item for extraction, use and export. However, it is the
prime item of export in the timber trade. The tropical zone is most
fertile and is readily encroached for agriculture. The zone is quite
accessible and it is very much favoured for commerce, industry and
urban development. Therefore a Tarai strategy of CF has to evolve
in order to address a different set of issues arising from ecological
conditions, geographical location and economical prospects of the
region.
-
CF in the high
altitude region has another set of issues that differ from Hill/Tarai
due to environmental value, tourism value, and remoteness of the area.
High altitudes are rich in NTFP specially the medicinal plants. These
resources are used as open access common property. Economic value
of several items e.g. Yarsagombu (Cordyceps sp.) and morchella
mush-room is going much too high. This has created several abnormalities
in resource use and conservation. Thus a mountain strategy of CF should
be developed to encompass natural resources of mountain biodiversity.
Economic Consideration
A strategy for sustainable
development has to have its direct relevance with local as well as national
economy. The CF programme also is to be judged in its capacity in achieving
income generation and helping to meet the objectives of poverty alleviation.
However, it is generally experienced and expressed that it is primarily
the better-off people who become members of forest user's groups where
as economically deprived/disadvantaged groups (ethnic minorities, occupational
castes, etc.) are usually not included as members (Elvira Graner, 1977).
There are other implications of CF to disadvantaged people who are deprived
to use CF for their livestock grazing. Common property forests become
strictly CFUG controlled property.
Leasehold Forests
The provisions for
Leasehold Forest (LF) are limited to "degraded land" i.e. "unforested
forest land" which requires long-term investment. Such a principle may
encourage forest-degrading activities in order to apply a lease for the
area. This is possible in the face of a weak forest administration.
The LF programme is
currently designed for the landless and poor households who are alienated
from community forest programmes. Although it is viewed as a complementary
process to CF, there is a serious hurdle in administrative process. The
final authority for a lease lies with the secretary of the MOFSC. This
programme is targeted to poverty striken people who can hardly cruise
through the bureaucracy from their household to the central administration.
Besides the LF is an integrated approach and the people should deal with
four agencies including the DFO. The LF and CF have not yet been received
as complementary programmes. Some basic conceptual and policy amendments
are required to put it into a meaningful practice. Once a LF come to a
healthy state then there is a risk of its being transformed to CF because
the govt. policy goes in favour of CF when there is a dispute.
Private Forests
and Trees on Farmland
Private forestry is
showing promising results in some districts like Ilam where large volume
of wood (Alnus i.e. Utis) and bamboos are exported outside the
district. Similarly, mass plantation of Sisso in the Tarai and
the Doon valleys has shown promising results. However some legal contradictions
for free movement and marketing of forest products from private lands
are major hurdles. Besides there is a serious set back in backstopping
farmers with scientific research as has been evident by the recent epidemic
on Sisso plantation.
Some of the most popular
trees of farmland such as Sal (Shorea robusta), Champ (Michelia
sps.), and Khair (Acacia catachu) are being declared as contraband
items for extraction, transport and export. Thus, these species which
have had high commercial value would not be cultivated as private trees.
People even fear that the government would take their land away if these
trees go to form a private forest. The irony of the fact remains that
these are self regenerating trees in the tropical zone of Nepal lying
below 1000m altitutde. People tend to clear them out from their private
land in order to avoid legal problems arising from the growth of contraband
species of tree.
Religious Forests
Religious forests
and sacred grooves are being considered as an important component in all
societies of Nepal. Their history may be traced back to Vedic periods,
the Ramayan period and the Buddha period. They function as an integral
part of cultural heritage and spiritual resources. In most part of midland
Nepal religious forests and sacred grooves of trees represent the relict
of climax forest and opportunity to use them as seed bank of indigenous
trees and other associated plants, remains unexplored/unexploited. Tree
worship, tree plating, the protection of forests containing sacred sites
and the social structures created to manage religious forests can contribute
to forest conservation (Ingles, 1994). So far, very little work on religious
forest of Nepal has been performed.
