environment assessment of nepal - chapter 11

8/8/2019 Environment Assessment of Nepal - Chapter 11

1/20

155Chapter 11: Environment and Conflict: A Review of Nepals Experience

Introduction

Human history is rich with examples of conflictthat have plundered the environment. Todaythe imprints of civilizations are not only the

deserts from deforestation, soil erosion, and miningbut also include sewers of rivers, eutrophied lakes,dumping sites of industrial waste and nuclearmaterials, and military test sites. Although in the pastmany quietly suffered the sad consequences of theseenvironmental atrocities, today affected parties arebeginning to raise their voices and go to court oreven take up arms and stake their claims for rightingpast wrongs. Environment-related conflict isincreasing and attracting attention as a developmentagenda item along with poverty and human rights.Research to better understand the dynamics of theenvironment-conflict relationship has increased.Some are trying to understand the linkages, while

others are searching for ways to restore peace andcooperation.At the local level, conflicts are closely related to

lack of access to critical resources. With changingprices, markets, and breakdowns in traditionalinstitutional mechanisms for mediation, conflictshave become more the rule than the exception in theuse of forest, water, pasture, and other naturalresources. While many of these local conflicts arenot violent and are resolved peacefully, in othercases disagreements and tensions are very high and violence has erupted in some (Homer-Dixon 1999;Conca and Dableko 2002).

At the national level, mainstreaming theenvironmental agenda, adoption of livelihood-basedapproaches to poverty reduction, and the movetowards greater democracy and human rights havestrengthened efforts to overcome past environmentalinjustices. Development has not only displaced manygroups of people in the past, but has also failed toprovide adequate compensation. Today there isincreasing discussion about who benefits fromdevelopment, who loses, and the transparency of theunderlying decisions. Development projects may

increasingly become subjects of court battles tosafeguard the traditional environmental entitlementsof people whose livelihoods have been closely linkedwith the diversity of environment (PANOS 2002).

At the global level, many internationalagreements such as the Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora (CITES) 1973 and the Convention on BiologicalDiversity 1992 have tried to curb trade in endangeredflora and fauna. With high stakes in someenvironmental products, conflicts are rampant inmany areas with shared ecosystems and sharedresources like water (IDRC 2005; APCSS 1999). Effortsto exploit resources have been a source of unendingconflict in some parts of the world (Ehrlich et al.2000). Problems related to the management of theglobal commonsair, climate, oceanshave alsobecome a source of continuing conflict, fortunatelynot a violent one so far.

The issue of environment and conflict has

become serious at all levels of society. While there isgrowing recognition of the problems, ways to dealwith them are less clear and filled with controversy.This chapter will review the changing environment-conflict nexus generally and for Nepal in particular.Before discussing the Nepal scene, it is necessary tosummarize recent discussions on this topic. Thesituation in Nepal clearly indicates that conflictconditions are abundant. However, while some arequick to identify the green roots of the red rebellionin Nepal (Bhurtel and Ali 2003), some caution isnecessary in trying to establish a cause and effectrelationship in this complex issue.

Environment, Resource Scarcity,and ConflictWebsters Dictionary defines environment as thetotality of the physical conditions of the earth or partof it, especially as affected by human activity. Itincludes all ecosystems. Ecosystems are defined asa dynamic complex of plants, animals, and

Chapter 11

Environment and Conflict: A

Review of Nepals Experience


2/20

156 Environment Assessment of Nepal : Emerging Issues and Challenges

microorganism communities and the non-livingenvironment interacting as a functional unit (MEA2003). Humans are an integral part of mostecosystems. Whenever changing socioeconomicconditions affect the continued access or use ofecosystems by some groups relative to others, thereis the potential for conflict if the problems that ensueare not resolved in a satisfactory manner. Everysociety must have institutional mechanisms to deal with changes, or unresolved problems can easilyturn into serious conflicts; and the mechanisms mustbe maintained as solving one problem does notmean that new ones will not emerge.

Renewable and Nonrenewable Resources

Some authors consider that only exploitation ofrenewable resources should be considered in thecase of an environmental conflict (Libiszewski 1995).Renewable resources are important because theyare linked to life-supporting processes. Exploiting

non renewable resources such as minerals depletesbut does not necessarily degrade the environment,but the potential for environmental damage iscertainly high. The violent movement to secedeBougainville island from Papua New Guinea beganover environmental concerns at a large copper mine(MEG 1996).

Resource Scarcity

Four types of resource scarcity have been identified(Libiszewski 1995). Physical scarcity is the mostcommonly experienced type; because of the limited

nature of a physical material, its increasing useincreases its relative scarcity. There tends to beintense struggle for control of all valuable resources,which can lead to conflict if negotiations fail.

Notions of physical limitations with respect tomost resources, however, are relative. While someresources such as sunlight and ecosystem processesthat support life cannot be substituted, based uponour present knowledge and capacity, and thereforemust be taken as finite, other natural resources havebeen substituted for over time. Substitutability is animportant dimension in the discussion of the scarcityof natural resources (Swanson 1996).

The next type of scarcity arises from prevailingsocioeconomic conditions. It is referred to asdistributional scarcity. Societies have distributednatural resources (such as land) in different ways,and some distributions are more equal than others. Where there is inequality in distribution, somegroups face scarcity and have limited access andownership of natural resources such as land, forest,and water.

Geopolitical scarcity is another dimension.Some countries have plenty of some resources while

others may lack them. The concept of resource isan economic one. There was a period when crudeoil was seen as a nuisance because the knowledgeand the technology to use it were lacking (Swanson1996). Trade has alleviated scarcity of a resource inany one place. However, genuine instances ofscarcity in particular countries need to berecognized.

The fourth type of scarcity is environmentalscarcity. This is related to the environmentaldegradation that may take place. A resource thatused to be plentiful is no longer so because ofchanging environmental conditions brought about byimproper management of natural resources, over-harvesting, or institutional failure. For example, freshwater that used to be abundantly available in urbanareas is becoming increasingly scarce because ofpollution, poor management, and waste.

According to Libiszewski (1995) anenvironmental conflict is one caused by

environmental scarcity, because of its roots in theenvironmental problem. Other types of scarcitieshave their roots in socioeconomic and politicalissues and not in environmental ones.

In real life it becomes very difficult to isolateenvironmentally rooted problems. Most problemsare dynamic and quickly impact other areas.Shortages of diesel fuel generate shortages in otherareas. Even if we agree that environmental conflict isrooted only in environmental scarcity, the solutionsmust often be found in other sectors and resources.We cannot avoid examining the entire spectrum ofinterrelated factors and processes.

Different Types of Conflicts

As is evident from the above discussion, there maybe some debate about what constitutes anenvironmental conflict as opposed to a civil strife.Conflicts are also of differing degrees. Some are very violent while others are almost routinedisagreements related to day-to-day activities incommunities. For the purpose of this discussion,conflict is interpreted in a very broad sense as anystate of opposition or hostilities between parties oversome aspect of the environment. In its broadest

sense it is possible to distinguish a number ofpossibilities.Conflict over environmental resources is

probably the most common type of conflict today atthe local, national, and regional levels. All conflictsbetween different parties regarding the use andownership of land, water, minerals, and such likebelong to this category.

The next type of environmental conflict isdifferences over understanding the problem and themeasures to cope with it. An example of this would


3/20


be the differences in countries positions regardingglobal warming.

The third type of conflict may occur when civilstrife impacts environmental resources. Conflictingparties may initiate deforestation for their ownreasons, or may want to control the use of certainenvironmental resources.

Theories Behind EnvironmentalConflictThe world is experiencing changes in the prices ofgoods and services, technology, socioeconomicconditions, demand, and regional and internationaltrade. Accordingly, the concept of scarcity cannotbe viewed as an absolute. Economies are increasing-ly moving towards specialization in their areas ofrelative advantage, hoping to overcome the scarcityof any particular resource through international

trade. Given this trend, how can we explain thescenario of increasing environmental conflict overnatural resources? It is useful to review some of thetheories that explain environmental conflict.

Pressures Related to Population Growth

Rapid population growth has long been consideredone of the most important factors behinddeteriorating environments and ensuing conflicts.The world population is expected to stabilize around2050 at approximately 8.9 billion; much of theincrease will continue to be among the less

developed countries where people depend onsubsistence agriculture and the use of naturalresources for their livelihoods (UN 2003). The use ofmarginal lands for agriculture, increasing soilerosion, deforestation, overgrazing, declining soilfertility, and decrease in land productivity are someof the major issues that derive from rapid populationgrowth. The sheer increase in population is likely tooutstrip available food supply and the capacity ofnatural systems to support human needs (Ehrlich etal. 1997)a strong basis for much of the conflict.

However, some consider that human populationgrowth made a turning point around 1962/63 when

growth peaked at 2.2% per annum (UN 2003). Sincethen growth has continued to fall, and in 2001 it wasonly 1.2%. If this trend continues, human population will stabilize sooner than expected. However, thisdoes not mean that all environmental pressures andconflict will disappear; if population is one factorbehind increasing use of and competition for naturalresources, the other is increasing demand throughover consumption, including unequal distributionand access to resources.

