THEMATIC RESEARCH WORKING BRIEFNumber 2

S acredH imalayanL andscape in Nepal

S acredH imalayanL andscape in Nepal

BIODIVERSITY GOVERNANCE

for a living planet ®

This thematic research brief draws on work in progress on the Sacred Himalayan Landscape Strategic Plan todisseminate and exchange the research issues and ideas as they come up. Since we want to develop further onthese themes, we request readers to bear with sections that are not fully polished.

Prepared by: Minsitry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Government of Nepal / WWF Nepal ProgramWriting support provided by: Sabita Thapa, WWF Nepal Program and Niraj Kakati ( ICIMOD).

Maps by Gokarna Jung Thapa, WWF Nepal ProgramProof read by Arati Shrestha, WWF Nepal ProgramCover photos by: © WWF Germany / Peter PROKOSCHInside photos © WWF Nepal Program; © WWF Germany / Peter PROKOSCH

Design & Printing: Format Printing Press, Kathmandu, Nepal

1

Overview: Governing Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation 2

Biodiversity and Governance: Is there Coherence? 4

Biodiversity Governance: A Case in the Sacred Himalayan Landscape - Nepal 7

Community Forestry in the Sacred Himalayan Landscape 8

Governance Issues in Community Forestry 9

Biodiversity Conservation in Community Forests 11

Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation 11

Recommended Priority Actions 12

Key Points 12

References 13

Maps

1. The Sacred Himalayan Landscape 14

2. Protected Areas in the Sacred Himalayan Landscape-Nepal 15

3. SHL-Nepal Community Forest Areas 16

Contents

2

Conception of biodiversityconservation, though intuitivelyarose from the ecologicalsignificance of diverse plantsand animals in maintainingecosystem functions, today theconception is dominantlyanthropocentric and intrinsic tohuman needs. This correspondsto the socio-economic demandof biodiversity, which largelyemanates from the fact thatabout half the world'spopulation, especially the poor indeveloping countries, reliesheavily on the management ofnatural resources for dailysurvival.

Over the years we saw a series ofbiodiversity conservationapproaches evolve, out of whichtwo approaches basically reinedamong conservationcommunities. One, the classicalor traditional conservation

approach to biodiversityconservation adopted theexclusionary principle permeatedfrom the view that people andtheir livelihood activities arethreatening to naturalecosystems and must be drivenout. Inspired by this approach, anumber of protected areas wereset up in biodiversity hot spots.This approach, however, was ablatant failure in that socio-economic costs borne by it washigher and even in speciesconservation terms it wasdisappointing. The failure oftraditional conservationapproach gave insight to anotherapproach that adopted theprinciple of inclusion, the primarygoal of which was an integratedapproach to conservation anddevelopment with an attempt toaddress the needs, constraintsand opportunities of localpeople.

Despite the 1992 RioConvention on BiologicalDiversity, the world'sbiological resourcescontinue to be lost at analarming rate, andparticularly so in developingcountries where many ofthe remaining resourcesare concentrated. Bothinside and outside protectedareas, biological resources,their management, andpeople's livelihood systemsare complex and intricatelyinter-connected. Whileconventions are signedglobally the implementationof provisions has to be local,and prospects for successdepend on assessment oflikely costs and benefitsamong stakeholders atvarious levels, and theresolution of conflict ofinterest among them.

(Gimble and Laidlaw 2002)

Overview: Governing Approachesto Biodiversity Conservation

““

2

3

The latter approach, theinclusionary approach or thecommunity-based conservationapproach, appears moreeffective than the formerapproach, yet this conservationpolicy advancement has beenconflictual. Much of the conflictrevolves around issues ofdistributional justice originatingfrom unequal access toresources and inequity inbenefit sharing. For example, itis now increasingly reportedthat many of the local primaryconservation groups such asindigenous people, the poorand backward groups andwomen have largely beenexcluded from the process,rendering them to being'participatory exclusions'(Agarwal 2001) and the process'pseudo-participatory'. Onemajor challenge to add to thedebate of appropriateness ofconservation approach is thevariability and uncertainty facedby natural resourcemanagement systems. Of thevarious forms of uncertainty,natural resource managementparticularly suffers fromecological, institutional andknowledge uncertainties (Mehta

et al 1999). Ecologicaluncertainty refers touncertainties arising from theunpredictable and variablenature of the ecosystems withwhich rural people interact;livelihood uncertaintiesencapsulates the unpredictableconditions in the social,ecological and economic worlds;and, knowledge uncertaintycharacterizes capacities to dealwith risks originating frompartial and plural and scientificand lay perspectives ofunderstanding NRM process.

While this can reasonably beacknowledged that there is noclear solution to the debates andchallenges surroundingbiodiversity conservation andnatural resource management,there is room however toprovoke analytical thoughts tothe generation of newapproaches to conservation.One such newer and recentinsight, the discussion forwhich has already been paved,has been to explore new formsof governance or improvementsin the present governingpatterns of biodiversityconservation.

people's whoselivelihoods are bound withsustainable use ofbiodiversity must be inthe best position to makemanagement decisions

1980speople living on the outskirtsof protected areas must bemade aware of theimportance of biodiversity

encourage people'sparticipation in sustainableuse of biodiversity

1990s

2000

4

Biodiversity and Governance:Is there Coherence?

Biodiversity conservation andgovernance perhaps converge atthe point where global and localissues arise. On the one hand,there seems to be a clear dividebetween the global and local andon the other hand such dividehas become increasinglyredundant because local events

are highly influenced by globalchanges. Provided this context,there could be two scenarioswhere biodiversity conservationand governance converge. One,at global level: globalization haspointed to the increasinginterdependence of theeconomies of the world and

citizens of all nations, which isin fact a signpost that countriesneed to find ways to worktogether to tackle sharedchallenges (<http://www.iied.org/docs/wssd/bp_designew.pdf>).Environmental challenges, forexample, climate change, ozone

GLOBAL LEVEL

1. Failed collective Action: The forum for developingcollective action is not yet strong and effective: need ofnew mechanisms for generating equitable incentivestructures

2. Fragmentation: International environmental governance isshared among too many institutions with diffuse,overlapping, and conflicting mandates: need of coherence

3. Deficient expertise: Fragmentation makes it difficult tocompare problems or results and to build comprehensiveprogrammes to address environmental issues: need ofknowledge networking

4. Deficient authority: No one organization has the politicalauthority, vitality, expertise, and profile to serve as thecenter of gravity for international environmental regime:need of the center of gravity for common environmentalconcerns

5. Insufficient legitimacy: Disillusionment with globalenvironmental regime and structures to address issues ofequity, trade and development: need to build trustbetween developed and developing nations throughfinancial and technological transfers

SUB-NATIONAL LEVEL/LOCAL LEVEL

1. Incomplete decentralization: Central government andauthorities retain key aspects of NRM managementauthority, placing tight constraints on local decision-making

2. Unclear and overlapping institutional jurisdiction: Locallevel institutions often have overlapping jurisdictions andmandates in NRM, leading to their struggle for power andrevenues

3. Local capacity: Communities and their organizations arepoorly organized and are unaware of their rights due towhich decision-making system lacks representation,accountability and transparency

4. Lack of alliance and coordination: Alliance andco-ordination among community organizations, localgovernments, private sectors, NGOs and donors haslargely been lacking at local level

5. Disproportionate power-sharing within communityorganizations: Traditional and hierarchical decision-makingsystem exists and elite authorities continue to play a rolein NRM with varying degree of legitimacy and control

Key challenges to exploring new governance system for natural resource management

Ref: (Shackleton et al 2003 & <http://magnet.undp.org/docs/gov/Lessons1.htm>)

5

depletion, biodiversity loss,illustrate the extent ofinterconnectedness. Two, atlocal level, decentralizationprocess at national and sub-national level are supporting andencouraging community-basedparticipatory resourceconservation models.Contradictory to such provisionare formal regulations andinternational treaties such asTRIPs and WTO that underminethe local control of resourcesand indigenous knowledgesystems governing community-based conservation approaches.These illustrations of fuzzinessin and contradiction between theinteraction between global andlocal resource managementsystems leads us to explore newforms of governance for naturalresource management andenvironmental protection.