Forest legislation
provided legal status to religious forests since 1976, and it has been
reenforced by the Forest Act 2049 (1993) and the Forest Regulation 2051
(1995). The Forest Act specifies that a religious forest is a National
Forest of any religious place or its surroundings handed over to a religious
body, group or community for its development, conservation and utilization
for religious activities other than commercial purposes. It allows the
community to utilize the forest products for religious activities and
not for commercial purposes. This policy is conducive to enhance biodiversity
quality of religious forests.
Rangelands
About 11 percent of
Nepal's territory constitute of rangelands and most of it lies above the
tree-line (about 4000 msl). Rangelands are integral part of mountain societies
and they are managed as open access resources through indigenous practices
which varies from place to place. Use of rangelands is rather seasonal
but they are rich in biological resources especially grasslands and pastures,
alpine flowers, medicinal herbs, and spiritual plants and animals including
the Yeti. The NEPAP (1993) and the NBAP (2000, Draft) brought rangelands
in national agenda of conservation and development. However, the management
authority for rangelands is unclear. Legally rangelands have been nationalized
but de facto they are owned by traditional societies like Kipat-holders,
Mukhias, Talukdar and so on. The conflict between the parks and the people
in mountainous regions is largely triggered due to grazing issues on rangelands.
Current thinking as regards to linking mountain protected areas would
enhance such conflicts if careful strategies are not put in place.
Government Managed
Forest Resources
All forest lands except
those designated otherwise are to be managed by the government through
District Forest Offices.
National Forests
Forests land defined
in the Act, do not necessarily have to have forest cover. They could be
forested lands with dense forest cover, natural shrublands or degraded
forest with regenerating shrubs and coppicing trees, grasslands, wetlands
or barren lands. In effect any landmass not registered legally as private
property may be defined as National forestland. A forested land or a forest
is defined as "all land with a forest cover, i.e. with trees whose crowns
cover more than 10% of the area, and not used primarily for purposes other
than forestry. Temporarily clean-cut area that will be planted is also
forest area." (Forest Resources of Nepal 1987-1998, Dept. of Forest Research
and Survey, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, HMG Nepal/Forest
Resource Information System Project, The Govt. of Finland. Publication
No. 74 Nov. 1999). On the basis of this definition, the forest cover of
Nepal has decreased from 37% to 29% which was established by LRMP results
from 1978/79. Taking the forest and shrub together the coverage has decreased
from 43% to 39.6% of total land area of the country. However, total land
area of the country is not known in terms of cadastral survey. What is
known is just the area defined by a flat map without accounting the verticality
of land surfaces. Thus the success stories of community forestry is the
hills is perhaps lost in national accounting. Therefore, there are some
technical questions to be addressed in the forestry sector which are as
following:
- What is a tree
? Do we define a tree in terms of its dimensions (DBH and height) or
in terms of species ? A tree of sub-alpine zone (Brich trees) could
well be a shrub of the Tarai Forest in terms of its stature and dimensions.
- What is a forest
? Is the 10% crown cover justifiable for all physiographic zones.
- How to account
forest area in real terms when we deal with the slope of mountain terrain.
- Don't we need
a national system of forest classification to deal with the diversity
of vegetation types that amounts to 118 types (Biodiversity Profiles
Project, 1995).
Management policy
for national forest keep changing with time. The recent policy (April
200) of the government as regards to the management of Tarai, Chure and
Bhitri Madhesh (Doon Valley) has indicated that large blocks of forest
in the Tarai, Siwaliks and the Doon Valleys will be managed by the government
in a collaborative management approach. The management model has not been
defined yet. Perhaps some guidelines may be derived from the Indian model
of Joint Forest Management. The policy also emphasizes to share 25% of
the income from the sale of forest products with local government (VDC/DDC)
to spend on local development programmes. Thus the new policy will limit
the possibilities of community forestry expanding into commercially valuable
forests of the Tarai, Siwalik and Doon Valley. Salient features of the
ministerial concept paper (April 28, 2000) may be summarized as following
:
- Large blocks of
forests in Terai and Siwaliks would remain as government-managed forest.