Neo-Malthusian notions of scarcity maintain thatpopulation pressure is behind the growing scarcity ofnatural resources (Gleditsch 2004). High levels ofconsumption have led to overexploitation anddepletion of resources, increasing competition forscarce resources, and eventually leading to conflictand at times even violent conflict. Thomas F. Homer-Dixon (1999), a prominent advocate of this positionand one of the better-known figures in the analysis ofenvironment and conflict, maintains thatenvironmental scarcity is likely to promote internalconflict. Related to rapid population growth, there isalso a youth bulge in some societies. As there are fewoutlets for the productive engagement of youth, theybecome vulnerable to depressing economicconditions and easier to recruit for violent activitiesthan other age groups.

South Asian countries with large and poorpopulations impose a substantial demand on water,arable land, forests, and other resources. Already

problems such as deforestation, soil erosion, andscarcity of fresh water are widespread and the areais being seen as a region of high environmentalinstability (Swain 2002).

Policies, Markets, and Institutional

Failures

Explanations about resource-related conflicts havefocused on the issue of common property resources. Where institutional mechanisms for managing theresource are weak, such as the absence of well-defined property rights, it is inevitable that thetragedy of the commons will occur (Hardin 1968).

Put simply, the tragedy of the commons statesthat when all members of a group have equal andunlimited access to a resource held in common, thatresource will inevitably be depleted. However,instances of collectively well-managed naturalresources do exist; adherence to principles of equityand institutional variables have been important insuch cases (Jodha 1986; Ostrom 2000). Economistshave attributed the tragedy of the commons to afailure of marketsthe price mechanism fails tosignal the relative scarcity of a resourceand to thefailure of institutional mechanisms (Mason 1996). If

the price mechanism always worked, overexploitedresources held in common would provide incentivesfor better management because of the increase inthe value of these resources. This would be theopposite of conflict, but this does not occur becauseinstitutions are not able to function quickly inresponse to complex situations. Solutions are noteasily apparent, or involve a price that somemembers of society may be unwilling to pay. Theremay be problems of high transaction costs. Certainpolicies may now favor some groups through


4/20


subsidies (Mason 1996). All these are differentaspects of institutional failures which if not resolvedin a timely fashion, can lead to conflicts overresources.

Human activities tend not to take into accountthe true costs to the environment. This may be due togovernment subsidies, lack of knowledge of impacts(especially if these are ex situ), the absence of lawsand regulations to control environmental damage,undefined access rights to natural resources, conflictsituations where both parties do not observeenvironmental safeguards, poorly developedmarkets for environmental goods and services, and alopsided development that forces large numbers ofpeople to depend on limited natural resources fortheir livelihood. Market failure occurs whenresources are not used efficiently based upon marketsignals or because of externalities (Mason andSwanson 1996). In many instances, markets areunable to put a price on outputs or the impacts of

activities. This situation pertains to manyenvironmental problems such as disposal of waste inwater bodies, dumping toxic substances, or pollutingthe atmosphere. This happens either becausepolluters think they can get away with it, or the costsof proper disposal are too high. The social costs inthis case can be much higher than the costs to aprivate producer.

Solutions to the problem lie in making the pricesignal work more effectively by taxing the producerfor the pollution. Permits provide permissible quotasof pollution beyond which fines can be imposed. Insome cases, when pollution levels are lower than the

permitted levels, the industry can also sell part of apermit to another polluter (EPA 2005).

Examples of policy distortions include subsidiesand protections given to certain industries thatdamage the environment. Many public sectorindustries with high degrees of pollution continue tooperate only because of the huge subsidy andprotection provided by governments (UNEP 2002).Other distortions arise because of the hugeadministrative and transaction costs involved ingetting government approvals, licenses, export andimport permits, and so on.

Conflicts here may be more implicit than

explicit. But as societies realize the long-termconsequences of environmental damage, affectedgroups are playing a bigger and bigger role.

Other Theories Regarding Environmental

Conflict

Another explanation holds that the inequities of the worlds economic systems and the process ofglobalization are responsible for the increasing

number of violent environmental conflicts (Matthewet al. 2004). The worlds trade system has alwaysbeen biased against natural resources export fromthe developing countries (Khor 1996). Timberexports have uprooted many indigenouscommunities from their traditional homes anddamaged their livelihoods. Many have had to fightagainst these companies.

Having plentiful resources is a curse for somecountries as it provides a favorable base forenvironmental conflicts (Gleditsch 2004). Whereresources are abundant, there is a tendency tomisuse them. Slow economic growth despiteplentiful resources, skewed distribution ofdevelopment benefits, and weak institutions providea set of factors that encourages political instabilityand armed conflict for control over resources. Thesehave also been referred to as the greed andgrievance theories (Gleditsch 2004). The motivationfor conflict in the grievance theory is the opportunity

to right past wrongs, while in the greed theory themotivation is for seizing the resource through violentmeans. It is also necessary to distinguish differenttypes of natural resources. The more valuable theresource, the more likely that it could become asource of conflict.

Efforts are being made to examine ways toresolve conflicts through promoting cooperation andpeace building (Dabelko and Carius 2004; Conca andDabelko 2002). There is little value in explainingconflicts if those explanations do not identify or leadto a peaceful resolution of the problem. So far mostconflicts have affected rural areas, but there may also

be conflicts that affect urban areas in the future,especially with the growing scarcity of fresh waterand clean air (Matthew et al. 2004). Conflicts neednot always be negative. They may provide valuableexperience for innovative solutions to naturalresources management.

As increasing competition for valuableenvironmental resources becomes the cause ofconflict at a larger scale than at present, there isgrowing interest in ecological security (Conca andDabelko 2002). Increasingly, developed countries arecarefully tracking the availability of critical naturalresources, assessing the chances for eco-violence,

and urging their governments to develop ecologicalsecurity guidelines and policies. Developingcountries, on the other hand, see this as anotherhurdle being put before them by the developedcountries in their efforts to promote sustainabledevelopment. Any limitations on harnessingavailable environmental resources could jeopardizetheir prospects for improving the wellbeing of theirpeople (Conca and Dabelko 2002).


5/20


Environmental Conflict in Nepal:The Overall ContextJudging from the paucity of published materials, it isclear that Nepalese scholars have not given muchattention to the issue of environmental conflict.

Attention to environmental conflict has been mainlylimited to the conflict between people and protectedareas, but recently some concerns have been raisedabout the impact of political conflict on theenvironment. The issue that has attracted the mostattention is the poaching of endangered wildlife andtrade in endangered wildlife species banned by various international agreements (AmericanEmbassy 2005; Hakahaki 2060 [2003 ]; Murphy et al.2004).

The complex interrelationship betweenenvironment and conflict makes it difficult to bringtogether relevant facts, and the scope of the present

exercise does not give the flexibility or the time todeeply analyze these critical multidimensionalaspects of environment and conflict. In manyrespects, conflicts indicate that existing socialrelationships are beginning to change (Banskota andChalise 2000; Pradhan et al. 2000). For an agrarianeconomy like Nepal, environmental relationshipsmay be at the root of changing social, economic, andpolitical interactions (Bhurtel and Ali 2003). Someforces may be on their way out, some may still beemerging, while others might have clearlyestablished their foothold until new pressures begindemanding further changes.

The available evidence has been broughttogether in the following to describe the differentdimensions of environment and conflict in Nepal,bearing in mind its limitations.

Nepal is and has been an agrarian economy with over 80% of the people still dependent onagriculture for their livelihood. Given thatlandholdings in Nepal have been distributed veryinequitably (Yadav 1999; Aryal and Awasthi 2003),there is a huge land hunger in the country. The poorare squeezed onto small and marginal landholdingsof less than one hectare that can barely support a

familys needs for a few months of the year. There isintense and widespread competition for availablenatural resources, leading to conflicts for space,ownership, and control. The average size oflandholdings has decreased despite bringing largetracts of forest land under cultivation. The skewedland distribution system has remained virtually intactdespite numerous policies to bring about landreform. Acute problems of insecure tenancy haveresulted in conversion of large numbers of tenantfarmers into wage laborers. The large increases of

institutional credit to the agricultural sector have nothelped the poor who are still unable to access it(Bhattarai and Pradhan 2004). All these factors havecontributed to increasing pressure and conflictsregarding all the important natural resources ofNepal.

The rapidly increasing population has played animportant role in this scenario because developmentefforts have not succeeded in diversifying theeconomic base of the country to the extentnecessary for its rising population. Nepalsgeography, with its very distinct ecological belts andthe fragility of the Hill and Mountain areas, has alsocontributed to the increase in competition andconflicts. Prior to the eradication of malaria, which was endemic to large parts of the plains, thelowlands of Nepal were sparsely populated. Most ofthe population lived in the climatically morefavorable and less disease-ridden Hills, where manystruggled to eke out a survival often supplemented

by seasonal migration to India. Malaria eradicationduring the 1950s opened the flood gates to migrationfrom the Hills to the Terai, giving many an opportunityfor a better life. However, for some it was anunending set of problemssometimes with theGovernment and at other times with other migrantsfrom the Hills and neighboring parts of India (Panday1985).