Governance as a terminologyfollows different stances asabove and also as stated in thehuge collection of availableliterature. The essence carried byeach however is more or less thesame: that, governanceessentially implies a state of 'ruleof law' and 'no corruption', aprocess that is transparent and

accountable, a mechanism thateffectively takes into account theinterests of people and empowersthem, and comprises of theinstitutions and processes thatdetermine how power is exercisedand how decisions are taken inmatters that affect people's well-being and socio-economic andpolitical developmental affairs.Such implication does reflect onthe meeting point of governanceand biodiversity conservation,evidenced by, for example,changes in populations ofelephants and black rhinos in anumber of African countries, bothduring a period of decline (1987-1994) and during a period ofrecovery (1994-1998), werestrongly related to mean nationalcorruption scores (Smith et al2003). This example, in fact, bestobserves that national corruptionstatus, rather than poverty levelsor human population pressurecan actually accelerate the rate ofbiodiversity loss. The influence ofcorruption on biodiversity goesbeyond Africa. Efforts to conserveIndonesia's forests, for example,have been hampered by illegallogging, supported by corruptofficials despite a raft ofprotective legislation (Jepson,Mackinnon, Monk 2001).

Beyond the more theoretical aspects of

contextualizing the challenges faced by

conservation regime, there are approaches

to conceptualizing governance in

biodiversity conservation. Here we start

by demonstrating how different actors

understand governance and what

they imply.

‘Governance is the sum of the many ways

individuals and institutions, public and

private, manage their common affairs. It is

a continuing process through which

conflicting or diverse interests may be

accommodated and co-operative action

may be taken.’

Commission on Global Governance

‘Governance is the manner in which

power is exercised in the management of

a country's economic and social

resources for development.’

The World Bank (1994)

‘Good governance embraces participatory

development, democratization and

human rights.’

OECD/DAC

‘Governance is the integral component of

sustainable human development. It is the

exercise of economic, political, and

administrative authority to manage a

country's affairs at all levels and the

means by which states promote social

cohesion, integration, and ensure the

well-being of their populations.’

UNDP (1998)

5

6

From an economic perspective,the main underlying causes ofbiodiversity loss are failures inmarkets, resource ownership andpolicy (EC, DFID and IUCNBiodiversity Brief). This,nevertheless, can be complexconsidering sustainableutilization of biodiversityfunctions within a broader set ofexisting incentives, derived froma complex interaction of laws,policies, property rights, socialconventions, cultural norms andlevels of compliance. Given this,the effectiveness of equitableincentive-sharing measures

would depend on a supportiveframework for inter-institutionalcoordination, includinginstitutional reform, capacitybuilding, information, educationand awareness-raising. Thusanother important element ofgovernance that directlytranslates to biodiversityconservation is the mechanismby which rules and laws areenforced such that it does notaffect rights of any among theconcerned stakeholders.

Furthermore, formal elements ofgovernance include but are not

Elements that relate biodiversity conservation to governance

Problems existing at:Sub-national [Local level]

International/National [Global]

Elements related to governance

Resources (locally and historicallyembedded, and socially constructed)

Livelihoods (multiple users; complexand diverse livelihood systems)

Community (multiple locations,diffuse, heterogeneous, diverse,multiple social identities)

Institutions (social interaction andprocess; embedded in practice;formal and informal; interlinked withknowledge and power)

Globalization (WTO; TRIPs)

Global Environmental Problems(Climate change; Ozone depletion;marine pollution)

Knowledge(Multiple sources;plural and partial)

Power and Control(Differentiated actors;conflict; bargaining;negotiation)

Legal systems(Laws and regulations inpractice; fuzzy interaction;local and global connected)

limited to, the development ofenvironmental laws andinstitutions and mechanismsfor equitable benefitdistribution, but constituteother important attribute ofgovernance such astransparency andaccountability. This can berelated to the examples frommany countries whereenvironmental institutions lackthe necessary funding, staff andequipment to carry out essentialconservation tasks. In CostaRica, much of deforestation dueto land clearing for cattleranching cost the country atleast US$4b, and whereincluded in national accountswould have reduced economicgrowth by 20% a year. The costof environmental degradation inNigeria is estimated overUS$5b a year, which is morethan 15% of its GDP (OECD2001). The insufficientinvestments in biodiversityconservation and over-investment in activities whichthreaten biodiversity, activitiesthat obviously defyaccountability andtransparency, are the primecauses of biodiversity loss(IUCN and CSERGE 1995).

7

This section builds up on thepremise of the foregoingsections, that 'biodiversitygovernance is broadly about asystem that governs people'srelationship to naturalresources and the complexdynamics involved in managingthat system'. Sacred HimalayanLandscape is endowed with richbiological and culturalresources which are inextricablyinterwoven with the people'slivelihoods. However, thesystems of natural resourcemanagement and biodiversitygovernance in SHL have by nomeans remained constant.Rather, it has been a dynamicprocess wherein stateintervention has been a keyfactor in determining thechanging governance system.

Biodiversity governance in SHL,as discussed here, is relatedprimarily to forest managementpractices

A brief look at the history offorest management practices inNepal can help highlight thevariety of perspectives onparticipatory management(Harini 2002). Prior to the mid-1950s, traditional practices offorest management wereprevalent in the hills. TheNationalization Act of 1957brought all forested land undergovernment ownership. This isbelieved to have been a majorfactor resulting in the alienationof local communities. TheNational Forest Act of 1976attempted to return some degreeof ownership and control to the

people. However, this attempt atdecentralization was still formallylinked to administratively definedgovernment structures, the thenPanchayats, and was not notablysuccessful. Aware of theselimitations and driven by agrowing appreciation for thecapacity of local communities tomanage common propertyinstitutions and increasing donorpressure, Master Plan for theForestry Sector, 1988, wasdrafted. This was later followedby the introduction of theCommunity Forestry Act in 1993.The major objectives of this policywere to hand over all accessibleforests to user groups, providethem the right to manage andprotect the forests, and the rightto all forest produce and incomederived from these forests.