- A collaborative
forest management approach will be adapted in Terai.
- Green Trees will
not be felled for commercial purpose at least for next five years as
existing demand of timber can be fulfilled from the present stocks,
and dead, diseased and dying trees.
- Open forestland
and shrub land would gradually be handed over to local population as
community forests.
- The mandatory
provision of annual increment even in community forest operational plan.
- Siwaliks will
be protected and integrated with community based soil conservation and
watershed management programs.
- 25% of the income
of the government-managed forest will be provided to local government.
- One of the main
objectives of community forestry is being understood to be meant for
fulfilling basic needs of local communities in general, not for commercial
purposes.
- 40% of the selling
price of the surplus Timber from community forests to be provided to
government.
Protected
Areas
Parks and Protected
Areas in Nepal evolved through three distinct phases during last three
decades. The first phase of 1970's was devoted to creating National Parks
and Wildlife Reserves in order to protecting rare and endangered wildlife.
The second phase of 1980's was dominated by the concept of Conservation
Area where eco-tourism emerged as a new agenda in conservation. The decade
of 1990's devoted itself to resolve conflicts between parks and people
living within and around the protected area. Next millennium should however
look into the full potentials of biodiversity conservation where all living
organisms will be considered, their ecological functions realised, their
genetic resources appreciated and their habitats conserved for posterity.
Meanwhile the three objectives of the international Convention on Biological
Diversity, namely conservation, sustainable use, and equitable sharing
of benefits should remain as the guiding principle for conserving protected
areas.
References of nature
conservation go back to antiquity and living in the wilderness was an
essential phase of human life for learning from sacred teachers. Besides,
forests were also preserved for recreation and hunting for emperors and
kings. Sacred forests are still in existence in parts of Nepal. However,
protecting certain areas through national proclamation has a recent history.
The first National Parks of Nepal was established in 1973 as Royal Chitwan
National Park in order to safeguard the existence of One-horned Rhinoceros
and associated game animals including the Royal Bengal Tiger. Currently
Nepal has declared 8 National Parks, 4 Wildlife Reserves, 1 Hunting Reserve
and 4 Conservation Areas (Table 2). It amounts to 16.81 percent of Nepal's
territorial area. Most of protected areas were created to safeguard wildlife
habitats. This would also amount to protect vegetation and its flora.
However, there has not been any assessment to ascertain what elements
of the flora or the forest are actually preserved in those parks and protected
areas. What role the protected areas are playing in the context of floral
conservation is not yet fully regarded or recognised.
Table
1: A Synopsis of the Protected Area
|
NATIONAL PARKS
(IUCN Category II)
|
|
Royal Chitwan
(1973)
|
932
|
150-815
|
Tropical monsoon
|
|
Sagarmatha (1976)
|
1148
|
2845-8848
|
Temperate to
Alpine
|
|
Langtang (1976)
|
1710
|
720-7245
|
Sub-tropical
to Alpine
|
|
Rara (1976)
|
106
|
2800-4048
|
Temperate to
Sub-Alpine
|
|
Shey-Phoksundo
(1984)
|
3555
|
2000-6883
|
Temperate Alpine
|
|
Khaptad (1984)
|
225
|
2800-3300
|
Temperate
|
|
Royal Bardia
(1976 & 1988)
|
968
|
152-1441
|
Tropical monsoon
to Sub-tropical
|
|
Makalu-Barun
(1991)
|
1500
|
435-8463
|
Sub-tropical
to Alpine
|
|
WILDLIFE RESERVE
(IUCN Category IV)
|
|
Koshi Tappu
(1976)
|
175
|
100-150
|
Tropical monsoon
|
|
Parsa (1984)
|
499
|
100-150
|
Tropical monsoon
|
|
Shivapuri (1984)
|
144
|
1366-2732
|
Sub-tropical
to Temperate
|
|
Royal Shuklaphanta
(1976)
|
305
|
90-270
|
Tropical monsoon
|
|
CONSERVATION
AREA (IUCN Category VI)
|
|
Annapurna (1992)
|
7629
|
1150-8091
|
Sub-tropical
to Alpine
|
|
Kanchanjungha
(1997)
|
2035
|
1200-8568
|
Sub-tropical
to Alpine
|
|
Makalu-Barun
(1991)
|
830
|
435-8463
|
Sub-tropical
to Alpine
|
|
Manaslu (1998)
|
1663
|
|
Sub-tropical
to Alpine
|
|
HUNTING RESERVE
(IUCN Category IV)
|
|
Dhorpatan (1987)
|
1325
|
2850-5500
|
Temperate to
Alpine
|
|
Total
|
24,749
|
16.81
percent
|
|
BUFFER ZONE
|
|
Royal Chitwan
(1996)
|
750
|
Approximately
18.84 percent area of Nepal falls under the Protected Area and their
Buffer Zones.