This opening of the Terai plains after malariaeradication was a politically unstable period.Frequently changing governments, each wanting totake maximum advantage of the opportunity of newland available in the Terai, established commission

after commission to look into the problems of landdistribution and settlement. Groups of illegal settlers,landless groups, insecure tenants, and interestinglyenough political sufferers actively pressed theirclaims to land ownership. Depending on who was inpower, decisions favored one group and angeredothers, resulting in many demonstrations andclashes, some of which were violent (Ghimere1992). A major land reform launched in 1964 had afew notable aspects, but many later reviews (IDS1985; SEEPORT 2000) were quite critical of itsapproach. Land reform is still a hot issue and animportant agenda item of all political parties, but as

in the past, despite strong rhetoric, actualachievement has been minimal.

The latest case is that of the Kamaiyas orbonded laborers in southern parts of far westernNepal. In July 2000, the Government declared theKamaiya system illegal and freed the laborers of theTharus living in the Terai and inner Terai districts offar western Nepal (Global IDP 2004), an area that hadbeen the scene of many forest and settlement relatedconflicts in the past. Freeing them, however,


6/20


addressed only part of the problem. Feeding,housing, providing new land for settlement, access tocredit, and other inputs to begin their farming hadnot been given adequate attention. What has beenoffered in compensation has been woefullyinadequate to resolve the day-to-day plight of thesepeople. The Kamaiyas have since grabbed morethat 10,000 acres of government forest land againstthe states failure to rehabilitate them, more than fouryears after their release (Global IDP 2004). Delays inproviding land were caused by a conflict betweenthe Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation and theMinistry of Land Reform (Global IDP 2004). Initiallythere was no plan to allocate any forest area to them,but now this appears to be unavoidable.

One estimate (IDS 1985) puts the number oflandless families in Nepal at one million, with most ofthese belonging to low caste and indigenous groupsin the Terai, displaced people from the Hills, andeven some labor migrants from India.

In terms of property rights and entitlements toproductive assets and natural resources, thefarmers of Nepal have limited access to suchresources. Land and land based resourceshave served as the principal source ofeconomic surplus generated by the rulingclass. Concentration of land, and exploitationof the peasantry through excessiveexpropriation of labor and land revenue hasincreased the wretched condition ofpeasantry. (SEEPORT 2000)

Unless these problems are addressedcomprehensively, green conflict in the form of land

grabbing, illegal settlers, eviction of peopleoccupying forest areas, and issues of resettlementand displacement could easily become aninseparable part of the violent movement going on inthe country.

Forest Resources and ConflictsForests cover over 30% of the country. Includingshrub area, the share of forest goes up even more.Forests provide about 14% of the gross domesticproduct (GDP), 80% of the fuel, and 50% of livestock

fodder (Uprety 2003). In the agrarian economy ofNepal, forests play an enormously important role. Asforests of the Hills have been intensively used andare now more carefully managed, the attention forthe past five decades has been on the forests of theTerai plains for settlement, agriculture, timberextraction, infrastructure development,establishment of protected areas, and many otherpurposes.

Nepals community- and state-based forestmanagement practices have been protection

oriented. Managing a finite resource in the face ofrapidly increasing demand will not be easy, and there will be gainers and losers. Where there are fewlosers their voices will be subdued, but once thenumber begins to increase, the flags of conflict willbegin to wave far and wide. It has been argued(Grosen 2000) that if forest management movedtowards an active production orientation, the currentcontribution of $58 per hectare could go up to $162per hectare. With increased productivity, the forestsector could play a major role in poverty reductionand in dealing with the problems of illegal settlers,landless groups, and others by providingemployment opportunities. On the other hand, ifforests are managed as they are now, with lowproductivity and a protection orientation, they couldbecome an even greater source of conflict in thefuture.

Illegal Settlements in Forest Areas

Many of the problems of the agricultural sector aretransferred to forest resources. Peoples hunger forland during the past five decades has been metlargely by bringing more forest area of the Teraiunder cultivation (IDS 1985). Many of the ongoingconflicts regarding tenants, landless groups, andillegal settlers have occurred in occupied forest areas(Ghimere 1992). Many of the new settlements in theTerai have also come from cleared forest areas.Ghimere (1992) discusses the experience ofNawalparasi district, pointing out that given the highdemand for land and the relatively low cost ofresettlement, the Terai provided an excellent optionfor people in the Hills as well as those across theborder in India.

Many Nepalese from Assam and Myanmar wereencouraged to return and settle in this area (Ghimere1992). On the other hand many of the earlierresidents were dispossessed of their lands throughvery unpleasant means, and illegal settlements wereofficially encouraged although the landless peoplewere never a target for settlement.

The resulting chaos in land ownership, dealt with only cosmetically by numerous commissionsset up to look into problems, has been the basis of

longstanding tension between landowners andlandless groups, richer landowners and marginal andsmall farmers, and local groups and immigrants(Ghimere 1992). Although these issues appear inmany Terai districts, they are most prominent in thewest, the far west, and around protected areas of thecountry.

Forest and Other Legislation

Many contradictions between forest and otherlegislation are sources of problems and confusion.


7/20


Some of these have remained unresolved fordecades (Grosen 2000), which only shows the extentto which governments have been unconcernedabout removing conflicts. Research should clarify who benefits from these legal contradictions andtheir impact. There has been a rush to pass newlaws, but few efforts to ensure that new laws do notconflict with earlier ones. Based on the manycontinuing contradictions, it is obvious that a newcommission is urgently needed to look into this veryserious matter.

Some of the more obvious conflicts related tothe use of forest resources are listed below (Grosen2000):

(i) There are differences in the amount of landthat can be owned under the Forest Act andthe Land Act. It would be interesting to seehow many cases have been recordedbecause of these conflicting provisions.

(ii) The absence of a cadastral survey in many

areas has made it very difficult to separateprivate and government land, and thus madeit very difficult to identify encroached lands.Similar confusion has been noted amongcommunity forest groups.

(iii) Provisions under the Forest Act and theNepal Mines Act overlap. The Forest Actmaintains that anything in a forest isgoverned by the Forest Act while the MinesAct maintains that all minerals are governedby the Mines Act.

(iv) Provisions have been made forcompensating landowners when property is

acquired for development schemes, but asland demarcation is not clear compensationhas often remained pending for a very longtime.

(v) Similarly, many overlapping provisions havebeen found between the Forest Acts and theLocal Self Governance Act, which has greatlyhampered decentralization. The centralagencies responsible for the different Actshave not removed provisions regarding localresources, creating overlapping jurisdictionand confusion for the public.

Problems in Community Forestry

Although community forestry has been a successfulmodel for community-based management of forestresources in the Hills, it has not been completely freeof problems. While it was a very innovative approachfor rescuing parts of the hill forests from furtherdegradation, which accelerated after theGovernment took over all the forests in the country,over time new challenges and difficulties have beenidentified (Britt 2002).

Problems within forest user groups

Formation of forest user groups has been animportant feature of the community forestryprogram. There has been an increasing tendency toform groups without adequate homework regardinggroup harmony based on traditional interactions within the community. Exclusion of community

members who belong to low caste anddisadvantaged groups, as well as those who may bepart-time users, is leading to tension in forest usergroups. Rules regarding sharing of benefits and costshave always been a major source of tension.Questions of personality clashes, differencesbetween active and inactive members, and fundmisuse and embezzlement are other problems notedin hastily formed user groups (Bhatia 1995; Springate-Baginski et al. 2003).

Problems between user groups

One of the most common problems between usergroups has been confusion with respect to the forestarea. Without clearly identifiable boundaries, there isoverlapping jurisdiction, and without good basesurvey maps the problems are arbitrarily put on holdto resurface again. Because of the lack of good maps,there have been instances of mistaken handover offorests that are temporarily resolved after intensenegotiations involving cumbersome administrativeand legal processes (Bhatia 1995; Springate-Baginskiet al. 2003).

Problems Between Forest User Groups and the

Forest OfficeThe Forest Office has many discretionary powers,and without its active support, approval for acommunity forest group may never come. Manyrequirements need to be fulfilled before the ForestOffice can provide approval, and each of theserequirements can be a source of difficulties for theuser groups. Over time a lot of experience has beengained by user groups, but if the Forest Officeimposes difficulties, this experience may not beuseful. Traditional mechanisms for resolving localconflicts have weakened for a number of reasons.

Having access to the Government and getting timelydecisions can be very difficult and costly for weakergroups without the right political linkages. A study ofland disputes (New Era 1989) showed that tenantshad to pay substantially more court expenses thanlandlords, and also encountered more delays.