Biodiversity Governance: A Case inSacred Himalayan Landscape

8

Community Forestry inSacred Himalayan Landscape

Community forests representpriority area of the forestmanagement in the SHL. As ofJuly 2005, CF coversapproximately 33% of the forestarea in SHL, with 4264Community Forest User Groups(CFUGs) comprising nearly 0.5million households.

A major focus of the CF hasbeen in the middle and high hillswhich accounts for nearly 70%of total CF area handed over inthe entire SHL. The proportion offorest managed by people in thehigh mountains is still at a low

level. The high altitude areasdiffer greatly from the mid-hillsin bio-physical and naturalaspects, socio-economic anddemographic aspects, andinstitutional aspects (Acharya2003). The forests in highaltitude areas are extensive inarea and contiguous at greatdistances, but under heavypressure near humansettlements. They includediverse vegetation types, highbiodiversity, are remote andinaccessible, and largely usedby transhumant grazers. Themarkets for forest products are

distant and there is limited rangeof utilization. The villages aroundthese forests are very small, oftencomposed of only a fewhouseholds spread sparsely overa large distance.

From a recent study andconsultation workshops in twoSHL districts- Sindhupalchowkand Dolakha, the idea ofmodifying the present CF modelfor high altitude application hasemerged as an important issue. Anumber of alternative approacheshave been suggested rangingfrom eco-zoning to landscapecorridor model, leasehold forestryprogramme, and collaborativeforest management. (Cited inAcharya 2003). Although thereseems to be consensus about theneed to modify the present CFmodel for high altitude areas,details of the modification arelikely to subjects for discussionand debate.

CF status in SHL relative to Nepal

July 2005

SHL Nepal

No. of CFUGs 4264 (30.50%) 13,978CF AreaHanded Over (ha.) 417,192 (35.63%) 1,170,896Forest Area 1,257,428 7,069,900CF Area as % of Forest Area 33.18% 16.56%No. of Households 476,905 (29.66%) 1,607,504

Source: CFUG Database Record, MIS Nepal, 13 July 2005Note: Figures in brackets indicate SHL as a proportion of Nepal

9

Governance Issues inCommunity Forestry

Issues of property regimes,tenure and rights provide thelegal basis for management ofnatural resources. In a broadsense, there are four types ofproperty regimes: privateproperty, state property,common property, and openaccess. Forest resources wereoriginally private property duringthe Rana rule, which wereconverted into state propertyafter nationalization. However,many places in the hills of SHLhad traditional management andassociated collective propertyrights system of natural resourcemanagement, such as the kipatland tenure and the shinga nauaindigenous forest managementsystems.

Community forestry program,however, is not away fromproblems and concerns.Transparency and accountabilityin CFUG management are twomatters of great concern.

Serious allegations such asdestruction of forests, violationof work plans, misuse of funds,among others, are leviedagainst CFUGs (Pro-Public2003). Such incidents oftenoccur where CFUGs arewrongly constituted, andespecially when work planshave been drafted withcollusion between the forestbureaucracy and local elites.The participation of women inCF management is anothercrucial issue. In mostcommunities, women do the

bulk of collection, especially ofresources like fuel, fodder, andNTFPs for commercial anddomestic use. This is more so inthe mountain areas like SHLwhere women do most of thein-house and outdooragricultural and forest relatedtasks. Yet women have verylittle say in decisions regardingthe management of theseresources.

In the recent times CFUG levelgovernance is increasinglyjudged by the benefits accrued

Kipat is an ancient type of communal landtenure where members had the usufructuaryrights to use community land and pastures, butno right to sell it. It was historically prevalentamong ethnic groups like Limbu, Rai, Bhote,Tamang, Sunuwar, Majhi, Lepcha, etc.distributed across the SHL area.

The shinga nwua system is found among theSherpas of Solukhumbu. The shinga nawa werelocally appointed officials with responsibility forallocating forest resources and ensuring thatindividuals adhered to the rules for forest use.(Source: Cited in Acharya 2003)

Women's Community Forest:Bistodhar Women's CFUG, locatedat Balthali VDC of Kavrepalanchokdistrict, was the first group formedby women in Nepal. The CF coversa total area of 2.9 ha and the CFUGhas women from 29 households.Likewise, Bhatar CFUG of BhudabareVDC of Dhankuta district is thelargest CF which is solely managedby women. The group consists ofwomen from 55 households andmanages the forest covering 573ha. (Source: FECOFUN)

10

to the poor and disadvantagedgroups from communityforestry. A study by the NepalSwiss Community ForestProject (NSCFP) in the mid-hillsSHL districts of Ramechhap,Dolakha and Okhaldhungareveals that while trendstowards resource degradationhave been arrested and in manycases forest cover hasimproved, the livelihoods of thelocal forest dependentcommunities, particularly thepoor and disadvantaged, havenot improved as expected(Pokharel and Nurse 2005). Inthe worst cases, theimplementation of CF policyhas inflicted added costs to thepoor, such as reduced access toforest products. The forcedallocation of householdresources that were assuredunder indigenous managementsystems to the uncertainty of anexternally sponsored systemhas allowed capture by ruralelites. This has providedinsecurity over the benefits ofCF in some groups, particularlyfor the rural poor. Given theunequal social structure in

terms of class, caste, genderand regional disparity, there isunequal access to decisionmaking, to opportunities tocontribute, and to benefits.Marginalized groups in multi-stakeholder settings have oftenbeen excluded and under-valued, with the perception thatthey have less ability to makeand act on decisions. As aresult, poor people's access toresources has been reduced,with consequent negativeimpacts on their livelihoods andon the condition of Nationalforests in neighbouring areas.

A very important dimension ofgovernance is the associationof foreign donors in the CF

programme. The donorcommunity was very active indrawing up of the Master Planfor the Forestry Sector in the80s. The enthusiasm grew fastafter the promulgation of thenew Forest Act in 1993, andnow many donor agencies andcountries have beencontinuously providingassistance for strengthening ofCF management in Nepal.Pioneering initiatives andinnovative practices by thesedonor assisted projects havecontributed greatly toparticipatory resourcegovernance, communityempowerment and localinstitutionalization throughtheir CF programmes.

Donor CF projects in SHL- NepalProject

Nepal Australia CommunityResource Management andLivelihoods Project(NACRMLP)

Nepal Swiss CommunityForestry Project (NSCFP)

Livelihoods and ForestryProject (LFP)

Districts

Sindhupalchok,Kavrepalanchowk

Ramechhap, Dolakha,Okhaldhunga

Dhankuta, Terhathum,Bhojpur,Sankhuwasabha

Donor

Australian Agency forInternational Development(AusAID)

Swiss DevelopmentCooperation (SDC)

Department forInternationalDevelopment, UK (DFID)

Source: Community Forestry Division, Department of Forest.

11

BiodiversityConservation inCommunityForests

Biodiversity conservation wasnot the mainstream activity ofCFUGs under the Forest Act andRules. Their immediate focus wasregenerating the degraded foresttracts. A clear shortcoming of theCF policies, as it remains now, isthe less consideration given tobiodiversity conservation.Nevertheless, community forestryhas helped to return the diversityof species through improvedforest cover. In addition, CFUGs'aim has been to produce a rangeof forest products, includingcommercial NTFPs, therebyhelping to maintain the naturaldiversity of CFs as well asbecoming a means of improvedlivelihoods. Compared withuncontrolled exploitation inNational forests, CF managementleads to lower levels of grazingwithin the forest, fewerincidences of fire, increasednumbers of threatened plantspecies, and control of illegalhunting (NBS 2002).

