Protected Area Management Issues in Nepal

Five days long 27th Warden Seminar was concluded on 12th February 2011. The participants were divided into three group – terai protected area, mid hills and mountain area to identify key management issues of the protected areas. Theses are the key issues of the protected areas.

1. Policy
Common
1.National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Acts, Regulations and Guidelines needs to be revised
2.Policy formulation for managing non timber forest products in protected areas is necessary
3.The revised buffer zone guidelines should include the provision of leasehold forestry program in buffer zone
4.There should be a provision of returning mountaineers fee at local level
5.There is a provision of kerosene as an alternative energy to protected area based Nepal Army personnel. Similar kind of facilities should be provided to protected area staff members
6.Protected area based Nepal Army are not effectively mobilized in buffer zone as well as national park
7.The existing ration scale of protected area staff needs to be revised
8.There should be a provision of distributing timber from buffer zone private forest to even outside of the buffer zone communities.
Terai
9.Boundary of Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve and Parsa Wildlife Reserve is not clear
10.There is no any program for newly declared Banke National Park Buffer Zone
11.There is no provision of using drift wood as a source of income to buffer zone communities. Because of this, annually significant amount of revenues has to be lost by the nation.

Mid Hills
1.Expedite approval process of Sagarmatha National Park Regulation, which is necessary to early implementation of the National Park and Tourism Plan that was prepared in 2005.
2.Khaptad National Park Regulation approval process need to be expedited
3.Hotel inside the protected area, mainly in Langtang National Park where over 50 hotels are in operation without paying any tax to the government should be regularized.
4.Khaptad Area Tourism Development Committee should include representatives of buffer zone and Nepal Army. Warden of Khaptad National Park should be represented in the capacity of executive director of the committee.
5.Need additional financial resources to manage Manaslu and Kanchanjunga Conservation Area. There should be a provision of returning upto 100% conservation fee to local development as in the case of Annapurna Conservation Area
6.The seminar discussed some issues that need further study like; does Makalu Barun National park need security force? Musk deer research center in Kathmandu needs to be strengthened and there are some historical sites in Shivapuri National Park which needs further exploration and renovation. There is a very few research in Khaptad National Park.

2. Institutions
1.Need a buffer zone coordination unit in Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Office
2.There is an enough room for coordination amongst stakeholders. Even it is essential to maintain coordination within Nepal Army in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve and Parsa Wildlife Reserve
3.Inadequate guard posts and staff number in protected areas
4.Need training to lower level protected area staff members on forest based resources identification and management
5.Protected Area based Nepal Army are facing many operational difficulties like, mobility during rainy season, motor board and river crossing equipment, vehicle arrangement for quick response, budget and infrastructure for anti poaching operation and store house of ammunition. Similarly, they are facing difficulties of infrastructures like drinking water, communication and compounding of armed post. There should be a provision of training, insurance and reward system. To work effectively, it was advised to recruit ladies in Nepal Army so as to make easy to confiscate women defaulters.
6.Almost all the buffer zone management committees were in need of an office assistant to discharge their daily activities effectively and efficiently. Even some of the low income buffer zone communities were asking for basic infrastructures support like office building and furniture.
7.Buffer zone officials were of the view that small industries in buffer zone like saw mills; brick factory etc should be registered only with the recommendation of buffer zone organizations.
8.Buffer zone needs timely availability of approved budgets
9.Buffer Zone management committee need standard format for reporting

3. Biodiversity
Biodiversity across the protected areas are threatened by poaching and illegal trade; deforestation and degradation of wildlife habitats due to encroachment for settlement expansion, over grazing, over utilization of forest based natural resources; illegal logging and trade; and ineffective management of resources and research are the key issues of biodiversity conservation in protected areas.

3.1 Species Conservation
As realized by the participants poaching and illegal trade of wildlife was common across the country. Illegal trade of non timber forest product was reported mainly from mountain protected areas.

There is an increasing number of blue sheep in Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve so it was recommended to increase license for hunting. Also, recommended to shift Blue Sheep from the status of CITES Appendix 1 to other categories so that the increasing hunting demand can be addressed. Musk deer in Godawari need special attention for management. Buffer zone communities requested to be involved in the existing anti poaching operation structure that has been formed by Nepal Army and protected area personnel.

Wetland species are declining. Koshi Tappu wildlife reserve has witnessed decreasing number of bird species. Similarly, pollution in Narayani River has posed threats to survival of fish species and Gharial Gohi.

3.2 Habitat Management
Forest encroachment has been identified as one of the major threats to biodiversity conservation across the country. Encroachment in Terai was happened mainly due to settlement expansion in the name of bonded labors and delay in evacuation of the age old settlement from all terai protected areas. Invasive species like Michaenia in Chitwan and Lantena camera in Bardia National park are succeeding wildlife habitats. In the recent days, the illegal logging has become a serious issue in Bardia National Park and Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve.

Similarly, in Shivapuri National Park, encroachment for market expansion has been done mainly towards north of Nagarjun site. In case of Himalayan National Park, age old settlements exist inside Langtang and Sagarmatha National Parks and Manaslu and Kanchanjunga Conservation areas.

3.3 Over grazing
Some of the wild animals like black buck in Khairapur, Bardia and wild buffalo in Koshi Tappu are competing with domestic livestock for grazing. Similarly, grazing pressure is escalating in Khapad National Park.