Community Forestry in the Terai

Attempts have been made to introduce communityforestry in the Terai, which unlike the Hills has no


8/20


historical practice of community-managed forestresources. The objective of introducing this practicewas to prevent further degradation of forests and toimprove the quality of existing forests for the benefitof the local community. However, the experience sofar has not been very encouraging. The Governmentmaintains that the Terai lacks the ecological andsocial conditions needed to make communityforestry work, while others argue that thegovernment programs did not do enough to provideownership and local institutional development, andfailed to target those who would have benefited (Britt2002). Community management of Terai forests

faces an uncertain future with significant difficultiesfor local communities to legally use forest resourcesin their areas.

Customary Practices and Forest Acts

With the implementation of national Forest Acts, thefate of all customary practices is open to question. In

some cases (Pant 2002), respect for customary rightswas negotiated as part of a package recognizing theauthority of the rulers in Kathmandu. However, thecontext has changed to such an extent that thecurrent position of many customary rights is notclear. In some instances local communities stillassert that their customary privileges are valid but theGovernment has a different understanding (Pant2002). Some traditional practices are importantbecause of the size of the group and area involved.The most obvious case is the traditional kippatsystem of land holding among the Rai and Limbucommunity in the far eastern Hill and Mountain

areas. It is a system of communal land management where the community members have the usufructright to use the pasture but no powers to sell it. Thisright was recognized by the Government in return fortheir submission to the authority in Kathmandu (Pant2002). However, while the people have acceptedcommunity forestry, they are not abiding by its rules.Under community forestry rules, there arerestrictions on non-forest uses of the communityforest land, especially for cultivation of new crops,although this is also a subject of discussion. Theforest areas are now being used for cultivation ofcardamom. When locals are questioned theymaintain that their kipat heritage gives them thefreedom to use the forest in any way they decide, butthe Government understands the situationdifferently. The existence of this dual system hasperpetuated tensions and severely limited theopportunities for further development of forestresources (Uprety 2003).

Traditional practices of indigenous groups havebeen replaced by state laws. Sometimes thesechanges take a very heavy toll on the livelihood of theindigenous groups because the new laws haveopened access to outside groups. The resources

traditionally enjoyed by indigenous groups are thenquickly depleted or controlled by more powerfuloutside groups. The plight of the Rautesone of thelast remaining groups of forest dwellers of Nepalisa sad example. These people roamed the jungles insearch of food, hunting and collecting edibleproducts, and making wooden products which theyexchanged for food grain in the villages. Today theforest they used cannot provide for their needs andthey are often hungrysome children have died ofstarvation (The Rising Nepal 2004). In the case of

Poaching of Endangered Species and Overharvesting

are a Major Source of Local Conflict

IUCN

IUCN

C.

Richard


9/20


another semi forest-dwelling group near the capital,the story is a little more positive. Leasehold forestryhas successfully restored over 7,000 hectares (ha) ofdegraded patches of land, and 1,600 leaseholdforestry groups are nurturing forests on otherwisehopeless slopes and ravines. The livelihoods of thepoor have improved, and empowerment of womenhas advanced (IFAD 2004).

Conflicts in Parks and Protected Areas

Nepal has had a long and successful history ofestablishing protected areas. The Royal ChitwanNational Park was established in 1973 and the latestprotected areaa buffer zone, for SagarmathaNational Parkwas approved in 2002. Both are

recognized as World Heritage Sites. To date Nepalhas nine National Parks, three wildlife reserves, onehunting reserve, three conservation areas, and sixbuffer zones. A total of 26,970 km2 (18% of thecountry) has been set aside, of which 38% is nationalparks, 4% wildlife reserves, 5% hunting reserve, 43%conservation area, and 10% buffer zone. Threewetland sites have also been recognized recently asRamsar sitesBeeshayar and associated lakes,Ghodaghodi lake, and Jagadishpur Reservoirinaddition to Koshi Tappu. Protected areas contain at

least 80 of the countrys 118 ecosystems, which helpspreserve Nepals biodiversity (CBS 2004). However,so far no comprehensive study has been carried outof the actual flora and fauna contained within theseprotected areas.

Shrestha (2001) points out that the Governmenthas followed a number of distinct phases in themanagement of parks and protected areas. Duringthe 1970s and 1980s the policy was to exclude peoplefrom these areas. In the 1980s, conservation areas forecotourism were promoted. During the 1990s thefocus shifted to resolving park-people conflictsthrough buffer zones and other programs to betterintegrate people in the conservation and sharing ofbenefits of protected areas.

Nepal and Weber (1993) have identified anumber of major conflicts between parks andpeople. These include illegal extraction of parkresources such as firewood, fodder, timber, livestockgrazing, hunting and fishing; frequent crop raids bywild ungulates; and loss of human life and property.In the early years, the problems were few andinfrequent. However, with rapid increases inpopulation and settlements around protected areas,the conflicts have increased in number andseverityat times entire villages have had to be

Harnessing Indigenous KnowledgeCommunity Participation

Mobilizing Community Participation Working Together

Factors that Could Reduce Local Conflicts in Natural Resources Use

IUCN


10/20


moved or relocated. The fact that since 1996 bufferzones have been declared around six of the nationalparks is an important indicator of the extent of thisconflict and the Governments response to theproblem. However, many problems still remain. Theopen boundaries of parks have facilitated the entry ofdomestic animals into the National Parks in theabsence of alternative sites for grazing. Wild animalsin turn are attracted by the domestic livestock. Thedesperate situation of people around the park isindicated by one of the comments of the residentnear a park: Unless a suitable solution is made, we will continue our illegal activities regardless of theprice or penalty we will have to pay (Nepal and Weber 1993). A similar finding is made by anotherreview (IUCN Nepal 2004) which points out thatwildlife reserve-people conflicts are serious becausepeople lack viable alternative livelihoods tocompensate for the loss of access to naturalresources inside the reserve, and the customary

rights of the people have been ignored.Because the bigger animals such as elephantsand rhinos raid crops, and others such as tigers killlivestock, locals are only too eager to get rid of theseanimals, which often become easy prey to poacherswho need local support. Elephants, although few innumber in Nepal, have become a regular menaceand a permanent source of tension in the easternplains.

The true outcome will not be determined forsometime, though if the current trendcontinues, it seems most plausible that theelephant population will continue to diminish

and the conflict will be resolved by itsdestruction (Bosley et al. 2000). With the breakin the ecosystems, mega fauna that needlarger spaces and have seasonal movementsare coming into increasing contacts andconflicts with human settlements. (WWF2003)

Conflicts in Trade in Non-timber Forest

Products, Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, and

Wildlife Products

Nepal is home to many non-timber forest products,

medicinal and aromatic plants, and wildlife speciesbecause of its rich biodiversity. NTFP and medicinaland aromatic plants products have been harvestedsince time immemorial and are important in manylocal rituals and healing practices. Traditionally,many of these have also been exported to India.Trade in wildlife products is more recent andbecause of its more lucrative markets is also moreprone to violent conflicts. Trade in all of theseproducts was generally free until recently. Some havebeen brought under government control to conserve

biodiversity, others have been regulated because ofrevenue considerations, and still others like wildlifeproducts have been controlled because of bansimposed by international conventions on trade inendangered fauna. This control has createdproblems for people who have been dependent onharvesting these products for their livelihoods. Thereis confusion in policy regarding different aspectssuch as royalty payments for non-timber forestproducts, and medicinal and aromatic plants that arenot cultivated (Tiwari et al. 2003).

There is no mechanism in place to certify origin,and in its absence, royalties are imposed on allproducts without a careful study of the differentmargins. This has made it very unattractive for thecollector. In trying to avoid royalty payments, largeparts of the trade have moved underground, resultingin constant tension in areas where these productsare collected.

Trade in several wildlife products is completely

illegal, but because of the huge premiums for someof the products this has not only increased the risksfor some endangered animals but also for the peoplewho live around the areas where these animals arefound. Poaching around national parks is a full-timebut risky activity for some people (Nepal and Weber1993).

Nepal has also been identified as a safe passagefor trade in wildlife products (Asia Rain ForestConservation News and Information 2000). Whileauthorities are making regular seizures ofendangered wildlife parts (World EnvironmentalJournalist Egroup 2002), there is increasing danger

that this lucrative trade can get out of hand withheightened insecurity all over the country. Even if thelocal people are not involved, its escalation couldalso affect them.

Water Resources and ConflictNepal has so far been seen as a country withabundant water resources, at least in terms ofendowments. However, as the country harnessesmore water resources, many different water-relatedconflicts are becoming evident. Irrigation area

increased from 729,886 ha in 1994/95 to 943,860 ha in2001/02 (CBS 2004). Public water supply fromdifferent sources increased from 62.2 million litersper day in 1994/95 to 228 million liters in 2001/02(CBS 2004). This increasing demand and supply hasnot been smooth. Conflicts have been identified atthe local level regarding water rights and sharing ofwater between different user groups. In urban areas,scarcity of water, water pollution, and rural-urbanwater linkages are sources of conflict. At the nationallevel, mega water projects have created much


11/20


tension and conflict (Dixit 1994). Although India andNepal share many common river basins, they havenot succeeded in developing a mutually agreeablebasis for harnessing water resources. Some of theseaspects are discussed below.