Exclusive biodiversityconservation in Nepal isgoverned by the ProtectedArea (PA) management systembased on the National Parksand Wildlife Conservation Actof 1973. PAs were initiallyestablished purely for theprotection of wildlife,especially endangered wildlife,while little concern was givento the people living in thoseareas and whose livelihoodsdepended entirely on theresources derived from theparks. Demands of effectivebiodiversity governance meantthat increasingly localcommunities had to beengaged for sustainableconservation.

There are four protected areasthe SHL, including LangtangNational Park, SagarmathaNational Park, Makalu-BarunNational Park andKanchenjunga Conservation

Protected Areas andBiodiversity Conservation

Area. Although all of themare situated in the highmountainous region, theyhave substantial humanhabitation inside and in thevicinity of the park and havingtheir stakes in the richresources. Consequently, theBuffer Zone ManagementRegulations 1996 wasintroduced which representsthe most important legislativeinitiative focusing on theneeds of local communitieswho are most likely to beaffected by PAs, andsubsequently avoid conflictsbetween parks and people.These are the only regulationsto promote CF programmes inbuffer zones and to improveregeneration of forests by thecommunity (NBS 2002).Buffer zones have beendemarcated around theperiphery of all the threenational parks in SHL, wherelocal population has the right

12

KEY POINTSBiodiversity conservation andgovernance perhaps converge at thepoint where global and local issuesarise. At global level, globalization haspointed to the increasinginterdependence of the economies ofthe world citizens. At local level,decentralization process at nationaland sub-national level are supportingand encouraging community-basedparticipatory resource conservationmodels.

One important element of governancethat directly translates to biodiversityconservation is the mechanism bywhich rules and laws are enforced.

From an economic perspective, themain underlying causes of biodiversityloss are failures in markets, resourceownership and policy.

Biodiversity governance in the SHL isrelated primarily to forest managementpractices and the trend from anexclusionary to a participatory approach.

Given the inherent inequalities,diversity and disparity in the socialstructure of the SHL inhabitants,emphasis on equity and distributionalimplications of local level collectiveaction would be highly imperative foreffective biodiversity governance.

Recommended Priority Actions1. Clarify ambiguities on resource use and management2. Enhance indigenous people's capacity to manage

biodiversity3. Raise awareness at all levels on indigenous people's

rights over natural resources4. Develop mechanisms for fair sharing of biodiversity use

benefits and opportunity for indigenous people

to sustainable utilization offorest resources andenvironmental conservationwithin the zone for communitydevelopment.

The Department of NationalParks and Wildlife Conservationhas also been developinginnovative park managementstrategies in collaboration withlocal communities, NGOs,INGOs, and donors. Central tothese efforts is the participationof user groups in theconservation and sustainableuse of biological resources andthe equitable distribution ofbenefits to local communities.For instance, the KanchenjungaConservation Area Project(WWF) is unique in that themanagement responsibility of

the area is being handed over tothe Kanchenjunga ConservationArea Management Council(KCAMC) which consists oflocal people on board.

Two other potentialconservation areas have beenidentified in the SHL: (i)Tinjure-Milke-Jaljale Conservation Areabetween Kanchenjunga andMakalu Barun, and (ii) GauriShankar Conservation Areabetween Langtang andSagarmatha. These will help tonarrow the existing gaps in thecurrent PA system in SHL andenable more sustainablebiodiversity conservationacross the landscape with thehelp of community stakeholderssharing the responsibilities ofmanagement.

12

13

ReferencesAcharya, D. (2003). Natural Resource Management in High Altitude Areas of Nepal: A Review and Synthesis of

Information. Kathmandu: LFP

Adhikari, B. (?) "Property Rights and Natural Resources: Socio-Economic Heterogeneity and Distributional

Implications of Common Property resource Management in Nepal."

Agarwal, B. (2001), Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and A

Conceptual Framework, World Development 29 (10), pp. 1623-1648.

Bhattarai, A.M. and Khanal, D.R. (2005). Communities, Forests and Laws of Nepal: Present State and

Challenges. Kathmandu:FECOFUN and Pro Public.

EC, DFID and IUCN Biodiversity Brief, Incentive measures for the conservation and sustainable use of

biodiversity, Biodiversity in Development, Biodiversity Brief 4, < http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/pubs/

pdfs/biodiversity/biodiv_brf_04.pdf >

Gimble, R. and Laidlaw, M. (2002), Biodiversity management and local livelihoods: Rio Plus 10, Natural Resource

Perspectives (73), ODI, also available at < http://www.odi.org.uk/nrp/73.pdf >

Harini N. (2002). "Tenure and Forest Conditions: Community Forestry in the Nepal Terai." Environmental

Conservation. Vol.29, No.4

HMGN/DoF. (2005). CFUG Database Record available in MIS, Nepal. Community Forestry Division, Department

of Forest. Kathmandu

HMGN/MFSC. (2002). Nepal Biodiversity Strategy. Kathmandu: MFSC

http://www.indiana.edu/~ifri/publications/fulltext/R02I_21.pdf

http://www.sandeeonline.org/research_guidelines/sandee/

Property%20Rights%20and%20Natural%20Resources...pdf

IUCN and CSERGE (1995) Financing Biodiversity Conservation: Challenges and Opportunities, <http://

www.biodiv.org/doc/reports/fin-harare-ws-en.pdf >

Jepson, P., Jarvie, J. K., MacKinnon, K., Monk, K. A. (2001) The End of Indonesia's Lowland Forests? Science

292, 2001, pp. 859-861.

Mehta et al (1999) http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/dp/dp372.pdf

OECD (2001) <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/31/2423663.pdf>

Pokharel, B.K. and Nurse, M. (2005). Forests and People's Livelihoods: Benefiting the Poor from Community

Forestry. NSCFP/SDC: Kathmandu, Nepal.

Pro-Public. (2003). "Growing Rot in the Community Forest." Good Governance Bulletin. Vol.1, No.11, Sept-Oct 2003.

SEEPORT. (2000). Land Policies, Land Management and Land Degradation in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: Nepal

Study Report. Kathmandu:ICIMOD

Shackleton, S. et al (2002) Devolution and community-based natural resource management: Creating space for

local people to participate and benefit? Natural Perspectives (76), ODI.

Smith, R. J., Mulr, R. D. J, Walpole, M. J., Balmford, A. and Leader-Williams, N. (2003) Governance and the loss

of biodiversity, Nature 426, 67-70. < http://www.nature.com/nature >

UNDP (1998) <http://magnet.undp.org/docs/gov/Lessons1.htm>

1414

15

Protected Areas in the Sacred Himalayan Landscape-Nepal

15

1616

SHL-Nepal Community Forest Areas

This initiative buildson the SHL vision:‘A Himalayan landscapewhere the biological andcultural treasures of theworld's highest sacredmountains and deepestvalleys are safeguardedwhile people's rights overresources are ensured andlivelihoods are enhancedand sustained.’

