GeoJournal 2Z1 105-112 © 1992 (May) by Kluwer Academic Publishers

105

Mountains, Nations, Parks, and Conservation A Case Study of the Mt. Everest Area

Taylor-Ide, Danie# Byers III, Alton C.; Campbell, J. Gabriel, Woodlands Mountain Institute, Franklin, WV26807, USA

ABSTRACT: Between 1985 and 1991, two new mountain protected areas (MTNPA) covering more than 35,000 km 2 and based on participatory management models - the Makalu-Barun National Park and Conservation Area, Nepal, and Qomolangma Nature Preserve, Tibet Autonomous Region - were successfully established through the collaborative efforts of Woodlands Mountain Institute and conservationists in China and Nepal. Characteristics common to both projects include the importance of establishing (1) effective rationales, (2) local support constituencies, (3) a senior advisory group, (4) a task force, (5) linkages between conservation and development, and (6) fund raising mechanisms. The lessons derived from the experiences of Woodlands Mountain Institute are of significant value to others in preserving MTNPA. Increased collaboration and communication between all interested in conservation, however, will remain a critical component for expanding mountain protected area coverage to throughout the world.

Introduction

Recogni t ion of the aesthetic, biophysical , and cultural impor tance of mounta in habi tat and society has gained considerable m o m e n t u m during the past decade (Allan 1988; Ives 1985). As a result , impressive conservat ion programs have been ini t iated in many moun ta inous regions of the world. Recent surveys of mounta in pro tec ted areas (MTNPA), however, indicate that significant addi t ional init iatives are needed, particularly in the Atlas range, Antarct ica, the Alps, Papua New Guinea , the Hindukush, and the mounta ins of Burma. Concurren t with increased biophysical representa t ion is the urgent need to develop improved managemen t systems for existing moun ta in parks (Thorsell and Harr ison supra).

Unfortunately , even the best in tent ions to expand mounta in pro tec ted area coverage in the 1990's will be confronted with major constraints that de ter actual es tabl ishment . The lack o f adequate funding has consis tent ly represen ted a major barrier, often exacerbated by the concerned agency 's inexper ience in appropriate research, coordinat ion, program strategies, planning, and publicity.

We documen t here how Woodlands Mounta in Inst i tute, a now-profit educat ional and scientific

organizat ion, col laborated with indigenous organizat ions and people to establish new M T N P A in the vicinity of Mt. Everest. Fol lowing a review of each project ' s history, characteristics c o m m o n to both are examined in an effort to provide insights of potent ia l value to pract i t ioners and conservat ion agencies e lsewhere in the mounta in world. We do not documen t the ma na ge me n t systems o f these two MTNPA, but rather focus on describing the me thods by which the MTNPA were created.

The Mount Everest Ecosystem Conservation Program

Five inter- re la ted programs, Mountain Learning, Leadership, Community Schools, Mount Everest Ecosystem Conservation Program, and Research and Development, const i tute the core services of Woodlands Mounta in Inst i tute. The program dealt with in this article is the Mount Everest Ecosystem Conservation Program, which coordinates an internat ional par tnership that assists the governments o f Nepal and the Tibet A u t o n o m o u s Region o f the People 's Republic o f China in developing adjoining MTNPA in the Mount Everest region, each combining conservat ion with a focus on communi ty deve lopmen t (Campbel l 1990c). The total area of the two M T N P A - the

106 GeoJournal 27.111992

Fig 1 Cross-boundary protected areas in the Himalayas

Makalu-Barun National Park and Conservation Area, and Qomolangma Nature Preserve - exceeds 35,000 km 2, and includes five peaks in excess of 8000 m (Everest, Lhotse, Makalu, Cho Oyu, and Shisha Pangma). These two projects share similar ecological features, wildlife, and cultures. Separate twelve-year agreements between Woodlands and both governments were signed in 1988, in which Woodlands provides coordination, funding, and technical support. The five management themes common to each project include:

(a) the integration of conservation and development objectives in environmentally sustainable, culturallyviable, economically feasible ways; (b) the conservation of the biological and cultural diversity unique to each region; (c) the development of partnerships between local people, governments, NGOs, and the international conservation community; (d) the use of both scientific and indigenous knowledge for management decision-making; and (e) the designation of protected areas based on total ecosystem dynamics.

Nepal: The Makalu-Barun National Park and Conservation Area

Physical and Cultural Setting

The Makalu-Barun area covers 2,330 km 2 and is located in the Sankhuwasabha and Solukhumbu districts of NE Nepal (Fig 1, 2). Within a N-S distance of less than 40 km, elevations range from 435 m at the Arun-Sankhuwa

confluence to the 8,463 m summit of Makalu (Cronin 1979). A large precipitation variation follows this same altitudinal transect: lower elevations may receive more than 4,000 mm/yr, diminishing to less than 1000 mm/yr in the sub-alpine and alpine regions of the higher mountain summits (Khanal 1991a, 1991b; Shresta 1989, 1990 a).