Rural Water Issues

Water rights in rural areas have closely followed landrights (Banskota and Chalise 2000; Pradhan et al.2000). The distribution of water rights is almost amirror image of the prevailing skewed distribution oflandholdings. Within the landholding groups,however, water rights are not static and are changingdue to various circumstances. Changes inlandholdings, particularly their fragmentation, haveincreased complexities of water distribution.Similarly, one-crop systems are moving quickly tomultiple-cropping systems that produce cropsthroughout the year, increasing water demand andplacing maximum strains on limited supply, weak

delivery channels, and informal managementstructures. In many instances disputes may remainlargely implicit and dormant (Pradhan et al. 2000).

Conflicts among different groups are also quitecommon. Religious laws with their implied rules ofcleanliness and untouchability regarding water, andresulting exclusion, have created much difficulty forlower caste people and untouchable groups(Pradhan et al. 2000). Differences over water use,regulation, its transport, and related activities are notuncommon between landed and landless, betweenrich and poor farmers, between upstream anddownstream farmers, and sometimes also betweenthe community and the state. Although local wateruser groups have been an important innovation formanaging local water resources, they are not free ofconflicts. There are important questions of equitybetween members who have different status andresources. While benefits from the use of water areproportional to landholdings, cost and othercontributions are generally equal among members.Even when smaller holders object to this, thesesystems are not easily altered (Matrin and Yoder1987). Another aspect of the conflict is betweendifferent water user groups when they share the

same source (Pradhan 1990). During peak demandfor water, there are inevitable tensions as supply isnever adequate. Other sources of tension arechanges in cropping patterns and cropping intensity.Political groups have always been very willing toemphasize water issues during elections.

Historically, water rights have rested with thecommunity and local sharing rules, and have beenmodified by the community over time as a responseto changing circumstances. The Water Resources Actof 1992, however, changes this by asserting that all

water resources belong to the state. Pradhan et al.(2000) argue that this is the opposite of what hashappened in land rights, which over time havemoved from the state to the individual. This legalassertion of state ownership is very significant in thecontext of agreements with the private sectorregarding investment in water resourcedevelopment.

Urban Water Problems

A number of water-related conflicts have begun toemerge in the urban areas of Nepal. There are anumber of acute problems relating to adequate andsafe supply of water, pollution of existing waterbodies, and finding ways to augment presentsupplies. Kathmandus experience has been verymixed, and satisfactory solutions are still not in sight(MOPE 2000). The conflict here is more implicitbetween rich and poor, present and futuregenerations, urban and rural residents. Richer urban

residents may be able to pay a higher price for waterbut may also succeed in making the nation pay forvery costly projects.

First is the problem of adequate and safe supply. Although public supply is unable to meet rapidlyescalating demands, some continue to access thehighly subsidized public supply while others mustpay to buy water from private agencies. Publicdrinking water supply has become so unreliable inboth quantity and quality that many households haveto purchase bottled water (whose quality is alsooften questioned) for drinking. Rural water sourcesare being leased to private companies who then sellthe water in tankers. What conditions have beenmaintained for harvesting these water sources is notclear. In most cases, protection of water sources andpriority access to local people have not even figuredin the calculation except for payment of royalties. Forall practical purposes, these public resources arebeing privatized. A highly unsatisfactory situation with respect to the urban water issue is becomingincreasingly obvious. In the past the focus has onlybeen on developing big projects like Melamchi without looking at all the numerous decentralized watershed-based water sources that are being

exploited by the private sector.The second major problem is the pollution ofexisting water bodies in urban areas. The historicponds found in many parts of the older towns ofKathmandu Valley have become disgusting eyesoresof the urban landscape. Most of the public stone waterspoutsvery important traditional watersourcesare either completely dry or bring watermixed with sewage (Paudel 1996). A significantaspect of water pollution has been the worseningconditions of the Bagmati River, which runs through


12/20


Kathmandu Valley and receives a large part of thewaste from the two cities of Patan and Kathmandu,as discussed in Chapter 8 of this volume.

Paudel (1996) points out that the decline in riverquality has resulted in increasing incidents ofdiarrhea, typhoid, jaundice, cholera, and skindiseases among users, who have few alternatives.Livestock is also affected, but the most serious effecthas been the loss of almost all the aquatic life of theriver.

The Melamchi Project has been undertaken tomeet the long-term needs of Kathmandu Valley. Theproject has been under construction for the past few years and is already embroiled in many conflicts(Siwakoti-Chinton 2003). Local people complain thatthe project has adversely affected many areas oflivelihood and food security. It does not address thedry-season water needs of the people, and there areoutstanding issues of compensation andresettlement.

Groundwater mining has been an importantsource of supply in Kathmandu Valley and otherurban areas in the plains. The long-term implicationsof pumping excessive groundwater in the Valley havenot been studied. Harvesting this resource requiressubstantial investment, and clearly the poor cannotafford it. With decreasing levels of groundwater, thecost of accessing it has also increased. At differentplaces it is rich in mineral contents that may beharmful to health. Using it with poor treatment is ahealth hazard for many. The fact that it is not properlyregulated or its exploitation properly guided is amajor gap that needs to be corrected before a

serious problem occurs (Pradhan 1999; CBS 2004).

National Debate on Water Projects

Water projects used to be considered simple andstraightforward engineering decisions. Today waterprojects are being screened carefully for theireconomic, social, and environmental effects. Eventhose affected people who had been silentspectators in the past are taking leading roles inasserting their rights in project decision making andmanagement, advocating for adequate compensa-tion if affected adversely (Chintan undated).

Nepal is a country with substantial waterresources and huge potential for developing them.While all agree about the untapped potential, there isincreasing controversy about future development(Bandyopadhyay and Gyawali 1994; Dixit 1994;Pandey 1994). The position favored by theGovernment and private-sector developers is thatlarge-scale projects offer multiple opportunities forflood control, irrigation development, andhydropower development. Many of these benefitsaccrue to downstream areas and urban centers,

along with possibilities for export. The benefitstreams are projected to be fairly substantial,although the costs of such projects are alsoextremely largequite often impossible to meetwithout outside funding.

Global experience on dams and developmenthas concluded that past projects have not been aseconomically, socially, or environmentally sound asthey were originally made out to be (Dixit et al. 2005).In the context of mountain areas such as Nepal,large-scale projects (i) have high unit costs (Pandey1994), (ii) have directly and indirectly displaced hugenumbers of people and failed to provide adequatecompensation (Dixit 1994), (iii) dams haveexperienced high levels of sedimentation and large-scale dams in mountains may be risky because ofhigh seismic activity, and (iv) these dams have veryoften neglected to help the people in the project areaitself (Bandyopadhyay and Gyawali 1994).

In large projects, the entire exercise of planning

and implementation is not transparent and once theproject starts moving ahead, it appears to beunaccountable to anyone (Chintan undated). Down-stream areas and even countries are not willing topay for the increased water available in lean seasonsbecause of reservoirs (Pandey 1994). Much time hasbeen wasted over big dams with few results.

Paranjapye (1994) had this to say in the case ofthe Arun 3 project: a juggernaut that will inevitablydistort, undermine and prevent the process ofplanning and decision making. He proposed thealternatives of going small, with a decentralizedsystem, encouraging local entrepreneurs. There will

be larger local benefit through lesser displacementsand reduced construction periods and earlier flow ofbenefits (Pandey 1985). Even smaller systems cansupply the electric grid.

Clearly the odds against large dams areincreasing, but that model retains its advocates andon a case by case basis large dams may bewarranted sometimes. The issues of scale are clearlyrelative based on what a country can afford and whatis realistic in terms of socioeconomic andenvironmental conditions (Dixit et al. 2005). Themost important implications of this development arethat the debate has forced projects to be far more

careful in considering many different parameters,including the voice of those who will be displaced.There is also an urgent need for greater transparency,and participation of all stakeholders.

NepalIndia Differences over Water

Projects

Although agreements on water projects were signedto develop the Kosi (1954) and the Gandak (1959),and both projects were completed, these bilateral


13/20


Sources and solutions of environmental conflict: clockwise from top left-collecting medicinal plants; community

forest user group; poachers in Sagarmatha National Park; queuing for water

BrianPeniston

J.GabrielCampbell

LakhpaNorbuSherpa

MinBajracharya


14/20


cooperative ventures provided neither dependablenor adequate supply of water to Nepal or India andhave been unable to improve agriculturalproductivity (Dixit 1994, Gyawali and Dixit 1994). Another author points out that trust andunderstanding have been eroded, creating a majorimpediment to cooperative development (Kumar etal. 1994).

The most recent example of a project that hasrun into problems is the Mahakali Project, which hasbecome a hot political issue in Nepal. Although therehave been several rounds of negotiations, there arestill numerous outstanding issues that need to beresolved before the project can move ahead (Swain2002). Indias unilateral construction of dams inborder areas to prevent summer floods and to store water during the dry season has created problemson the Nepalese side. Every year some dam iscontroversial; recent cases include the Mahalisagardyke and the Khurdolotan dyke. During summer both

of these have inundated large areas in Nepal (TheHimalayan Times 2003).

