Participatory Risk-Sensitive Land Use Planning: A Pathway to Climate Justice and Resilient Development in Rasuwa

                                                                                                                                            Ek Raj Sigdel*

 Introduction

The devastating floods in Rasuwa have once again exposed Nepal’s growing vulnerability to climate-induced disasters. As rescue and relief operations continue, an equally important question confronts the country: will Nepal rebuild what was lost or will it rebuild differently?  The Government of Nepal has led rescue and relief operations and supported affected communities since the first days of the disaster, which has affected thousands of people and caused extensive damage to homes, property, and infrastructure. As the immediate rescue and relief phase approaches completion, Nepal is now entering the recovery and rehabilitation phase. Recovery should not simply focus on replacing infrastructure, including damaged houses, hydropower, roads, and bridges. Rather, it should help reduce future disaster risks. Nepal’s recovery effort should therefore begin with Risk-Sensitive Land Use Plans (RSLUP) on the foundation of risk assessment and supported by resilient infrastructure and nature-based solutions. Additionally, Nepal must use this moment to bring international attention to climate-induced disasters and call for collaboration.

Build Back Better

The UN Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, 2025 emphasizes that investing in prevention and preparedness is far more cost-effective than relying primarily on disaster response. This requires integrating disaster risk-informed planning into sustainable development pathways to prevent and prepare for future hazards. This is where the principle of Build Back Better (BBB) becomes important. As defined by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), BBB refers to “The use of the recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction phases after a disaster to increase the resilience of nations and communities through integrating disaster risk reduction measures into the restoration of physical infrastructure and societal systems, and into the revitalization of livelihoods, economies and the environment”. Recovery should therefore consider livelihoods, local economies, social networks, cultural practices, public services and locally available human resources, their knowledge and technologies.  Nepal should resist the temptation to simply rebuild what was destroyed. Reconstructing houses, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure in the same locations and following the same designs could reproduce the risks of future disasters. Instead, recovery should aim to create safer settlements, climate-resilient infrastructure, restored ecosystems, and more secure livelihoods.

 

Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment

As seen in the Rasuwa that the flooding can interact with landslides, erosion, unstable slopes, sediment movement, and changing river systems. Risk assessment should therefore begin with examining hazard, exposure, and vulnerability and withstand capacity. The second step should involve analyzing comprehensive multi-hazard risk data. It should identify where hazards are likely to occur, who and what are exposed, why and which communities and infrastructure are vulnerable, and what capacities exist to reduce and mitigate the risks. The assessment should then be translated into risk-zone maps at Basin level. With GIS support, these maps should guide decisions on where settlements, roads, hydropower projects, schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure can be safely developed. The assessment should also identify how these structures can be safeguarded through utilizing nature-based solutions, including conservation, restoration and management of ecosystems. High-risk areas should be avoided for new residential and commercial development where risks cannot be reduced to an acceptable level. Early warning systems are essential for protecting lives from floods, but they are not sufficient to ensure the long-term safety and sustainability of communities and ecosystems. Lessons from past disasters highlight the need to prepare for future hazards through RSLUP, including zoning to guide development and reduce disaster risks.

 

Risk-Sensitive Land-Use Planning

The Risk-zone maps at the basin level would act as the foundation of RSLUP. Unlike a conventional land-use plan, a risk-sensitive plan considers disaster risk when deciding how land should be used. It can identify areas suitable for development, areas requiring controlled development, areas requiring risk-reduction measures, and areas that should be protected or restored. Where relocation is necessary, it should be carefully planned and supported by adequate compensation, livelihood opportunities and access to essential services. Nepal should adopt a basin-level approach to disaster recovery and land-use planning, particularly in the vulnerable Trishuli Basin and connected river systems. Basin-level planning should bring together information on geology, river dynamics, slope stability, land capability, forests, wetlands, settlements, infrastructure, climate projections, and cumulative environmental impacts. RSLUP, together with nature-based solutions, is often more cost-effective than repeatedly rebuilding infrastructure after disasters.