The Sacred Himalayan Landscape-Nepal Strategic Plan formulation process is currently underway.The Strategic Plan formulation is led and undertaken by the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservationin partnership with the working group which consists of WWF Nepal Program, ICIMOD, TMI and IUCN.

The Sacred Himalayan Landscape extends from Langtang National Park in central Nepal to theKangchenjunga Conservation Area in eastern Nepal. This further connects to Kangchenjunga region inSikkim and Darjeeling in India to Toorsa Strict Nature Reserve in western Bhutan. The northernboundary of the landscape coincides with Nepal's international boundary with China.

WWF Nepal ProgramPO Box 7660, BaluwatarKathmandu, Nepal.

Tel: 4434820, 4434970, 4410942Fax: 977-1-4438458

e-mail: info@wwfnepal.orgwww.wwfnepal.orgwww.panda.org/nepal

WWF is the world’s largest and most experienced independent conservationorganization, with almost 5 million supporters and a global network active inmore than 90 countries.

WWF's Mission is to stop the degradation of the planet's natural environmentand to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature by:• Conserving the world's biological diversity;• Ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable; and• Reducing pollution and wasteful consumption

for a living planet ®

for a living planet ®

S acredH imalayanL andscape in Nepal

S acredH imalayanL andscape in Nepal

THEMATIC RESEARCH WORKING BRIEFNumber 1

NATURE, CULTURE & CONSERVATION

This thematic research brief draws on work in progress on the Sacred Himalayan Landscape Strategic Plan todisseminate and exchange the research issues and ideas as they come up. Since we want to develop further onthese themes, we request readers to bear with sections that are not fully polished.

Prepared by: Minsitry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Government of Nepal / WWF Nepal ProgramWriting support provided by: Sabita Thapa, WWF Nepal Program

Maps by Gokarna Jung Thapa, WWF Nepal ProgramProof read by Arati Shrestha, WWF Nepal ProgramCover photos by: © WWF Germany / Peter PROKOSCH; © WWF Nepal Program / Yeshi LamaInside photos © WWF Nepal Program; © WWF Germany / Peter PROKOSCH

Design & Printing: Format Printing Press, Kathmandu, Nepal

1

Culture and Conservation 2

Diversity of Mountains Environment and Culture 3

The Significance of Sacred Sites in Conservation 4

Belief and Faith System as a Tool of Conservation 5

Nature, Culture and Conservation: A Case in the Sacred Himalayan Landscape 5

The Challenges of Conservation Planning in the Sacred

Himalayan Landscape 9

Recommended Priority Actions 10

Key Points 11

References 12

Maps

1. The Sacred Himalayan Landscape 13

2. Indigenous People in the Sacred Himalayan Landscape-Nepal 14

3. Linguistic Distribution in the Sacred Himalayan Landscape 15

4. Places in the Sacred Himalayan Landscape-Nepal 16

Contents

2

Conservation and culture havealways been integral in manyparts of the world. South Asianhistory shows that biodiversityrich areas such as scenic valleysand religious complexes werecreated in prehistoric timesdating back to times unknown tohumankind. The conceptualorigins of the 'culture andconservation' as nowunderstood, nevertheless,apparently promulgated only inthe 20th century. Among theconservation communities, theidea was embraced rather later inthe 1990s (Fowler 2002). It wasnot until 1992 that theConvention on the WorldCultural and Natural Heritage,adopted by the GeneralConference of UNESCO in 1972,established a uniqueinternational instrumentrecognizing and protecting bothcultural and natural heritage of

Overview: Culture and Conservation

outstanding universal value.Similarly, the Convention onBiological Diversity, adopted atthe 1992 Earth Summit,acknowledged the need toprotect and encouragecustomary use of biologicalresources in accordance withtraditional cultural practicesthat are compatible withconservation and sustainableuse requirements. Both theConventions were milestoneachievement in many ways, butspecifically they evoked the ideaof recognizing the associativevalues of culture and nature toindigenous people and gaveimportance to conservingbiological diversity throughcultural diversity withinlandscapes. This certainly gaveimpetus to the understandingand valuing of both culture andnature in wider scales incountries and societies.

In the conservation circle,nature is now increasingly andmore appropriatelyrepresented as the corollaryof culture. Particularly indeveloping countries, naturalresource management isoften the assemblage ofpeoples' livelihoods, identities,their traditional knowledge ofspecies, practices and beliefsystems. Many conservationlandscapes have beenrendered more biologicallydiverse through humaninteraction and interventionover centuries. They are thefoundations of foodproduction systems and livinggene banks for the food cropsof tomorrow. These areas arehome to local populations andindigenous groups, and arerich in cultural diversity andintangible values, to beconserved as a whole for asustainable future.

2

3

rock can provide uniquemicrohabitat for alpine plantsand animals found nowhereelse. This natural diversity hasalso enabled mountaincommunities to become theircustodians through associateduse and conservation practices.Given the imperative to survivein extreme environment,mountain people have acquiredunique knowledge and skills byadapting to the specificconstraints and advantages of

their fragile and inhospitableenvironments. They possessmillennia of experience inshifting cultivation, terracedfields, medicinal use of nativeplants, migratory grazing, andsustainable harvesting of food,fodder, and fuel from forests(Denniston 1995). With humansurvival so closely dependenton knowledge of local ecology,the differences in theirknowledge practices results insharp differences in culture.

Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of World Heritage Convention

Clearly defined landscape designed and created intentionally by man.This embraces garden and parkland landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons which are often (but not always)associated with religious or other monumental buildings and ensembles.

Organically evolved landscape. This results from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religiousimperative and has developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment. Suchlandscapes reflect that process of evolution in their form and component features. They fall into two sub-categories:• A relict (or fossil) landscape is one in which an evolutionary process came to an end at some time in the past,

either abruptly or over a period. Its significant distinguishing features are, however, still visible in material form.• A continuing landscape is one which retains an active social role in contemporary society closely associated with

the traditional way of life, and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress. At the same time it exhibitssignificant material evidence of its evolution over time.

Associative cultural landscape. The inclusion of such landscapes on the World Heritage List is justifiable by virtueof the powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element ratherthan material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent.

Category

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

The three categories of World Heritage Cultural Landscape

Adapted from (UNESCO 2002)

Diversity of MountainEnvironment and Culture

Cultural diversity is not an historical accident.

It is the direct outcome of the local people learning

to live in harmony with the mountains' extraordinary

biological diversity

(Cited as Anil Agarwal, Centre of Science and

Environment, New Delhi in Denniston 1995)

What makes mountains uniquebiomes are their diversity in thevertical gradient and associatedcultural values. The complexityof topography, including thevariation in elevation, slope, andorientation to the sun, createlarge variations in temperature,radiation, wind, moistureavailability, and soils over veryshort distances. This physicaldiversity gives variety invegetation and animal life suchthat even the shade of a single

“ “

4

The Significance of Sacred Sitesin Conservation

In most cultures the sacred itselfis indefinable. The significance ofsacredness may vary dependingon the opinions and beliefs ofparticular cultures andindividuals. People experiencethe sacred nature of mountainsand revere them as the temple ofthe gods, centre of the universe,or abode of the dead, sources oflife, places of inspiration, and inmany other ways.