Urban Environment and ConflictsGiven the rapid increase in urban population, it is notdifficult to imagine that intense competition forspace and other resources will lead to conflicts. Incities around the world, conflicts over water,dumping sites, air quality, and noise levels areleading to litigation and outright violence (Matthewet al. 2004). In the early stages of urban development,there is a high tolerance for environmental problems,but with further growth a point is reached whenawareness, and the ability to afford a cleanerenvironment, increases and urban renewal begins totake place.

Urbanization in Nepal is still among the lowestin the world, although it has been rising quite rapidly.In 2001, 12% of the populationroughly 3.2 millionpeople (Sharma 2003)were urban dwellers.However, the distribution is very skewed becausefive of the bigger centers with over 100,000population had 39% of the total urban population andthe remainder was distributed among 53 other

centers. Increasing the size of an urban area gives itmany advantages, but it also appears to bring manyenvironmental problems and associated conflicts.

Kathmandus notoriety as a polluted city hasgrown over the years and so have the conflicts.Because it is the capital city and the biggest urbancenter in the country, its experience provides a goodidea of what can be expected overall if problems arenot dealt with in their early stages. Some of theconflicts are related to certain types of industrial anddevelopment activities. Fortunately many of the

problems have not sought violent solutions andpeople have instead opted to go to court. Some ofthese court cases and decisions are presented belowas examples of the environmental conflicts facingurban areas. These cases have been taken from thecollection of environmental cases put together by ProPublic (Sharma et al. 2000).

One of the earliest recorded cases of urbanenvironmental conflict was in 1968/69 when aconcerned citizen filed a case against the cityauthoritys plans to construct stalls for shops arounda public park in the heart of Kathmandu City whichhad a historic significance (Sharma et al. 2000). Thecase was dismissed but was reopened when thepersistent individual took his grievance to the RoyalPalace and succeeded in getting a Royal directive tothe court to reconsider his case. However, theplaintiff died before the second hearing and the courtstated that accordingly there was no need for adecision and dismissed the case, although in its

earlier decisions the court had ruled that theconstruction had no personal impact on theindividual.

Another case appeared in 1972/73 when anindividual complained against his neighborsactivities to destroy a public pond next to his propertyfor construction on the site (Sharma et al. 2000,pp.13-18). Again the court went through severalrounds of deliberations. Dissatisfied with the courtsfirst ruling, the complainant filed a petition to theRoyal Palace and succeeded in obtaining a directivefor reconsidering the case. The city also had aninterest in the case, had formed a committee to look

into the public significance of the pond, and hadearlier recommended that the pond was indeed avery holy site with significant religious value for thelocal people. In its second deliberation the courtreiterated this aspect of religious significance andordered that the pond be preserved.

The next case, in Bhaktapur, may be the first ofits kind in Nepal on air and noise pollution control. In1978/79 a person complained about a factorysexhaust fumes, pointing out that it had adverselyaffected the health of the people living around thefactory and that this had increased after the ownerhad illegally expanded the factorys capacity

(Sharma et al. 2000). He also pointed out that the cityauthority and the department responsible for givingthe license to the industry had neglected their dutiesby not looking into the expansion proposal carefully.The court considered the facts and gave a surprisingdecision that there was no evidence of damage tothe person or the property of the complainingindividual and dismissed the case. Pollution was anew subject and empirical evidence of the healthimpacts of deteriorating air quality was probably not


15/20


available at that time. The Supreme Court did not seea conflict between the polluter and the public,although the complaining individual was clearlyahead of his times.

The Godavari Marble Factory, located on theoutskirts of Kathmandu Valley, was charged withpolluting the air and water of the area and withemitting dust that was destroying the biodiversity ofthe forest. The court took the position that thecomplaining individuals were not directly affected bythe activities of the factory and dismissed the case. Itwas resubmitted in 1992/93 and again in 1995/96. It isinteresting that the court was becoming proenvironment during this time. The Rio Summit in1992 received global attention, and environmentalissues were hot in every society around the globe.This probably had some role in changing the laterrulings, which pointed out that environment was aconcern of every citizen and could not be dismissedas in the earlier cases. The court directed the factory

to install proper safeguards (Sharma et al. 2000).The case of the pollution in the Bagmati River issimilar. Although in this case no single offenderexisted, the court did identify numerousorganizations as responsible for correcting thepollution of the river (Sharma et al. 2000). The courtalso directed the organizations concerned to protecthistoric monuments, keep proper records of theproperty of these monuments, stop construction ofan unplanned road, establish a sewage treatmentplant, and improve cremation grounds. All of theseinterventions were also to ensure that the maternityhospital was not adversely affected.

The changing position of the courts has been amost welcome development. Future cases are likelyto be even more complex, with additional issues ofcompensation and related measures to right pastwrongs. A persisting anomaly and a major source ofconflict in countries like Nepal is the readiness of theGovernment to introduce environmental legislationwithout ensuring adequate supervision, monitoring,and implementationwhich permits offenders tocontinue polluting the environment.

The Maoist Insurrection and theEnvironmentThe Maoist insurrection is now close to nine yearsold and has affected all aspects of Nepali lifeincluding the environment. While only post-conflictevaluation can reveal the actual extent of changescaused by the conflict, there are scattered reports ondifferent aspects of environmental changes that maybe attributed to it. The conflict has directly damagedthe environment in terms of destruction and damage

to environment-related personnel, resources,infrastructure, and conditions. Furthermore, theenvironment has impacts on the conflict.

First let us look at the direct impacts. Based ona field review commissioned by the WorldConservation Union (IUCN), the Nepal Forum ofEnvironmental Journalists did a selected review ofsome areas of the conflicts impact on theenvironment (IUCN 2004). The review identifiedseveral points of impact.

(i) Deforestation is widespread and differentsides blame each other. It should be notedthat deforestation is not unique to theconflict. It has been an ongoing part of Nepalisociety. What part of the deforestation canbe attributed to the conflict is difficult toascertain.

(ii) Setting forests on fire has many impacts on wildlife. Again, this is not unique to theconflict and it is difficult to know what type of

wildlife has been affected and how.(iii) Poaching of wildlife has increasedsubstantially. This is highly plausible with thereduction in security in the national parks. While the Maoists may not be poachingdirectly, they may be involving traditionalpoachers and benefiting from the trade, butthere is no hard evidence.

(iv) Impact on drinking water supply eitherbecause of increased demand or because ofdamage to water supply systems has beenreported by the local newspapers in anumber of areas.

(v) There has been significant displacement ofhouseholds from conflict-affected areas,primarily due to the difficulties of meetingthe different demands of the Maoists.

(vi) There is an inability to access forest productsbecause of fear of the Maoists who camp inthe forest areas.

Another recent study (Murphy et al. 2004) hasalso identified some of the impacts of the conflictbased on reports from newspapers, publications,and discussions with concerned people. Some of themajor impacts reported are listed below.

(i) Destruction of park infrastructure in almostall the national parks, making theseunusable. This has been reported by others(American Embassy 2005) when as many as54 endangered one-horned rhinos werekilled in two national parks but mostly inChitwan National Park. The absence ofprotection in national parks is seen as themajor reason behind this. In 2003, 50 peopleconcerned with poaching were arrested and


16/20


further poaching has not been reported sofar. During 2003 the officials also made a bigcatch of 32 tiger skins, 579 leopard skins, and660 otter skins. Authorities have caughtpeople with shatoosh skins. The origins ofthese materials are not yet established but itis widely speculated that Nepal has becomea favorite spot for illegal trade in wildlifeparts (Asia Rainforest Conservation Newsand Information 2000; World EnvironmentJournalist Egroup 2002), and the reducedsurveillance in this area could havemotivated poachers and others to takeadvantage of the prevailing situation inNepal.

(ii) Organizations working in conservation havehad their work adversely affected eitherbecause of direct threats or because of theprevailing insecurity in rural areas. Manyorganizations have relocated their staff to the

district headquarters or to Kathmandu.(iii) Encroachment of park land has also beenmentioned.

Some positive impacts have been reported. Iftimber smuggling has increased in some areas, it isreported to have been reduced in others. Similarly, insome areas people say that because they are afraidto go into the forests, the forest has recovered andsome of the wildlife has returned. It is difficult toestablish the precise nature of these changes asverification from the field is difficult.

Having reassigned security forces to conflict

areas, the national parks are now more vulnerable topoachers, encroachers, and others who value thedifferent resources of the parks. In some areas thesecurity forces have reportedly cleared forests that were hiding grounds for Maoists (Hakahaki 2060[2003]). At times of conflict, getting hard evidence isnot easy, and causes and effects may be verycomplex. Only the future will provide a more firmbasis for knowing the real impacts.

Many writers both from within and outsideNepal have identified the deteriorating physicalenvironment as a major factor for the insurrection.Sharma argues that there is a strong ethnic

dimension to this conflict and that ethnic groups areconcentrated in relatively difficult environments(Sharma et al. 2000). Murshed and Gates (2003) pointout that horizontal inequality across the regions ofNepal is a major factor behind the conflict. Bhurteland Ali (2003) argue that the deterioratingenvironment with its combinations of factors such asfragile mountains, deforestation, soil erosion,decreasing land productivity, and high levels ofpopulation growth and poverty mixed with social

factors of exclusion, discrimination, marginalization,and disempowerment of ethnic minorities produceda violent eruption that has now lasted for almost adecade.