 

Enhanced Early Warning System   

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change: Synthesis Report (2023) clearly states that human-caused climate change has already resulted in losses and damage to nature and people, with vulnerable communities disproportionately affected. According to a recent press release by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) regarding the Rasuwa flood, ICIMOD and partner institutions in Nepal and China are investigating the science behind the event and its triggers. The government, media, and scientists are rightly focusing on the causes of the disaster, early warning systems, and rescue and relief operations. These are critically important, but equally important is post-disaster management, particularly preparedness and recovery, which often receive less attention. Early warning systems are essential for saving lives, but they cannot prevent development in unsafe locations. Nepal must complement early warning investments with RSLUP that reduces exposure before disaster occurs.

 

Whole-of-Government, Whole-of-Society Approach

The recovery management requires concerted efforts from local to national to international levels. No single institution can manage the entire recovery process.  The recovery process should be guided by a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach that necessitates coordination and collaboration among state and non-state actors.  The approach aims at creating ownership across all sections of society and ultimately leading to a sustainable and equitable development pathway. Nepal needs a whole-of-government and whole-of-system approach involving federal, provincial and local governments, communities, academia, the private sector and civil society from the very beginning of the recovery planning process. The federal government should provide national policies, standards, technical expertise, financing mechanisms and overall coordination. Provincial governments should help coordinate basin-level RSLUP. Local governments should lead participatory planning and implementation processes because they are closest to affected communities. Further, the affected people should not be treated simply as beneficiaries. Instead, they need to be treated as rights holders and important sources of knowledge and skills about local rivers, slopes, forests, settlements, seasonal hazards, livelihoods, and local environmental conditions. Their knowledge should be combined with scientific evidence when preparing RSLUP. Academia and research institutions active in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction should also be engaged in hazard assessment, mapping, and infrastructure design and monitoring. Strong coordination, transparent decision-making, and effective enforcement of RSLUP and building regulations will be essential for successful implementation.

 

A Test Case Ahead of the UN General Assembly

The tragedy in Rasuwa should not become another chapter in Nepal’s long history of disaster recovery. Instead, it should become the moment when the country finally places risk at the center of development planning.   The post-disaster period provides a rare opportunity to correct past mistakes, redesign vulnerable infrastructure, improve land-use planning, restore ecosystems, strengthen local institutions, and make public investment more resilient. If Nepal can transform this recovery effort into a model of RSLUP and climate resilience, the lives lost today may help protect future generations from similar catastrophes. To advance its climate justice agenda, Nepal should consider bringing forward a concept proposal at the High-Level Session of the 81^st United Nations General Assembly to promote basin-level participatory Risk-Sensitive Land Use Planning (RSLUP).

*Independent Nepali professional working in Environment and Climate Change Policy and Governance

Adding the Smoky Ingredient: Enhancing Chitwan’s Conservation Recipe

 https://www.naturekhabar.com/en/32300.html

Ekraj Sigdel

Environment and Tourism Governance Specialist

Introduction

National Parks across the countries are established for the common objectives of conserving globally significance wildlife species and ecosystems together with promoting sustainable tourism. Chitwan Naitonal Park (CNP), Nepal and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP), USA are managing their natural resources successfully with different approach.  Nepal’s CNP has followed inclusive and participatory path while the GSMNP is still adopting exclusionary approach. Based on the recent observation and interaction with local in GSMNP, I have tried to analyze what lesson from GSMNP can be beneficial to CNP, Nepal

 

The Great Smoky Mountains National Park

The GSMNP with an area of about 2108 km² was established in 1934 to protect an exceptional temperate hardwood forest ecosystem, scenic landscapes and promoting recreation. Concerned about extensive resource extraction and degradation of this globally significant hardwood ecosystem, the U.S. National Park Service, together with other authorities, acquired large areas of privately owned land, including holdings of timber companies and land associated with local communities, while establishing the park. Today, the GSMNP are internationally recognized for their extensive hardwood forests, exceptional biodiversity, black bears, elk and outstanding scenic landscape values. The park was designated as World Heritage Site in 1983.The park’s conservation vision was based on the premise that protecting the Smokies’ forests, wildlife and natural beauty would generate greater long-term public and economic benefits than continued large-scale resource extraction.