|
|
Royal Bardia
(1996)
|
460
|
|
Langtang (1998)
|
420
|
|
Shey-Phoksundo
(1998)
|
1349
|
|
Total
|
2,979
|
|
Total Area
|
27,728
|
Source:
Annual Report (2054/55) of DNPWC.
Establishment of protected
areas in early days during 1970s and 1080s often excluded people and the
area was managed as a "locked box" often guarded by armed forces. More
recent approaches have been able to create a new and more positive relationship
between local people and the park management. The provision of buffer
zone where park revenue is shared with the community, is creating a congenial
working relationship with otherwise confronting communities. This is however
not enough to reap the full potentials of protected area. The "locked
box" has to be opened through serious researches that unfold the value
of biological resources contained in the box. This warrants a strategic
planning for research and development in and around the protected area.
This should allow to establish linkages between biotechnology and protected
areas.
Protected areas of
next millennium are bound to face severe pressure from tourism as wilderness
and primeval areas continue to shrink all over the world. Bio-prospecting
will be more and more concentrated in and around protected areas, and
thus protected area managers should be well equipped with required information
in order to negotiate benefits arising from commercial exploitation on
genetic resources protected in the park. The first step should, however,
be geared to inventory and register the resources, to understand ecological
functions of the park, and to establish confidence and faith with the
people.
Protected Watersheds
Nepal's ecological
stability is very much dependant upon the two major factors i.e. the mountains
and the monsoon, and the single major actor the Man (human beings). The
interaction between and among men, mountains and the monsoon is the key
to watershed management in Nepal. The government plans and community participation
in watershed management face serious problem when underlying causal factors
of landslides, mass wasting and erosion related with geophysical dynamics
of the mountain are not considered. Similarly, management interventions
do not bring desired results when the management plan fails to address
the dynamics of ecosystem at local level such as forest ecosystem, wetland
ecosystem, grassland ecosystem, agro-ecosystem and the dynamics of water
region.
Nepal's 141,191 sq.
km. of its territorial area is spread as high as 8,000 m in its verticality
of mountains and the country is drained by over 6,000 streams and rivers.
Thus the challenge of watershed management stands at a very high level.
There is a dire need to analyse the country on the basis of ecology and
economy to identify hot spots to prioritize watershed for protection,
conservation and development of infrastructures including roads, canals
and hydro-electric dams. So far the government has proclaimed only one
area for watershed conservation i.e. Shivapuri Watershed in Kathmandu
Valley, while extension works are carried all over Nepal.
Period plans of the
government aim to extend goods and services in all districts of Nepal
to help people in solving following problems and issues.
- Natural hazard
prevention
- Protection of development
infrastructures
- Conservation of
land productivity
- Conservation of
soil
- Promotion of Income
generating activities
The Department of
Soil Conservation and Watershed Management sets its objectives (i) to
help people to meet their basic needs for forest and food products by
improving land and agricultural productivity through proper conservation
and utilization of water resources, and (ii) to assist in maintaining
the environmental balance in the country's watersheds by reducing pressure
from natural hazards like floods and land-slides.
A watershed is an
integrated entity where all development and conservation activities converge.
