Poverty and Environment nexus in relation to rural development in Nepal

Intriduction
Environment and livelihood of local communities are linked very closely. Poverty is considered as a root cause as well as consequences of environmental degradation in Nepal. Environment friendly development supports maintaining fragile environment, while pro-poor development supports for a more robust livelihood for rural poor. In this regard, it is imperative to reform governance policy that supports pro-poor and pro-environment activities which is the very foundation of sustainable development. Therefore, for this to happen it warrants a strong policy commitment for restructuring and improving the overall governance of the environmental domain.

Economic Significance of Environmental Resources
Nepal’s economy is heavily reliant on natural resources – agricultural land, rangeland, mountain ecosystem, protected areas, wildlife, wetlands and forests. About 50% of the total income of the country is derived from natural resources based income like forest, fisheries, wetland, agriculture and tourism. Agriculture alone contributes over 50% of household income for over 80% of the total population of the country. Nepal depends heavily on traditional energy resources, which comprises 93.2% of total energy requirements. Nepal has witnessed a decrease in poverty levels from 42% in 1996 to 31% in 2004. However, there is a wide gap in poverty level between urban and rural areas which stand as high as 45%.

Resources are Being Depleted
Qualities of all the natural resources are being degraded rapidly due to over utilization and unsustainable use. Forests resources are being lost at the cost of expanding cultivated land and infrastructure development. Economic value of wetland resources are also being degenerated due to unsustainable agricultural practices in the peripheral areas and over utilization of wetland resources. Likewise, protected areas and wildlife are being threatened due to habitat loss and poaching incidence. Agricultural productivity despite the increasing coverage has been in decreasing due to excessive use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. This together with natural hazard such as floods is expected to contribute to the annual loss of 20-25 tones/ha.

Poorer are the Hardest Hit
Natural resource dependent communities mainly the economically poor have been facing more problems compared to other income group in Nepal. In the absence of reliable alternative income and employment opportunities, poor people depend heavily on the natural resources for their subsistence need. Any changes in the resource asset will large impact the front line communities who are vulnerable to environmental shocks. Due to the loss and degradation, the drudgery for poor people has increased. They spend more time in the collection of water, firewood, fodder these days. In addition, indoor pollution has caused other heath related problems particularly, asthma, TB and vision problems. Due to the burgeoning problem, a large of number of unemployed youth leaves the country in search of employment opportunities.

Creating a “Win Win” Situation
Realizing the above scenario, it is clear that there is a clear linkage between the environment and poverty. If environment is degraded, the poorer people would be the ultimate losers. Since these variables have a positive correlation it is imperative to adopt a strategy that helps addressing both the issues simultaneously. The development should on one hand address the need of poor, while on the other it should take account of the already fragile ecosystem. In this regard, the development measures should take into account the facets of good ecology and economics. Poverty issues can be addressed by reforming the existing governance policy and institutional framework while environmental issue can be tackled through employing Social and Environmental Safeguard Framework strictly.

Address Poverty Issues
Towards the governance and institutional reforms, the decentralized process should include more poor families and minority ethnic groups in mainstream development process. The governance system should be able to address downward accountability and be socially inclusive. The field activities should be implemented through a mechanism where representation from local bodies and civil society are made mandatory, taking into account the need and aspirations of economically deprived communities. Policies and programs should give priority for people-centered development approach. Poor people need to be made a part and parcel of any development plan to make them the real owners and ultimate beneficiaries. In this regard, the local bodies should adequately allocate resources for pro poor families.

The government should co-manage and co-invest resources for the poor. In addition to the above, special focus should be given towards infrastructure development to create access to market and employment opportunities emanating from the above interventions.


Address Environmental Assets
Rural development should consider the importance of environmental assets that are so important for rural livelihood. In this regard, as environment is a cross cutting issue, it is imperative to manage environment more coherently through a partnership approach. From the policy level, an integrated planning framework that enhances multi sectoral coordination and partnership approach needs to be employed. In this regard, the role of National Planning Commission and Environment Protection Council could be very crucial. Ministry of Environment should be developed as a central lead agency to execute environment plan and programs.

As per the mandate given by the Local Self Governance Act and Regulations, an enabling environment should be created so that the Local Body can implement environment friendly development activities on their own. To ensure the environment friendly development, District Forests Coordination Committee in the district level can be made more functional. As per the size, location and cost of the sub projects, IEE or EIA needs to be strictly complied. If the aforementioned measures need to be taken seriously, then environment friendly rural development can be ensured.

Constraints/barriers
Presently, lack of elected government and fledgling capacity of the existing staff members are the major obstacles for effective implementation of the above mentioned activities. Likewise, in the name of forging political consensus for implementing activities, it sometime makes a sort of compromise and misuse of resources.

Conclusion
The environment and livelihood of local communities are inherently linked. To make the rural development sustainable, it is imperative that both poor as well as environment are safeguarded. Governance system should be reformed that address pro-poor and pro-environment policy, plan and programs.