It may also be noted that there has been anincrease in the militarization and politicization ofethnicity in the northeast of India. According toBarbora (2004) this is due to the states failure to dealwith the changes brought about by radically differentland use regimes. The Hill areas may beexperiencing the inevitable involution. Authoritiesand indeed society may have neglected, overlooked,or suppressed many smaller implosions in the pastwhich today have boiled over in the form of a violentconflict. The environment in these societies is bothan important cause as well as a victim of theescalating conflict.

ConclusionsThis review has provided an overview of theprevailing conflicts regarding natural resourcesutilization and some aspects of the rural and urbanenvironment in Nepal. Conflicts appear to be fairlyextensive regarding some natural resources likeforests and water. In other areas such as theimplications of urban development on naturalresources and the environment, the future is worrying because of the weak nature of theinstitutional mechanisms available for resolvingthese problems.

What has been or can be the impact onecosystems and the economy because of theunresolved conflicts? Some problems appear to haveremained for so long that they look almostunsolvable. A major part of the problem is relatedstrongly to the increasingly active role of the state intrying to regulate the harvesting of natural resourcesand taking on responsibilities for which it does nothave adequate resources or capacity. The moresurprising revelation is that the Government still hasnot recognized the continuing nature of conflicts inthe use of natural resources and responds only inspurts when conflicts become too difficult to ignore.This is not to say that there has not been some

positive action by the Governmentthe mostsignificant has been the move to legitimize the role ofuser groups in the management of forest and waterresources. However, there is still a long way to gobecause the Government is holding on to many areasof authority, which limits autonomy and initiative toresolve problems at the local level.

The next issue is related to the laws. A majorcleanup is necessary here because the practiceappears to be to simply carry on as in the past evenas new laws are promulgated. This has not only


17/20


created confusion and hindered progress in manyareas, it has served to retain the Governmentsmonopoly, even when the spirit of the new lawsindicates that this is not the intention.

Once environmental decisions are taken by thecourts, the Government, and civil society, whoshould do the enforcement? Conflicts mean that oneparty is not going to change its position voluntarilyunless under the threat of punitive action. This aspecthas been most lacking in the history of naturalresources management. The recommendations ofone commission are simply reiterated by another,and the process has gone on ad infinitum in the caseof resettlement, illegal settlers, and encroachment. Asimilar story is being enacted regarding the SupremeCourts decisions in environmental matters.

As a mountainous country with a beautiful butfragile environment, it is critical that Nepal manageits environment by using its natural resources in asustainable manner. The prevalence of conflict in all

the major natural resource areas suggests thatgovernance has been ineffective and in some areaseven harmful, especially when short-sighted policiesand decisions promote wanton destruction of naturalresources. Clearly the Government has a majorresponsibility to clean up its act regardingenvironment and conflict in Nepal.

BibliographyAmerican Embassy. 2005. The Impact of Nepals Armed

Conflict on Conservation Efforts. Regional

Environment Hub, American Embassy, Kathmandu. Available: http://kathmandu.usembassy.gov/env_page5.html

Asia Pacific Centre For Security Studies (APCSS). 1999.Water and Conflict in Asia? Honolulu. Available:http://www.apcss.org/Publications/Report_Water&Conflict_99.html

Aryal, G.R. and G. Awasthi. 2003. Agrarian Reform and Access to Land Resource in Nepal: Present Status

and Future Perspective Action. Philippines:Environment, Culture, Agriculture, Research andDevelopment Society (ECARDS)Nepal. Available:http://www.cerai.es/fmra/ archivo/nepal.pdf

Asia Rainforest Conservation News and Information. 2000.Wildlife Contraband Finds Easy Route throughNepal. January 21. Available:http://www.forests.org/archive/asia/wlcontfi.htm

Bandyopadhyay, J. and D. Gyawali. 1994. Ecological andPolitical Aspects of Himalayan Water ResourcesManagement. Water Nepal 4(1): 724.

Banskota, M. and S.R. Chalise, eds. 2000. Waters of Life:Perspectives of Water Harvesting in the Hindu Kush-

Himalayas. Kathmandu: International Centre forIntegrated Mountain Development.

Barbora, S. 2004.Land Class and Ethnicity: Permutations of Environmental Conflict in Assam Shillong: NorthEastern Hill University.

Bhatia, A., ed. 1995. Nepal Madhyasthata Samuha.Seminar on Conflict Resolution in Natural Resources,organized by Participatory Natural ResourceManagement Programme of International Centre forIntegrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD),

Kathmandu.Bhattarai, B.N., and K.K. Pradhan. 2004. The Future of

Rural and Agriculture Finance Institution in Nepal.Paper presented at a Symposium on Future of RuralAgricultural Finance Institutions, organized by AsiaPacific Rural and Agricultural Credit Association inTeheran, Iran, October 2004. Available:h t tp : / /www.agr i -bank .com/Sta t ic /Eng l ish/ Apraca/PDF/Nepal.pdf

Bhurtel, J., and S.H Ali. 2003. The Green Roots of RedRebellion: Environmental Degradation and the Rise

of the Maoist Movement in Nepal. Burlington: TheUniversity of Vermont. Available:http://www.uvm.edu/~shali/Maoist.pdf

Bosley, C., I. Rucker, and S. Theisman. 2000. Elephants inthe Border Region of Nepal and India. Washington,DC: American University, School of InternationalService. Available: http://www.american.edu/TED/wildlife-india.htm

Britt, C.D. 2002. Changing the Boundaries of ForestPolitics: Community Forestry, Social Mobilization,and Federation-Building in Nepal Viewed Throughthe Lens of Environmental Sociology and PAR.Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the GraduateSchool of Cornell University in partial fulfillment ofthe requirement for the degree of Doctor ofPhilosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University.

Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). 2004. Handbook ofEnvironment Statistics 2003. Kathmandu.

Conca, K. and G. Dabelko. 2002. The Case for Environmental Peace Making. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press.

Dabelko, G. and A. Carius. 2004. Institutional Responses toEnvironment, Conflict and Cooperation. InUnderstanding Environment, Conflict and

Cooperation, pp. 2133. Nairobi: United NationsEnvironment Programme. Available:http://www.unep.org/pdf/ECC.pdf

Dixit, A. 1994. Water Projects in Nepal: Lessons FromDisplacement and Rehabilitation. Water Nepal 4(1):

7485.Dixit, A., P. Adhikari, and S. Bishankhey, eds. 2005.Badh Ra

Bikash: Rachanatmak Sambad[in Nepali].Kathmandu: The World Conservation Union (IUCN),Nepal.

Ehrlich, A.H., P. Gleick, and K. Conca. 2000. Resources andEnvironmental Degradation as Sources of Conflict.Draft Background Paper for Working Group 5,Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs,Eliminating the Causes of War, Queens College,Cambridge, UK, 38 August. Available:


18/20


http://www.pugwash.org/reports/pac/pac256/WG5draft.htm

Ehrlich, P., A.H. Ehrlich, and J.P. Holdren. 1997.EcosciencePopulation, Resources, Environment. San Francisco:W.H. Freeman and Company.

EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Clean Air MarketsAllowance Trading. Downloaded onJanuary 30, 2006. Available:

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/trading

Ghimire, K. 1992.Forest or Farm: The Politics of Poverty andLand Hunger in Nepal. New Delhi: Oxford UniversityPress.

Gleditsch, N.P. 2004. Beyond Scarcity vs. Abundance: APolicy Research Agenda for Natural Resources andConflict. In Understanding Environment, Conflictand Cooperation, pp.1618. Nairobi: United NationsEnvironment Programme. Available:http://www.unep.org/pdf/ECC.pdf

Global, IDP. 2004. Ex-Kamaiyas Encroach on 10,000 Acresof Government Land in Protest Over States EmptyPromises to Rehabilitate Them. Norwegian Refugee

Council/Global IDP Project, Geneva, Switzerland. August. Available: http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpEnvelopes)/85744F58B8384B29802570B8005AAD85?OpenDocument

Grosen, J. 2000. Policy and Legal Framework Issues. In:Community Forestry in Nepal: Proceedings of the

Workshop on Community Based Forest Resource

Management, November 2022, Godawari, Lalitpur:Joint Technical Review Committee.

Gyawali, D. and A. Dixit. 1994. The Himalaya-Ganga:Contending with Inter-linkages in a ComplexSystem. Water Nepal 4(1): 16.

Hakahaki. 2060 [2003]. Sasatra Dwandako Mar maPrakirti [Impact of Armed Conflict on Nature], Weekly publication in Nepali, year 6 no. 6.Kathmandu.

Hardin, G.J. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons.Science162 (1968): 124348.