 Over time, conservation value has been enhanced through implementing scientific research, and ecological monitoring in partnerships with Friends of the Smokies. The Federal Government through USA National Park Service managed the national park with its own resources. The Park has not invested the federal government for community development adjacent to the boundaries.    GSMNP is predominantly federally managed, with limited formal community participation. The Park does not raise money from tourists’ entry fee. The park offers diverse tourism activities, including historic Appalachian heritage, jungle drives, and family recreation, picnicking and hiking along the famous Appalachian Trail. The park’s distinctive “smoky” appearance, created by natural mist rising from its dense forests, has further strengthened its cultural identity and tourism appeal. Attracting about 11-12 million visitors annually, GSMNP has become one of the major tourism destinations and an important economic driver for surrounding gateway communities and regional development. Visitor spending supports local employment, businesses and income opportunities. The Smokies demonstrate how long-term biodiversity conservation, scenic and cultural values, recreation and tourism can be integrated to generate wider public and economic benefits.

 

 Nepal's Chitwan National Park

Chitwan National Park (CNP), covering 952.63 km², was established in 1973 as Nepal’s first national park and has become an internationally recognized example of conserving globally significant wildlife species, including Bengal tigers, greater one-horned rhinoceroses and numerous other species and ecosystems. The Park was established to safeguard forests from further encroachment from hill migrants. The government of Nepal removed a village clusters while declaring the National Park. The park was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1984 for its outstanding natural values.

 CNP’s initial conservation approach was largely based on exclusion, with limited consideration of local communities and their resource needs. Over time, this approach has evolved toward landscape-level conservation that recognizes people as an integral part of the ecosystem. To strengthen community participation, the Government of Nepal established a formal buffer-zone system and allocates 30–50% of park tourism revenue to community development activities in buffer-zone areas, while the remaining revenue is retained through the government system to support conservation and park management. Dedicated park officials oversee both biodiversity conservation and buffer-zone development, reflecting an institutional effort to link conservation with community development.

Tourism, particularly wildlife safaris and other recreational activities, provides significant economic benefits to the government, private sector and local communities. With about 300,000 visitors annually, tourism has become an important source of employment, income and local economic activity. Despite these achievements, CNP continues to face challenges, including human–wildlife conflict, livestock and crop losses, injuries and deaths, inadequate research and monitoring, and limited institutional capacity to effectively integrate tourism development with long-term biodiversity conservation.

 

Compare and Contrast

The GSMNP and CNP of Nepal share several important characteristics. Both were established primarily to conserve important biodiversity and are managed through national-level protected-area institutions supported by legislation, regulations and government employee. Both have received international recognition for their outstanding natural values, with the GSMNP designated a World Heritage Site in 1983 and CNP in 1984. Tourism and recreation are important components of both systems and contribute to the economies of surrounding communities. Likewise, both protected-area systems have evolved from relatively protection-oriented mindset. Despite these similarities, the major difference lies in the historical context, institutional capacity and integration of tourism with conservation. The GSMNP was established in a landscape that was largely privately owned and heavily affected by commercial logging, requiring extensive land acquisition and relocation of traditional residents. In contrast, Nepal's CNP generally established primarily on government-managed landscapes through forcefully removing few settlements. Another difference is that the Smokies have developed a highly specialized system of scientific research, long-term ecological monitoring, visitor management, and recreation. 