The power of many mountainscomes from the perception ofthem as dwelling places ofdeities, often regarded asprotectors of local communities.The Sherpas of Khumbu inNepal, for example, view thecraggy, fortress like peak ofKhumbila as the seat of thewarrior god who watches overtheir homeland and protects theiryaks. Actions that would makesuch a mountain unsuitable as

the abode of its deity appearingto drive the god, spirit, orancestor away may leave nearbyvillagers feeling vulnerable.These values and beliefsdetermine to a great extentwhich natural resources peopleseek to exploit and whichfeatures of the land they striveto protect. Many indigenouscultures draw vitality andcohesion from their relationshipto mountains and other sacredfeatures of the landscape.Destroying what makes such asite sacred may undermine aculture, resuming in negativesocial, economic, andenvironmental impacts as thesociety falls apart andtraditional controls of land arelost (Mountain Forum OnlineLibrary).

Both in the modern andtraditional societies, mountains

awaken a sense of wonderand awe that set them apart assacred places imbued with aspecial evocative power andsignificance. People oftenvisit Mountains for spiritualinspiration and renewal, andregard them as embodimentsof important cultural values.The cultural and inspirationalvalue of mountains has playeda vital role in theestablishment of nationalparks and is one of the mosteffective tools for galvanizingpublic support for theconservation of wildernessareas. It also provides a meansfor eliciting empathy andsupport among people ofinfluence in developedsocieties and economies forprotecting and preserving thediverse environments andcultures of traditional sacredmountains (TMI 1998).

5

Nature, Culture and Conservation: A Casein the Sacred Himalayan Landscape

Link between faith and belief andconservation has existed for manycenturies throughout the world,through the preservation ofparticular places as sacred naturalsites, through the conservation ofsacred animal and plant species,through traditional religious basedcollective actions by indigenouspeople or through values ascribedto ethics of conservation. Theselinks may be summarized as:

Sacred places - both sacrednatural sites and build environmentsexisting in antural or semi-naturalareas. These can contribute verydirectly to global conservationefforts because they are oftenthemselves well-conserved, throughtraditions that sometimes stretchback for thousand years;

Influence of faiths - through theirphilosophy, actions and influence,faiths can have a major impact onthe way people view the protectionof nature.

(WWF 2005)

Belief and FaithSystem as aTool of Conservation

The value and importance of sacred mountains for biodiversity conservation areapparent in following aspects:

The sacred mountains have kept their pristine nature and natural biodiversity ofhundreds of years.They are the heritage bestowed for present and future generations as a legacy ofthe national traditions, customs, chronicles, history, culture, and science passedon from the ancestors.They ratify people's belief in maintaining the equilibrium between ecology andnature protectionThe importance of sacred mountains lies in that they not only benefit the ecologyof a particular country but of the whole world.

Natural heritageThe topography of SHL isvaried and characterized by alarge number of hills andmountains, with an exceptionaldegree of relief. These uniqueecological and topographicfeatures have created a rich anddiverse natural resource base.The high topographic diversityand related climatic diversitygive rise to significantecological gradients whichgives rise to high ecosystemdiversity over relatively smallareas. This, in turn, leads to alarge diversity and complexmosaic of habitats, many ofwhich are unique, and to highspecies diversity. Finally, theSHL contains very significantgenetic biodiversity, being an

important centre of origin formany species, hosting manywild relatives of commercialspecies, and having importanton-farm genetic biodiversity,both crop varieties andlivestock races. The harsh andrapidly changing climaticconditions mean that manyhabitats and species exhibithigh resilience, which may be ofvalue in future climate changescenarios.

Out of three of the Global 200Ecoregions that are representedwithin the Eastern HimalayanEcoregion Complex, two arefound within the SHL: 1)Eastern Himalayan AlpineMeadow Ecoregion, and 2)Temperate Broadleaf and

5

6

Conifer Forests Ecoregion.Since representation of habitatfrom these ecoregions is animportant contribution to globalconservation targets, the SHLcontributes significant extentsof habitat towards these targets.

Cultural heritageSacred and Heritage sitesThe SHL is a series of complexliving cultural and naturallandscapes. These are in factcentral to the SHL's spirituality,culture, social organization andeconomic use. The SHL's sacredand heritage sites comprisesacred, natural and culturalplaces and objects that havespecial significance and value tothe indigenous people becauseof the meanings they ascribe to

them. They express people'sunity with the natural andspiritual environment. Theyembody indigenous andtraditional knowledge on themanagement of plants andanimals, places, land uses, andenvironment. Since many of thenatural sites are imbued withhuman associations, stories,myths and traditions, the sitesthat are inscribed as natural mayalso merit as being cultural andsacred sites.

Different ethnic groups in theSHL regard many landscapesand objects as sacred.Physically, a sacred place canvary from the size of a small rockto a few square meters tohundreds or thousands of

square kilometers of land piece.The widespread concepts of'beyuls' or 'hidden valleys' and'ters' or 'hidden treasures' arelarge wilderness areas located ininaccessible or isolated parts,many still wild, unattended andunexplored. Similarly, objectssuch as religious sculpture,stones, painting, hierograms, andcostumes; living things includinganimals, individual plants, andforests or groves; and images ofthe supernatural are held sacredby people. These sacred sitesmay hold significance for onehousehold, a community, ormultiple communities and ethnicgroups. Sacred places areconsidered the source ofpowerful forces, energy, andwisdom. These Sacredlandscapes are maintainedthrough the practice of religiousrituals, ceremonies, andsanctions within a specificcultural group.

Sacred sites and objects areoften the materialisticrepresentation of people's beliefsystems and culture. Theyusually have outstandingarchitectural works, sculptureand painting that exhibitremarkable combinations of

Beyuls or the 'sacred hidden valleys'Beyul is the sacred hidden valley and its concept is rooted in the Nyingmapa tradition of TibetanBuddhism. Beyuls exist throughout the Buddhist regions of the Himalayas. It is noted that theremay be as many as 108 beyuls in the Himalaya. In the vicinity of Mount Everest, people reveresacred beyuls such as Khenbalung, Khumbu, Rongshar, and Kyirong valleys. Beyuls aregenerally large (hundreds of square kilometres in size), isolated, and vacant mountain valleys.They can be opened by tertons (treasure seekers) following discovery of terma (secrettreasures i.e. ancient texts), which describe the access to these sacred lands. It is believedthat only people with pure hearts can gain access to these sites, and that, while many beyulshave already been exposed and settled, there are others awaiting discovery.

Inherent natural and cultural qualities of beyuls lend themselves to the conservation ofbiodiversity. Beyuls are located in isolated and inaccessible mountain valleys and are generallysparsely populated. This accounts for relatively undisturbed forests and wild land, harbouringspecies of plants and animals that may not exist in areas of heavy human disturbance.Besides, the attitude of local Buddhist communities who refrain from killing has helps to protectwildlife and enforce their own rules and measures to keep the environment intact.

Source: Sherpa (2003).

7

history, art and science.Therefore, their importanceemanates from the fact thatthese are non-renewable andirreplaceable resources, and oncethese are lost it brings in thedanger that civilizations andtraditions associated with themare also lost.