Unusually diverse and distinct bioclimatic zones, ranging from tropical to nival, are found within very short distances. Reflective of this precipitation/temperature gradient are many vegetation zones ranging from tropical sal forests at elevations below 1000 m; temperate zone oak/maple/magnolia forests between 2000-3000 m; fir/ birch/rhododendron forests in the sub-alpine (3000-4000 m); and the herbs, grasses, and rhododendron/juniper shrub of the alpine pastures (4000-5000 m) (Dunsmore 1988; Shrestha 1989; Stainton 1972).

The corresponding wealth of bio-physical diversity in the region is of global significance. For example, scientific investigations recorded the presence of more than 3,000 species of flowering plants, including 25 of Nepal's 30 varieties of rhododendron; 48 species of primrose; 47 species of orchid; 19 species of bamboo; 15 species of oak; 86 species of fodder trees; and 67 species of economically valuable medicinal and aromatic plants (Numata 1966, 1983; Shrestha et al. 1990a; 1990b). An oak species previously unrecorded in Nepal, two bird species never before seen in Nepal (the spotted wren babbler and olive ground warbler), and fourteen other extremely rare bird species were also recorded. Wildlife include the endangered red panda, musk deer, clouded leopard, wild dog and snow leopard, in addition to more substantial populations of Himalayan black bear, wild boar, barking deer, and serow (Taylor-Ide 1984; Jackson 1990 a; Jackson and Ahlborn 1987; Jackson et al. 1990).

GeoJournal 271/1992 107

Fig 2 National Parks and Conservation Area in Nepal Ch°ksiam J ~ ~ ? OMO-~US a ~"'k[O 5;~ln g4~ Y~

• 7316 TIBET AUTON EGI C A (,/ ---[" ..... E ,:a,," \ (Qomolangma Nature Preserve)

Gyaeilung ̂ ~.~, _ ,,_...._._~4¢,"-~ ~ ~-- Kang 7952 Base Camp / ~ I'~ " ~

Gaurt Manlungtss | .~ 6663 Shankar 7181 r::'::~!~'b3!~'g B ass C~p "lli~'~"-.IJ)~L

Sagarmatha National Park

Numbur & • Bazar 6957 3450

Lukla 2800 .

\ \ Wallunchun

~ La ~" Kang J ) l 5721 .~w Tibta La

4-® Phaphlu .'~

Okhaldhunga 1800 ® ®

4-

N E P A L

SCALE 1:16o 00o i 0 1 lO 20Krn i l l ~ = ~ ' ' ' 'lbM~les

Dlngla ®

Num

f. Tumflngtar

4bU

~---.9-~ 4" "rapleJung ®

1760

South and west of the Barun river are other remote, high altitude valleys, including the Isuwa, Apsuwa, and Sankhuwa. In addition to containing one of the famous "Hidden Valleys" of Shambala mythology (Reinhard 1978), they are used for seasonal grazing, hunting and the collecting of various forest products.

Surrounding this seasonally used area is a population of 32,000 people from a number of ethnic/caste groups. The majority are Rai, followed by Sherpa and Tibetan-speaking groups and more than seven different languages are spoken in the area (Nepali et al. 1990). The population is dependent primarily upon low-productivity subsistence agriculture and pastoralism, supplemented by the use of forest products, small-scale seasonal trade, and seasonal migration for labor (Chaffey 1989; Forbes 1989; Nepali and Sangam 1990). Swidden agriculture is extensively practiced. The availability of health and education facilities is extremely limited, and health conditions are poor (Nepali et al. 1990).

Contiguous to the Makalu-Barun area is the 1,148 km 2 Sagarmatha (Everest) National Park, created in 1976 as Nepal's third national park (Jeffries 1985). The 35,000 km 2 Quomolangma (Everest) Nature Reserve, established in 1989 by the Tibet Autonomous Region of China, also borders the Makalu-Barun area in addition to the Sagarmatha and the Langtang National Parks. Together, these four contiguous MTNPA protect a vast 40,000 km 2

area surrounding the Everest massif, an area of the same approximate size as Switzerland.

Most of the valleys of the Makalu-Barun area drain into the upper reaches of the Arun river, which originates as the Pungchu river in the adjoining Qomolangma Nature Reserve in China. This river is now the site of Nepal's largest proposed development project to date - the 403 MW Arun III hydroelectric facility with an accompanying 193 km access road, financed by the World Bank and a consortium of international donors (NEA 1990). While targeted to assist Nepal's economic and energy needs, this project will rapidly alter the biological, social, and economic life of the area (MBCP Task Force 1990). The Management Plan prepared by a task force of Nepalese specialists recommends a series of programs aimed at mitigating potentially negative effects upon the environment and culture, while taking advantage of its economic opportunities for local people.