In CNP, on the other hand, biodiversity conservation remains the principle objective, while tourism development and visitor management are not always sufficiently integrated into protected-area planning. Instead, the CNP institutionalized community based organizations as buffer zone. CNP also faces more pronounced human–wildlife conflicts and livelihood-related tensions around protected areas. In contrast, GSMNP faces different types of human–wildlife conflict, but they are generally less severe. Despite being only twice the size of CNP, SMNP attracts approximately 35 times as many tourists. The park is federally administered, while state and local governments play important roles in the surrounding tourism and gateway economy, while sole responsibility has traditionally been given to the federal government in CNP.

 

Key Learning

Nepal can learn from GSMNP by strengthening science-based conservation, long-term ecological monitoring, and dedicated tourism management systems to build a more sustainable and equitable protected-area model. The comparison demonstrates that no single protected-area model can be replicated across countries, as governance and management must reflect each country’s historical, institutional and socio-cultural context. Both parks have achieved notable conservation success, as recognized through their World Heritage status. While the Smokies offer valuable lessons in scientific management, tourism planning and institutional partnerships, Nepal’s buffer-zone and community-development approach provides an important foundation for linking conservation with local livelihoods. Given CNP’s relatively low visitor numbers compared with the Smokies, there is considerable scope to promote well-managed and responsible tourism that generates employment, increases local economic benefits and strengthens park–community partnerships. By combining these lessons with its established community-based approach, CNP can demonstrate how conservation, community development and sustainable tourism can reinforce one another. 

Other Effective Area Based Conservation (OECM) Processes in South-Asia

South Asia have already initiated the Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECM) recognition processes.  According to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Decision 14/8 (2018); OECM is defined as:

“A geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in situ conservation of biodiversity, with associated ecosystem functions and services and where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio-economic, and other locally relevant values.”

The following steps are being undertaken across South Asia to advance the identification, recognition, and effective implementation of OECMs.

Step-wise Process for OECM Identification, Recognition and Reporting

• Step 1. Identification:  Identify potential OECMs outside formal protected areas, including community-managed, Indigenous, private, government-managed, and other conserved areas.
• Step 2. Screening: Screen candidate areas against the CBD/IUCN OECM definition and criteria.
• Step 3. Participation and Rights: Engage rights-holders and stakeholders through inclusive participation; respect customary governance systems and ensure Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) where applicable.
• Step 4. Assessment: Assess the area’s governance and management arrangements, biodiversity values, and evidence of positive and sustained long-term conservation outcomes.
• Step 5. Recognition: Verify qualifying sites through an appropriate national institutional mechanism and formally recognize them as OECMs.
• Step 6. Documentation: Document site boundaries, location, governance and management arrangements, biodiversity values, conservation outcomes, and other required information.
• Step 7. Reporting: Submit verified OECM information through the national reporting mechanism to the World Database on OECMs (WD-OECM).
• Step 8. Monitoring and Reassessment: Monitor biodiversity outcomes, governance, and management effectiveness, and periodically reassess sites to ensure they continue to meet the criteria for OECM status.

Nepal has already developed an OECM Plan of Action and OECM Guidelines. Capacity-building and awareness-raising activities are ongoing through various stakeholders, including government agencies, INGOs, civil society organizations, and Indigenous Peoples’ networks. In addition, OECM approaches are being piloted at the local level by organizations such as WWF, IUCN, NTNC, and Indigenous Peoples’ national networks. However, to date, no area in Nepal has been formally recognized as an OECM.

For more information about OECMs, please visit the OECM Platform, https://oecm.info/ a one-stop resource for information and guidance on OECMs. 