Scenic and Aesthetic ValuesThe SHL contributes greatly tothe quality of life of the localcommunity and to the tourists orvisitors experience. Local andindigenous people havedeveloped a strong appreciationand spiritual connection with thescenic and aesthetic values ofthe SHL. Places of naturalbeauty with high aestheticimportance include areas such asGaurishanker, Kanchenjunga,Makalu Barun and Langtang. Thebeyuls add to the adventures ofgetting into the fictional'Shangri-La'. Many mountainousareas in the SHL providetremendous opportunity forsight-seeing, spiritual healingand meditation, adventuretourism, trekking, hiking and birdwatching. In 1997 thegovernment declaredKanchenjunga ConservationArea as 'gift to the earth'

considering its rich biodiversity,cultural heritage and pristineHimalayan landscape.

Caste/Ethnicity andCultural MosaicThe proposed SHL districts areinhabited by people belongingto various ethnic, caste andsub-caste groups. Theindigenous people includingLimbu, Rai and Tamang standout as the most predominantgroups in the whole SHLregion. The proportion ofdisadvantaged caste groupssuch as Kami, Damai and Sarkiare found in significantnumbers in all the SHL districts.Some of the caste/ethnicgroups have an interestingpattern of their populationdistribution in the region withpockets of areas dominated byone ethnic group over the other.Similarly, over 40 differentlanguages and dialects arespoken in the landscape, whichare important to consider as theknowledge and practices ofdiverse ethnic groups arememorised by elderly peoplewho cannot speak any otherlanguages or dialects and ifdocumented, its mostly in theirown language or script.

Kipat system of communal land managementCommunal land or Kipat is a system of landholding based on tribal, village, kindred orfamily basis, and individuals have definiterights in this land by virtue of their belongingto a particular ethnic group. Kipat system is arelic of the customary land tenure that wasestablished by ethnic groups including Limbu,Rai, Tamang, Sherpa and their clans andsubclans. Before the Kipat system came toend after the nationalization of forests in 1957,the main activities of indigenous peopleassociated with Kipat were land tax collection,settlement planning, land translator, disputeresolution, distribution natural resources/management and establishing legal system ofland ownership rights.

Mundhum-The Scripture of Kirat PeopleThe word 'Mundhum' means the power of greatstrength and the Kirat people of east Nepaltake it to be a holy and a powerful scripture.The Mundhum contains stories of the creationof the Universe, the beginning of human kind,the evil spirits and the philosophy onspiritualism. From the beginning, Kirat peoplewere rationalistic and so they neither hadtemples, altars nor images, but conceived thatGod resided in light and fire. Hence theyworship spirits whom they believe to be theresidents of sun and fire. The Kirats believethat Good Spirit gives energy, vitality andambition to the humankind. There are differentfolklores that pray to Good Spirit to bring goodproduction in the fields. The Bad or the EvilSpirits cause mischief and trouble to thehumankind and are less powerful than theGood Spirit. The Kirat priests never usemedicine for the treatment of sick peopleunless they are directed by the Good SpiritGod. If the Evil Spirits do not get away fromhumble prayers, they use chilly rags. Besidesbeliefs in Good, Bad and Inspirational Spirits,Kirat people also believe in the existence ofGod Ningwaphuma, which tells stories aboutthe creation of the fire, light, water and wind.

Source: http://www.limbulibrary.com.np/history/history_culture_by_imangsing.pdf

7

8

Cultural History andSignificanceThe ecosystems of the SHL haveevolved over thousands of yearsthrough active interaction of itsindigenous people with the landand management of itsresources. Their culturalknowledge and perspectives ofplants, animals and ecologicalprocesses have created a specialcontext for conservation andsustainable management ofnatural resources. Activities suchas livestock keeping, farming,and harvesting of materials forfood and shelter, ceremonial

tools or art and craft areessentially the part ofindigenous people's culture andhave always been integral to theecology of the landscape. Forexample, the local Sherpacommunities in SagarmathaNational Park have managedtheir forest on a sustainablemanner through theShinginawa system forcenturies (Singi and Naua arewords meaning 'Forest'sGuards', chiefly used byindigenous people such asTamang and Sherpa).Customary laws and collective

Nawa SystemNawa System in Sherpa culture is associated with the 'permission' given by the locallyselected persons authorized with local rights and duties to permit the villagers to carry outtasks, such as cutting down trees for building materials or for firewood, or for looking after thepublic properties, like monasteries and chortens. They have the right to permit people to carryout tasks so they are called 'Syula Nawa Syubu', which means the authorized person whogives permission. The Nawa who looks after the farming lands, decides the date of movingcattle to the pasture land away from the crop fields, decides the date for cutting grass andperforms religious rites worshipping the earth to give good crops is called the 'Santok Nawa'.The Nawa who has the authority to protect the surrounding forest area, to give permission tocut down trees for building materials and firewood is called the 'Singhi Nawa'.

Source: Kathet M (2006)

resource management are oftenindigenous normal ways of life.Traditional healers, Jhankri andAmchi, genealogy tellers,witchcraft practitioners andpriests are the ritual specialistsin the communities. Their ritualsand knowledge are mostlyassociated with the use ofplants and animals or derivingpower from the supernaturalfrom the surroundingenvironment.

The importance of culturalhistory, traditional knowledgeand practices lies in the genesisof indigenous people andfarmer's rights in this modernera. In the mountain indigenouscommunities, it is perhaps themost pressing issue that rightsto traditional knowledge, equityin benefit sharing process andparticipation in the decisionmaking process is largelylacking and neglected.

Spiritual

Sacred sites, plantsand animalsCreation storiesFestivals andceremoniesBurial grounds

Social

Cultural identityTraditional and customarylawsKinship and clan belongingLanguageSense of place and identity

Economic

NTFP collection and harvestingShelter buildingFood preparationArts (rock, building) and craftsRecreation (Mountain climbing,cultural and natural tourism)

Ecological

Medicinal plantsKnowledge of ecologicalrelationshipsCollective managementCommunity NRM institutionsWater supplyEnergy (hydro/fuelwood)

Some cultural values relating to conservation in SHL

9

The Challenges of Conservation Planningin the Sacred Himalayan Landscape

Ordinary policy andinstrument frameworkOver 40 different ethnic andindigenous people live in theSacred Himalayan Landscape.Not only that those people valuenature differently, their vision ofnatural resource management arealso different which are theresults of differentialperceptions, practices andknowledge about nature and itsuse or non-use value to people.For common people, nature andculture are generally understoodand their elements are thought tobe interlinked. However, theirlinkages cannot be so simplistic.In reality, the elements thatbelong to the nature interact withelements belonging to humanfaith, history and settlements.

This being so, we face thechallenge of integrating culturewith nature through unitaryplanning and within the ordinaryor general framework. Since

government policies andinstruments so far hold thehistory of considering naturaland cultural elements separately,the implementation carried underthem has been not very effectiveand even failed. If we are torecognize that SHL carriesunique and exceptionalintegration of nature and culture,'exceptional policies andinstruments' that can beintegrated with 'ordinary policiesand instruments' are needed tobetter understand, value andemanate the pride of the SHL.