Therefore, a sectoral approach turns futile. A watershed should be identified
as a planning unit and each of them should have sound information on soil
and geology, geography and climatology, forestry and vegetation, agriculture
and rangelands, and socio-economic dynamics of the people.
Medicinal and
Aromatic Plants
The Himalaya offers
diverse habitats for the occurrence of a large number of medicinal and
aromatic plants. Over 117.40 million people in and around the Himalaya
have a tradition of using healing herbs from nature. Nepal, as a Himalayan
kingdom, has a record of over 700 species of medicinal plants. There is
a store of still un-written and undocumented traditional knowledge on
the use of plants for healing purposes.
Medicinal and aromatic
plants occur in all the bioclimatic zones of Nepal. Some of the reputed
medicinal plants like Rauwolfia serpentina, Terminalia chebula, Phyllanthus
emblica occur in the tropical zone (below 1,000 m altitude); Dioscorea
deltoidea, Adhatoda vasica, Swertia chirayita, Cinnamomum tamala, Rubia
manjith occur in the sub-tropical zone (between 1,000-2,000 m); Aconitum
ferox, Dactylorhiza hatagirea, Lycopodium clavatum, Taxus wallichiana,
Juniperus recurva, Paris polyphylla occur in the temperate zone (2,000-3,000
m); and Nardostachys grandiflora, Rhododendron anthopogon, Picrorrhiza
scrophylariaeflora, Rheum nobile, Cordyceps sinensis, Podophyllum hexandrum
occur in the sub-alpine zone (3,000-4,000 m), and the alpine zone
beyond 4,000 m. The steppic dry desert biome in the trans-Hiamalaya is
rich in Ephedra gerardiana, Hippophae tibetica, Artemisia sps.,
Allium sps. and so on.
Shakya and Malla (1984-85)
have confirmed 510 species of medicinal plants, and of them 53% (340 Sps.)
occur in the sub-tropical zone (1,000-2,000 m). The tropical zone harbours
310 species, while the temperate zone has 225 species, sub-alpine zone
140 species, and the alpine zone 45 species.
Nepal government made
efforts to improve export of crude herbs as early as 1937 A.D. However,
an organised department was not visualized till 1960 AD. The Department
of Medicinal Plants currently renamed as the Department of Plant Resources
oriented itself towards scientific validation and research of Nepalese
medicinal plants. The establishment of Royal Drug Research Laboratory
now called Natural Products Development Division, the Royal Botanical
Garden, the National Herbarium, experimental herbal farms and extraction
units are major achievements of the Department. Currently, the herbarium
houses about 100,000 specimens and an ethnobotanical museum is also attached
with it.
The export of medicinal
herbs from Nepal Himalaya was limited to India and China until 1960 AD.
Nepal's trade diversification has promoted herbal trade to oversea countries.
Data from the Trade Promotion Centre show that export quantities amounted
to over 4,000 metric tons during mid-1970s but the trend declined sharply
during the 1980s (Malla, 1994). However, the trend is on increase again,
reaching about 13,600 metric ton in the year 1992-93. The major bulk of
trade is still with India amounting to 99 per cent (Malla et.al. 1995).
The world community
is advocating the conservation of living resources for sustainable development.
Over exploitation of wild growing medicinal herbs is leading to drastic
decline on the occurrence of some important herbs like Rauwolfia serpentina,
Dioscorea deltoidea, and Dactylorhiza hatagira. Nepal is also
a signatory of the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
The diversity of the
species in Nepal flora offers great opportunities for the search of medicinal
substances, not yet described or discovered. Medicinal herbs could be
viewed as a significant source of income for rural communities. Increasing
worldwide demand for medicinal plants also invites the danger of over
exploitation and extinction of species. Therefore, the world community
as the consumer and the natural resource rich countries as the exploiter
would both need information as their management tools.