सेतीको धमिलोपन: कमजोर शासन र वातावरणीय न्यायको संकट

एकराज सिग्देल

शुक्लागण्डकी नगरपालिकाको बिचोबिच भागबाट बग्ने धमिलो पानिले, त्यस नगरपालिकाको शासन व्यवस्था वातावरणीय न्यायमा आधारित छैन भन्ने कुराको संकेत हो । सेती नदीमा देखिएको धमिलोपन केवल वातावरणीय चुनौती मात्र नभई स्थानीय शासनव्यवस्थामा रहेको कमजोरी पनि हो । यो भनेको नगरपालिकाबाट नदि केन्द्रित कार्यक्रम तथा रकम बिनियोजन नहुनु हो, अर्थात गरिब तथा पानीमा आश्रित समुदायलाई बिकास प्रक्रियामा अनदेखा गर्नु हो ।

दिनप्रतिदिन बढ्दै गइरहेको अव्यवस्थि शहरीकरण र त्यसको लागि आबश्यक ढुंगा, गिट्टी र बालुवा उल्लेखित मापदण्डको पालना नगरी सेती नदिबाट हुने गरेको उत्खनन तथा संकलन, र नदि किनारमा स्थापना गरिएका अव्यवस्थित क्रषर उद्योगहरुबाट उत्सर्जन भएको राशायनियक तथा किटनाशक पदार्थलाई प्रसोधन नगरी सिधै नदीमा निस्काशन गर्ने प्रचलनका कारण नदि फोहोर तथा धमिलो बनेको हो । नदिजन्य पदार्थ एबं क्रषर उद्योगको उचित व्यवस्थापनको अभाबमा जिबिकोपार्जनका लागि सेती नदीका माछामा निर्भर स्थानीय समुदायहरू—जस्तै कुमाल, बोटे आदि तथा धार्मिक आस्थाका कारण सेतीनदीमा नुहाउने धर्मावलम्बीहरू छालाजन्य रोगको सिकार हुनुपरेको अवस्था छ ।

यी सामाजिक, आर्थिक, धार्मिक तथा वातावरणीय असरलाई न्यूनीकरण गर्ने तथा सकारात्मक प्रभावलाई बढावा दिने उदेश्यले गरिने वातावरणीय अध्ययन तथा वातावरणीय व्यवस्थापन योजना तर्जुमा तथा कार्यान्वयन निस्प्रभाबी हुनु नदि प्रदुषणको अर्को कारण हो । स्थानीय सरकारको कमजोर नियमन, योजना तर्जुमा प्रक्रियामा नदि प्रभावित समुदायको सहभागिता नगरिनुका साथै नदि सफाई केन्द्रित बजेट तथा कार्यक्रमको कार्यान्वयन नहुँदा यो समस्या सिर्जना भएको हो ।

यसरी क्रसर तथा ढुंगा गिट्टी वालुवाको बैज्ञानिक व्यवस्थापन नहुँदा यसबाट प्रत्यक्ष वा परोक्षरुपमा जलचर एबं नदि वरपरका समुदायहरू माछामा आधारित जीविकोपार्जन तथा स्वच्छ पानीमा नुहाउने तथा पिउने अधिकारबाट बन्चित हुनुपरेको छ एकातर्फ भने, अर्कोतर्फ़ सोहि ठाउँमा केहि सिमित टाठाबाठाहरु नदिजन्य पदार्थको उपयोगकै काराण रातारात धनि हुने गरेका छन् । वातावरणीय न्यायको सिद्धान्तको कसीमा राखेर हेर्दा नदि जन्य पदार्थको व्यवस्थापन न्यासंगत छैन, यसबाट धनि झन् धनि हुने र गरिब थप गरिब हुने वातावरण श्रीजना हुन्छ । नगरपालिको बार्षिक नीति तथा कार्यक्रमहरु सामाजिक समाबेसिताको आधारमा नबनाईनुका कारण बातावरणबाट प्राप्त हुने सेवाको वितरण न्योचित नभएको हो।