Lack of general awarenesson cultural linkage tonature conservationThe cultural heritage and sacredsites generally suffer from thelack of awareness on part ofpolicy makers and general publicregarding their importance. Boththe sites and culture are taken as'any other way of doing life' andperception is usually simplistic.

Although a few culture andpractices have now beenincreasingly brought intoforefront and emphasized forpromotion, there are less of themseen as having significance fornature conservation. Asdescribed throughout thisdocument, culture and nature areintricately related, however, thisrelationship is often neglected inthe everyday language ofconservation.

Another challenge for the 'cultureand nature link' is that less isknown about the indigenouspeople, their culture, rituals andpractices and relationship tonature. There is very fewdocumentation of these andtherefore awareness on howculture can be used as a tool ofconservation largely lacks. Due tothe same reason, approaches tocultural approach to conservationare still applied vaguely andremains fuzzy.

10

The effects of dynamicsof cultural values andorientationCulture and cultural valuesexhibit greater dynamism and somodernization or developmentmay result in the loss or lesservaluation of traditions andcultures. In addition, some localtraditions that have not yet cometo common knowledge run therisk of being lost or assimilatedinto dominant cultures. As moreplaces and cultures open up tothe outside world due to theinfluence of tourism, pilgrimagesor business, culture andtraditions may be less valued bydescendent generation. In manycases, while modernization,change in value system andcultural assimilation areunavoidable, there can be somemeasures or policies set up as tokeep intact the culture ofindigenous people yet bringingto them the fruits of moderndevelopment.

The Scars of conflictThe natural and cultural heritagesites within the SHL haveundergone constant threatsduring the civil conflict that hasbeen ongoing for over a decadenow. Of those severely affected

by conflict are those natural andcultural sites which are mostremote but very rich in theirpossession of natural andcultural heritages. Assessing theimpact of the present warfare,it's high time to consider whendoes the present risk become athreat and when does thateventually become a crisis andwill go beyond the hands ofNepalese themselves, theirneighbouring countries or theconcerned internationalcommunities.

The civil conflict has causedtensions, threats and risks suchas those related to bombing andlittering of landmines, rebels

seeking refuges in the forestareas, army posts established innear community forests orcommunity settlements,intentional or unintentionaldestruction of natural andcultural elements by warringparties, etc. These already havehad devastating impacts inmany remote areas of the SHL.However, there is still hope andopportunity provided in theSHL as harmony betweenmulti-cultural ethnic groups stillpersists which binds severalareas otherwise severelydisjointed by the conflict. But,until timely steps are taken thewhole landscape may undergoan undesirable transformation.

Recommended priority actions1. Emphasize conservation - culture linkage: Support and highlight

spiritual, religious and cultural values and dimensions of traditionalknowledge and practices for effective conservation outcomes.

2. Cultural mapping: Mapping of areas where indigenous peopleare located, their status, mobility of people around cultural andsacred sites.

3. Enhancement of the awareness: Enhance general awareness atall levels (from community to policy level) on cultural approach toconservation and application of the notion of the integrity andauthenticity of cultural and natural heritage.

11

KEY POINTS

Natural resource management is often theassemblage of peoples' livelihoods, identities,their traditional knowledge of species, practicesand belief systems.

What makes mountains unique biomes are theirdiversity in the vertical gradient and associatedcultural values.

Given the imperative to survive in extremeenvironment, mountain people have acquiredunique knowledge and skills by adapting to thespecific constraints and advantages of theirfragile and inhospitable environments.

The power of many mountains comes from theperception of them as dwelling places of deities,often regarded as protectors of localcommunities. Many indigenous cultures drawvitality and cohesion from their relationship tomountains and other sacred features of thelandscape. Destroying what makes such a sitesacred may undermine a culture, resuming innegative social, economic, and environmentalimpacts as the society falls apart and traditionalcontrols of land are lost.

The Sacred Himalayan Landscape is a series ofcomplex living cultural and natural landscapes,which are in fact central to the SHL's spirituality,culture, social organization and economic use.

11

12

References

Denniston D. (1995), High Priorities: Conserving mountain ecosystems and cultures, Worldwatch Paper123, Worldwatch Institute.

Dudley N., Higgins-Zogib and Mansourian S. (eds.) (2005), Beyond belief: Linking faiths and protectedareas to support biodiversity conservation, WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature), UK.

Fowler P. (2002), World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, 1992-2002: A review and prospect in CulturalLandscapes: The Challenges of Conservation, World Heritage Paper no. 7, UNESCO, Italy,(16-32pp.).

Kathet M. (2006), The Nawa System in the Khumbu, Unpublished Masters Dissertation, KhumjungSchool, Khumbu, Nepal.

Mountain Forum Online Library, People & the planet: People and mountains: Pinnacles of diversity,Volume 5 Number 1, http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/ippf96a3.htm> sourced as PalmerM, International Consultancy on Religion, Education and Culture (ICOREC).

Sherpa L.N. (2003), Sacred Beyuls and biological diversity conservation in the Himalayas, Theimportance of sacred natural sites for biodiversity conservation: Proceedings of the InternationalWorkshop held in Proceedings of the International Workshop held in Kunming and XishuangbannaBiosphere Reserve, Kunming and Xishuangbanna Biosphere Reserve, People's Republic of China,People's Republic of China, 17-20 February 2003, UNESCO, 101-105pp.

The Mountain Institute (1998), Sacred mountains and environmental conservation: A practitioner'sworkshop, <http://www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/ippf96a3.htm>.

1313

1414

Indigenous People in the Sacred Himalayan Landscape-Nepal

Note: Over 40 languages are spoken in the Sacred Himalayan Landscape-Nepal

1515

Linguistic Distribution in the Sacred Himalayan Landscape

1616

Places in the Sacred Himalayan Landscape-Nepal

This initiative buildson the SHL vision:‘A Himalayan landscapewhere the biological andcultural treasures of theworld's highest sacredmountains and deepestvalleys are safeguardedwhile people's rights overresources are ensured andlivelihoods are enhancedand sustained.’

The Sacred Himalayan Landscape-Nepal Strategic Plan formulation process is currently underway.The Strategic Plan formulation is led and undertaken by the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservationin partnership with the working group which consists of WWF Nepal Program, ICIMOD, TMI and IUCN.

The Sacred Himalayan Landscape extends from Langtang National Park in central Nepal to theKangchenjunga Conservation Area in eastern Nepal. This further connects to Kangchenjunga region inSikkim and Darjeeling in India to Toorsa Strict Nature Reserve in western Bhutan. The northernboundary of the landscape coincides with Nepal's international boundary with China.

WWF Nepal ProgramPO Box 7660, BaluwatarKathmandu, Nepal.

Tel: 4434820, 4434970, 4410942Fax: 977-1-4438458

e-mail: info@wwfnepal.orgwww.wwfnepal.orgwww.panda.org/nepal

WWF is the world’s largest and most experienced independent conservationorganization, with almost 5 million supporters and a global network active inmore than 90 countries.

WWF's Mission is to stop the degradation of the planet's natural environmentand to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature by:• Conserving the world's biological diversity;• Ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable; and• Reducing pollution and wasteful consumption

for a living planet ®