Homer-Dixon, T.F. 1999. Environment, Scarcity andViolence. Princeton, New Jersey: PrincetonUniversity Press

International Development Research Centre (IDRC). 2005.Cultivating Peace : Conflict Over Natural Resources.Ottawa. Available: http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-28105-1-Do_TOPIC

Integrated Development Systems (IDS). 1985. RuralLandlessness in Nepal. Kathmandu.

International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD).2004. Nepal: Degraded Land Use Helps the PoorChange Their Lives. Kathmandu: Inter Press Service. Available: http://www.ifad.org/media/news/2004/020604.htm

IUCN (The World Conservation Union). 2004. SustainableLivelihoods, Environmental Security and ConflictMitigation in Nepal: Trends and Challenges in the

Koshi Tappu Area of Nepal. Revised draft report,Kathmandu, IUCN Nepal Country Office.

Jodha, N.S. 1986. Common Resources and Rural Poor.Economic and Political Weekly, 21(27): 116981.

Khadka, N.S. 2005. Kali Gandaki A Finds itself in $50Million Controversy. In Nepali Times, 2531 July,Kathmandu. Available:http://www.environmentnepal.com.np/articles_d.as

p?id=154

Khor, M., ed. 1996. Environment Debate Heating Up.Penang: Third World Network. Available:h t t p : / / w w w . s u n s o n l i n e .org/trade/areas/environm/07050196.htm

Kumar, S., A.K. Sinha, and N. Prakash. 1994. Cultural andWater Bonds. Water Nepal 4 (1): 6266.

Libiszewski, S. 1995. What is an Environmental Conflict.Environment and Conflict Project, ENCOPOccasional Paper, Centre for Security Studies ,Zurich, Swiss Peace Foundation.

Martin, E.D. and R. Yoder. 1987. Institutions for IrrigationManagement in Farmer-managed Systems:Examples from the Hills of Nepal. InternationalIrrigation Management Institute, Sri Lanka. Available:http://www.sristi.org/cpr/cpr_detail.php3?page=16&Mode=Institutions

Mason, R. 1996. Market Failure and EnvironmentalDegradation. In The Economics of Environmental Degradation: Tragedy of the Commons?Edited byT.M. Swanson, pp. 2954. Brookfield, VT: EdwardElgar.

Matthew, R.A., M. Brklacich, and B. McDonald. 2004.Analysing Environment, Conflict and Cooperation.In Understanding Environment, Conflict andCooperation, pp.1618. Nairobi: United Nations

Environment Programme. Available:http://www.unep.org/pdf/ECC.pdf

MEG. 1996. Personal Communication to Metals EconomicsGroup Halifax, Canada.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Working Group (MEA).2003. Ecosystem and Human Well-being, AFramework for Assessment . London: Island Press.

Ministry of Population and Environment (MOPE). 2000.State of the Environment Nepal. Kathmandu.

Murphy, M.L., K.P. Oli, and G. Stephan. 2004. Conservation in Nepal: A Review of Impact from the Maoists

Conflict. Kathmandu: The World Conservation Union(IUCN).

Murshed, S.M. and S. Gates. 2003. Spatial-HorizontalInequality and the Maoist Insurgency in Nepal. Paperprepared for the United Nations University/ WIDERProject Conference on Spatial Inequality in Asia,2829 March, United Nations University Centre,Tokyo. Available: http://www.wider.unu.edu/conference/conference-2003-1/conference-2003-1-papers/s%20mansoob%20murshed%20-%20scott%20gates.pdf

Nepal, S.K., and K.E. Weber. 1993. Struggle for Existence:Parks-People Conflict in the Royal Chitwan National


19/20

173Chapter 12: Environment and Trade

Park, Nepal. Bangkok: Division of Human SettlementDevelopment, Asian Institute of Technology.

New Era. 1989. The Dynamics of Poverty in Nepal .Kathmandu.

Ostrom, E. 2000. Reformulating the Commons. SwissPolitical Science Review 6(1): 2952.

Panday, S.R. 1985. The Political Economy of Nepalese LandReform. Kathmandu: Himalayan Pioneers for PublicService and Research.

Pandey, B. Dams and Civil Society in Nepal: MajorConcerns. Available: http://www.dams.org/kbase/submissions/showsub.php?rec=soc031

Pandey, B. 1994. Small Rather than Big: Case forDecentralized Power Development in Nepal. WaterNepal 4(1): 181190.

PANOS South Asia. 2002. Justice For All. Kathmandu. Available: http://www.panos.org.np/ resources/publications/panos_reports.htm#justice

Pant, R. 2002. Customs and Conservation, Cases ofTraditional and Modern Law in India and Nepal .

Pune: Kalpavriksh.Paranjapye, V. 1994. Preliminary Look at Arun III in Light of

Tehri Experience. Water Nepal 4(1): 3035.

Paudel, A. 1996. Environmental Management of theBagmati River Basin. Case Study 28, EIA Training Resource Manual, United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, Nairobi.

Pradhan, B. 1999. Water Quality Analysis of the BagmatiRiver and its Tributaries in Kathmandu Valley UsingBacterial and Saprobic Measures. Proceedings ofThird National Conference on Science and

Technology. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy ofScience and Technology.

Pradhan, P. 1990. Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems inNepal. International Irrigation Management Institute,Kathmandu. Common Property ResourcesInstitutions (CPRI). Available: http://www.sristi.org/cpr/cpr_detail.php3?page= 34&Mode=Institutions

Pradhan, R., F. von Benda-Beckmann, and K. von Beda-Beckmann, eds. 2000. Water, Land and Law:Changing Rights to Land and Water in Nepal.Proceedings of a Workshop held in Kathmandu,1820 March, 1998. Kathmandu: Jagadamba Press.

Socioeconomic and Ethnopolitical Research and TrainingConsultancy (SEEPORT). 2000. Land Policies, LandManagement and Land Degradation in the Hindu-Kush Himalayas. Nepal Study Report, pp. 198,International Centre for Integrated MountainDevelopment (ICIMOD), Kathmandu.

Sharma, P. 2003. Urbanization and Development. InPopulation Monograph of Nepal, Vol. 1, pp. 375412.Kathmandu: His Majestys Government of Nepal,Central Bureau of Statistics.

Sharma, S. 2002. The Ethnic Dimension of the MaoistInsurgency. Kathmandu.

Sharma. B., M. Prakash, B.R. Ayer, L.B. Thapa, and B.P.Pokharel. 2000. Environmental Protection RelatedCases Collection. Kathmandu: Pro Public.

Shrestha, K., and J. Grosen. 2000. Protection Versus ActiveManagement of Community Forests. In: Community Forestry in Nepal: Proceedings of the Workshop on

Community Based Forest Resource Management,November 2022, Godawari, Lalitpur: Joint

Technical Review Committee.Shrestha, T.B. 2001. Status Review National Strategies for

Sustainable Development Forest/Rangeland/Biodiversity. Paper submitted to the WorldConservation Union (IUCN). Available:http://www.nssd.net/country/nepal/nep09.htm

Siwakoti-Chintan, G. 2003. Request for a review of ADBpolicy compliance in case of Kali Gandaki A andMelamchi projects in Nepal and undertakenecessary remedial actions in case of both projects.Letter sent to the ADB President and Secretary ofMinistry of Water Resources by the Water and EnergyUsers FederationNepal (WAFED). June 27.Kathmandu: Available: http://www.forum-adb.org/PDF-Manila/wafed_melamchi&kali-jun03.pdf

Springate-Baginski, O., N. Yadav, O.P. Dev, and J. Soussan.2003. Institutional Development of Forest UsersGroups in Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihood3(1) 2135.

Swain, A. 2002. Environmental Cooperation in South Asia. InEnvironmental Peacemaking edited by K.Conca and G.D. Dabelko, pp. 6185. Washington, DC,Baltimore, and London: Woodrow Wilson CenterPress/Johns Hopkins University Press.

Swanson, T.M. 1996. The Economics of EnvironmentalDegradation: An Institutional Approach. In The

Economics of Environmental Degradation: Tragedy for the Commons?Edited by T. M. Swanson.Cheltenham: United Nations EnvironmentProgramme and Edward Elgar.

The Himalayan Times. 2003. Dam Puzzle. 29 July. Available: http://www.environmentnepal.com.np/articles_d.asp?id=152

The Rising Nepal. 2004. Rautes Against JungleEncroachment. 4 January. Kathmandu. Available:http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/pageloader.php?file=2004/03/15//topstories/main7

Tiwari, S., J. Robinson, and G. Amatya. 2003. PromotingSustainable Livelihoods of Poor and Dalits through

Community Based Approaches to Conservation andSustainable Management of Medicinal and AromaticPlants in Doti District: Experience of IUCN Nepal.Paper presented at the National Workshop on Local Experience Based National Strategy for Organic

Production and Management of Medicinal and

Aromatic Plants/Non Timber Forest Products in

Nepal. Organized by Ministry of Forests and SoilConservation in collaboration with InternationalDevelopment Research Centre and the CanadianCooperative Office, Kathmandu.


20/20

United Nations. 2003. Wo

environment assessment of nepal - chapter 11

Documents