तसर्थ नदि प्रदुषणको दिगो समाधानको लागि प्रभावित समुदायहरूको पहिचान गर्नु, उनीहरूलाई निर्णय प्रक्रियामा सक्रिय रूपमा सहभागी गराउनु, वातावरणीय व्यवस्थापनको प्रभावकारी कार्यान्वयन गर्नु, अनुगमन र विकासका लाभ तथा हानि समतामुलक शासनको सिद्धान्तलाई अबलम्बन गर्दै बाँडफाँड गर्नु नगरपालिकाको दायित्व हो । वर्तमान स्थानीय शासन संरचना वातावरणीय क्षति र विकासका लाभहरूको न्यायोचित वितरणमा संबेदनशील हुनु नितान्त आबश्यक छ । नदि केन्द्रित बिकासलाई प्राथमिकतामा राखी नीति निर्माण तथा योजना तर्जुमा गरि कार्यान्वयन गरेको खण्डमा नदि सफा हुनुका साथै वातावरणीय न्यायका हकवालाहरु लाभान्वित हुने छन् । अत: वातावरणीय न्यायको महत्वलाई प्रभावित समुदाय सम्म पुर्याउने र उनीहरुलाई सशक्तिकरणगर्दै उनीहरुको समेत सहभागितामा नगरपालिकाको नीति तथा योजना बनेको खण्डमा सेती नदि सफा हुन्छ र नगरपालिकाको शासन व्यवस्था पनि समाबेसी भएको प्रमाणित हुन्छ । नयाँ बर्ष २०८३ ले संबन्धित सबैलाई यसतर्फ संबेदनशील हुन प्रेरित गरोस, सुभ-कामना ।।

Nature Based Solution - Effective for Revitalizing Water Sources

The water sources in Huksikot Rural Municipality, located within the Gindri watershed area of Nepal, which had been at risk due to unplanned road construction and climate change, have now been gradually conserved and restored. These water sources have been revitalized through Nature-based Solutions (NbS), such as planting bamboo and bamboo grasses in the upper catchment areas, fencing around the water sources to control grazing, and protecting them from environmentally unfriendly road expansion.

This demonstrates that adopting nature-based solutions can support livelihoods, conserve biodiversity, and enhance climate resilience. Therefore, it appears beneficial for Nepal to adopt policies that promote nature-based solutions for the well-being of both people and nature.

It is noted that this was a joint initiative of the Government of Nepal, local governments, local communities, SAHAMATI (a local NGO), and WWF Nepal.

प्राकृतिक स्रोतमा आधारित समाधान: किसानहरूको बढ्दो आकर्षण

 एकराज सिग्देल 

प्राकृतिक स्रोतमा आधारित समाधानका उपायहरू (Nature-Based Solutions) अवलम्बन गरेको खण्डमा न्यून लगानीमा बढी प्रतिफल प्राप्त हुने, कार्यक्रमको दिगोपना सुनिश्चित हुने, जलवायु परिवर्तनजन्य प्रभाव न्यूनीकरण तथा अनुकूलन गर्न सहज हुने र जैविक विविधताको संरक्षणमा टेवा पुग्ने भएकाले नेपालमा यसप्रति किसानहरूको आकर्षण बढ्दै गएको छ। नवलपरासी जिल्लाको हुप्सेकोट गाउँपालिकाअन्तर्गत गिन्द्री जलाधार क्षेत्रभित्र पर्ने जोल्तेपोखरी बस्तीका बासिन्दाहरूले प्राकृतिक स्रोतमा आधारित जीविकोपार्जन, जलाधार तथा जैविक विविधता संरक्षणका साथै जलवायु परिवर्तन न्यूनीकरण तथा अनुकूलनमा सहयोग पुग्ने उदाहरणीय कार्यहरू गरेका छन्।