The poorest of the
poor people in Nepal have valuable medicinal and aromatic plants in their
own surroundings. Unfortunately a number of them fall under government
restrictions. Thus the moment they are collected, people are vulnerable
to legal harassments/to trade traps. Even herbs of cultivated origin are
subjected to government permissions. An illiterate peasant has to procure
government permission to collect the resource and has to observe that
the resource leaves the district in a prescribed period of time. Thus,
his/her bargain power is lost to the agents of big buyers. Further the
interpretation of regulations, both national as well as international,
for collection and trade is controlled by government officials. Even products
from community forests and private forests are treated in the same way
as wild resources. Thus the prospects of alleviating poverty of people
in remote districts of Nepal through best use of their natural renewable
resources are overshadowed in the secretive and lucrative trade controlled
by trans-border buyers and distant companies. Therefore HMG should immediately
look into the problems faced by farmers and peasants due to legal restrictions
and administrative procedures in collection, use, and sale of medicinal
and aromatic plants. A standard to monitoring the status of medicinal
herbs and aromatic plants should be established through scientific studies.
The "Users Group" concept of Community Forestry may well be tried to determine
rights and responsibilities of herb collectors.
Biological Diversity
(Biodiversity)
Biodiversity encompasses
the diversity of all life forms and their living spaces. Besides it also
include genetic diversity of an organism. Therefore, biodiversity is not
synonymous to protected areas, nor protected areas should be regarded
as "untouchable" islands reserved for wildlife and their ecosystem. Just
declaring some areas as protected area does not fulfill the range of responsibilities
defined by the Convention of Biodiversity Diversity. The three objectives
of Biodiversity i.e. conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing
of benefits could only be addressed through a productive partnership of
all sectors while recognising the independent roles of responsibilities
and special capacities of each. The National Biodiversity Action Plan
of Nepal should develop a platform for linking development objectives
with wise management of biological resources, indigenous knowledge system,
and biotechnological advancement. The synergy between biodiversity and
biotechnology should be developed through a dialogue between biodiversity
rich countries (developing) and technology rich countries (industrialized).
The bargaining power is better strengthened through regional cooperation
because biodiversity do not respect boundaries of a nation. A regional
strategy on biodiversity would place developing countries in a better
position for bargaining and business with industrialization nations.
Nepal has thus far
responded to global demand of biodiversity conservation through managing
over 18 percent of its territory in a protected area system. The buffer
zone management policy and conservation area policy has successfully demonstrated
how people can participate in protection of nature. This approach is successful
especially in areas that earn a lot from tourism e.g. Royal Chitwan National
Park, Annapurna Conservation Area and the Sagarmatha National Park. Economic
incentive to the communities of people in the buffer zone area of other
protected areas have to be developed through other innovative means such
as sustainable harvest of NTFPs, conservation of genetic resources of
indigenous agricultural, horticultural and livestock diversity of Nepal.
Bio prospecting of mountain regions, the rangelands, and the wetlands
should unfold economic opportunities for local people. The National Biodiversity
Action Plan has suggested to develop national policies on mountain biodiversity,
rangeland biodiversity, and also on wetland biodiversity. A national biodiversity
policy as has been developed in India and elsewhere should be regarded
as a first step to safeguard biological wealth of Nepal in order to ensure
the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of resource
both nationally as well as internationally.
Nepal's Biodiversity
Action Plan under preparation sets out 10 guiding principles which addresses
the following key elements:
- In-situ Conservation
- Poverty alleviation
- Involvement
of indigenous people
- Equitable sharing
of benefits
- Sector integration
(Protected areas, forestry, agriculture, wetlands, rangeland and mountains)
- Capacity building
(institutions, women participation, etc.)
- Public support,
education and awareness
- Monitoring and
assessment of biodiversity
- Policy and legislation
for cross-sectoral coordination
- Alternative
energy
The NBAP has identified
6 areas in the sectoral conservation strategies:
- Forests
- Rangelands
- Protected area
- Agro-biodiversity
- Wetlands
- Mountain biodiversity
The NBAP has outlined
its timeframe into three periods such as long-term (1-13 years), medium
term (1-8 years) and short-term (1-3 years). It is adjusted with the government's
period 5-years plans (9th, 10th and the 11th
plan) that extends to the year 2012. (NBAP [Draft] 2000).
|