3.4 Over utilization
Over utilization of natural resources like stone, gravel and sand have been reported from all the protected areas in Terai. Likewise, over collection of non timber forest products like Yarsha Gumba from Himalayan National Park and illegal trade of logs and NTFP resources were reported in Langtang National Park and Gaurishankar Conservation area.

3.5 Forest fire
Forest Fire is a major issue in all protected areas across the country. Forest fire has been found very destructive in planting cardamom after undertaking slash and burning.

4. Livelihood
Wildlife has been depredating livestock and damaging crop in protected area near by communities. Even, some time human casualties have been reported. Because of this, wildlife people conflict has been happened. To address this issue, the government has provisioned wildlife damage relief fund. However, this kind of fund is not provisioned for Himalayan protected areas.

Annually, large amount of land has to be lost by protected area nearby communities to the rivers in terai protected areas. They are trying to be compensated from limited Buffer Zone Fund. Therefore, participants were of the view that river cutting should be compensated by the government from other sources instead of the buffer zone development fund. Despite having enough potential, in absence of adequate infrastructures, tourism has not become a sustainable source of income to local communities in mountain protected areas.

Concept note on Piloting Integrated Landscape Planning Framework in Mohana Kailali Corridor

Mohana Kailali Corridor

Mohana Kailali River, a boundary between Knahcnapur and Kailali has been recognized as Mohana Kailali Corridor for few years. Community forests along the eastern and western bank of the river are developed in such a way that they together have formed a corridor between Chure in the North and Dudhwa Tiger Reserve in the south. There are altogether 57 community forests including 40 in Kailali District and 17 in Kanchanpur district. In Kanchanpur the community forests are distributed in three village development committees namely Baisebichuwa, Raikawarbichuwa and Krishnapur. Similarly, towards Kailali the community forests are stretched over Dhangadi Municipality, and three VDCs such as Geta, Malakheti and Godwari.

The corridor has high conservation and livelihood value. It acts as a buffer for Laljhadi Corridor, a 16,000 hectare block of forest towards west. Until 10 years back, people of Dhanagdi had to rely on Laljhadi Forest for firewood, timber and fodder. However, after regeneration of forests along the Mohana River, the pressure on Laljhadi has been reduced noticeably.

A recent study carried out by WTLCP reveals that forest coverage has been increased significantly in this area. Likewise, the areas have evolved as a suitable habitat for dispersal animals, mainly between Dudhwa Tiger Reserve and Chure area. There are 94 bird species and more than 100 tree species. Likewise, it inhabits wildlife species like blue bull, spotted deer and wild boar. The basic need of local people mainly fodder and firewood has been fulfilled from these community forests and all forests along the eastern bank of the river have worked as live fence mainly in safeguarding people of Dhangadi Municipality from flood. With this fodder grasses facility, people re attracted towards adopting stall feeding livestock. Being market nearby, people of this area are motivated towards adopting improved livestock.

Western Terai Landscape Complex Project has supported local communities of this area with various conservation, livelihood improvement and institutional capacity building activities since 2005. With the support, a network of 24 community forests along the eastern bank called Mohana Kailali Community Forest Conservation Committee has been formed and strengthened. In addition, a coordination committee of 16 community forests along the river catchment area has been established at Godawari VDC of Kailali. Similarly, towards Kanchanpur District, coordination committees are formed and functional in three VDCs. In total, there are five coordination committees are established along the corridor - three in Kanchanpur and two in Kailali.

Need Integrated Landscape Plan
In essence, landscape level conservation advocates for integrating biodiversity conservation criteria in local development plan and programs. It requires consistent activities in corridor VDC, Municipality and DDC that ultimately lead to achieve common vision of conserving biodiversity resources at landscape level. In this backdrop, conservation activities that support landscape elements like forest ecosystem, wetland ecosystem, watershed, and grassland etc are to be included in the respective Municipality, Village Development and District Development plan and programs considering corridor area as sub set of their respective political boundary. The integrated landscape planning approach can be considered as a strategy of sustaining WTLCP supported activities in the days ahead. Considering it as a viable planning tool, WTLCP is supporting preparing an integrated management plan of Mohana Kailali Corridor in 2011.

Methodology
The integration process shall be carried out in three phases. Firstly, a management plan of the entire corridor shall be developed following stakeholder consultation and research process. Secondly, the priority activities of the management plan that are to be integrated in corridor connected local government's plan and program shall be sorted out through stakeholder consultation process. Finally, capacity of the respective local authority and community forests user committees shall be strengthened so that they together will be able to integrate biodiversity criteria in their respective periodical plan and implement coherently in the entire corridor areas.

While preparing the management plan, recently project supported study reports on biodiversity assessment and livelihood development findings will be taken as primary reference materials. In addition, various news and reports that have been produced during the project implementation period shall feed into the plan. Similarly, towards stakeholder consultation process, wider stakeholder meetings and workshops shall be carried out. The study findings and stakeholder perception shall be integrated while producing the management plan.

At the outset, efforts will be put towards developing stakeholders' ownership on the integrated plan concept as such. In this regards, through formal and informal meetings and workshops, the stakeholders shall be given with the concept note. Once they feel comfortable with the concept, the execution processes begin.

As part of integrating conservation criteria in local development plan and programs, WTLCP has already shared its annual plan in all corridor adjoining VDCs and Municipality by attending in person their ongoing planning workshops. In addition, some of the VDCs have been influenced to formulate environment related activities and allocate budgets as matching fund for WTLCP supported biodiversity conservation activities.