जोल्तेपोखरी सामुदायिक वनका उपभोक्ताहरूका अनुसार डब्लुडब्लुएफ तथा सहमति संस्थाको प्राविधिक एवं आर्थिक सहयोगमा उपभोक्ताहरूले जलाधार संरक्षण, पानीका मुहान संरक्षण, पोखरी संरक्षण तथा जैविक मलमा आधारित कृषि प्रणालीको अवलम्बन लगायत प्राकृतिक स्रोतमा आधारित समाधानका विभिन्न क्रियाकलापहरू सञ्चालन गर्दै आएका छन्। हुप्सेकोट तथा कावासोती नगरपालिका हुँदै बग्ने कान्द्रा नदीको गिन्द्री जलाधार क्षेत्रमा अवस्थित जोल्तेपोखरी सामुदायिक वनमा उपभोक्ताहरूले विगत दुई वर्षमा १२ वटा पोखरी निर्माण गरेका छन्। यी मानव निर्मित पोखरीहरूका कारण तल्लो तटीय क्षेत्रमा पानी पुनर्भरण भई दुईवटा नयाँ मूलहरू समेत फुटेका छन्। साथै, पोखरीहरू निर्माणपछि उक्त क्षेत्र वरपर चितुवा, बदेल, मृग र विभिन्न प्रजातिका चराहरू पहिलेभन्दा बढी संख्यामा देखिन थालेका छन्। यी नयाँ मूलहरूबाट उत्पन्न भएको पानीलाई नजिकैको मानव निर्मित ट्यांकीमा सङ्कलन गरी पाइपमार्फत किसानहरूको खेतबारीमा सिँचाइ सुविधाको प्रबन्ध गरिएको छ। हाल जोल्तेपोखरीका ८ घरधुरीले नयाँ उत्पत्ति भएका मूलको पानी प्रयोग गरी करेसाबारीमा गोलभेंडा, काक्रा, सिमी तथा सागसब्जी उत्पादन गर्दै आएका छन्।

स्थानी]य बेलबहादुर मश्रांगीले जोल्तेपोखरी सामुदायिक वन नजिकै आफ्नो निजी जमिनमा समेत तीनवटा माछा पोखरी व्यवस्थापन गरेका छन्। मश्रांगीका अनुसार विगत ६–७ वर्षदेखि माछापालन सुरु गरे पनि आवश्यक प्राविधिक ज्ञानको अभावका कारण अपेक्षित उत्पादन हुन सकेको थिएन र उहाँमा एक किसिमको नैराश्यता आएको थियो। सोही समयमा सहमति संस्थाबाट प्राविधिक सल्लाह प्राप्त गर्ने अवसर मिल्यो, जसका कारण उहाँमा माछापालन व्यवसायलाई निरन्तरता दिने आशा पलायो। हाल उहाँले माछापालन व्यवसायलाई निरन्तरता दिनुभएको छ। गएको सिजनमा मात्रै रु. एक लाखभन्दा बढी मुनाफा लिन सफल हुनुभयो। उहाँका अनुसार पोखरी व्यवस्थापनका कारण स्थानीय वातावरणमा चिसोपन बढेको महसुस गरिएको छ, वन्यजन्तुको संख्यामा वृद्धि भएको छ, र छिमेकी ८–१० घरधुरीमा पोखरीको पानीबाट मकै खेतीका लागि सिँचाइ सुविधा उपलब्ध गराइएको छ। आगामी वर्ष माछापालनबाट हुने आम्दानीमध्ये करिब १० हजार रुपैयाँ स्थानीय माध्यमिक विद्यालयलाई सहयोग गर्ने योजना उहाँसँग रहेको छ।

जोल्तेपोखरीमा बेलबहादुर मश्रांगी र रमा न्यौपानेजस्तै अन्य धेरै किसानहरूले प्रकृतिमा आधारित समाधानहरू जस्तै मौरीपालन, कृषिवन, प्राङ्गारिक मलमा आधारित तरकारी तथा खाद्य बालीहरू लगाई आम्दानी गरिरहेका छन्। यी सफल किसानहरूको प्रयासबाट प्राप्त सिकाइलाई स्थानीय, प्रदेश तथा संघीय सरकारका कृषि, जलाधार, वन तथा खाद्य नीतिहरूमा मूलप्रवाहीकरण गर्न सकेमा यसबाट जल, जंगल, जनावरको संरक्षणका साथै स्थानीयको आम्दानी समेत वृद्धि गर्न सकिन्छ।