Evolution of the Makalu-Barun Conservation Project: 1983-1990

In 1983 and 1984, Nepalese and American scientists working on a Woodlands wildlife study in the remote Barun valley developed the idea of creating a 500 km 2 preserve that would protect the valleys and forests of the

108 GeoJournal 27.111992

Makalu-Barun region (Taylor-Ide 1984). The proposal was presented at the International Workshop on the Management of National Parks and Protected Areas held in Kathmandu, Nepal in 1985 (Taylor-Ide and Shrestha 1985; McNeely et al. 1985), and reCeived with interest by Nepalese policy makers. In 1988, a Nepalese Task Force was appointed by King Birendra &Nepal. Their mandate was to develop plans for protecting the area's biodiversity by developing a new model for conservation that incorporated the participation of the surrounding local people. A twelve-year agreement was signed by the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation with Woodlands Mountain Institute on August 29, 1988. During the following two years, the Task Force spent more than 3,000 person-days collecting primary data and interviewing local people in the project area. Funding for the project during this period was raised by Woodlands from private sources, international development agencies, and conservation foundations that include the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of the Netherlands; the Canadian International Development Research Centre (IDRC); the Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation in Developing Countries (SAREC); the International Fund for Animal Welfare; the US Agency for International Development (USAID); Dr. Th6mas Roush; The Needmor Foundation; the George H. Mifflin & Jane A. Mifflin Memorial Fund and other private foundations and individuals. Additional funding arrangements between the World Bank/Arun Hydroelectric Project and the Makalu- Barow Conserration Projekt are currently under consideration.

On December 20, 1990, the Task Force for the Makalu- Barun Conservation Project concluded its two-year study and submitted formal recommendations to the Government of Nepal for the immediate establishment of the Makalu-Barun National Park and Conservation Area. Proposed were a focused, integrated set of programs under the categories of park management, community development, tourism management, and scientific research. Task Force results also included twenty background reports in the project's Working Paper Publication Series, the previously mentioned four Component Plans, and the overall Management Plan for the Makalu-Barun National Park and Conservation Area that summarizes Task Force recommendations.

The Management Plan, representing one of the most detailed planning documents prepared for any protected area in Nepal, provides an important model for the establishment and management of MTNPA in Nepal and elsewhere in the mountain world. Although national parks have existed in Nepal for 17 years, protecting unique and representative natural resources and habitats, "conservation area" is a more recent protected area designation (Wells et al. 1990). The first of these, the Annapurna Conservation Area, was created in 1985 by the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation to assist local people in the Annapurna region to better manage their own natural resources in the face of threats from the

impact of increased population, tourism, and development. The Makalu-Barun Conservation Project combines these two approaches of strict protection and controlled use into an integrated management system that builds continuity through partnerships between local people, the private sector, and the Government of Nepal. Implementation is based upon a participatory model of land management and resource use, incorporating the experience, traditional management systems, and recommendations of local people into project policies, strategies, and actions. Conservation and development are viewed as being complementary.

Following review by Nepalese experts and the Government of Nepal, the creation of the new national park and conservation area was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers in September, 1991 and officially gazetted on 18 November, 1991. Most funds necessary for implementing the project's first five-year phase were available at the time of official park gazettement. Infrastructure development (personnel hiring, headquarters establishment, small-scale community projects) commence in March, 1992.

People's Republic of China: Qomolangma Nature Preserve, Tibet Autonomous Region

Physial and Culture Setting

Qomolangma (Mt. Everest) Nature Preserve (QNP) encompasses a 34,480 km 2 area in Shigatze Prefecture located in the S part of the Tibet Autonomous Region of China (Fig 1). It includes Tingri, Nyelam, and part of Dingque and Kyirong counties, extending from E of the Pungchu (N. Arun) near Dinggye (4,260 m) to W of Jilongzangbu (N. Trisuli) river near Kyirong (3,800 m) in the W. The N boundary roughly parallels the 29 ° N latitude line S of Lhasa, and the S boundary is delimited by the international border with Nepal.

Contiguous to the Preserve are Nepal's Langtang National Park, Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, and the Makalu-Barun National Park and Conservation Area. Two-thirds of the Arun watershed above Nepal's forthcoming 403 MW, $1 billion Arun III Hydroelectric Project is contained within QNP boundaries, a point which highlights the critical importance of promoting international dialogue on conservation and water management practices.

Contrary to popular perception, Tibet is not solely a high, cold, dry plateau. In fact, the QNP contains a tremendous diversity of landscapes and environments ranging from ice clad, 8,000+ m peaks to subtropical, densely forested valleys below 2,000 m (Fleming 1989). In addition to being the location of the world's highest peaks, the juxtaposition of two major biogeographical zones within the MTNPA - the Paleoarctic and Indian-Malay - contribute to the area's high biological diversity and the presence of a number of rare and endangered species (CAS 1990a, 1990b; Schweinfurth 1957 stet).

GeoJournal 27.1/1992 109

The biologically richest region is the Kama valley, which begins on the E flank of Mt. Everest and runs E for 30 km to join the Pungchu valley. The forests at the head of the valley are among the highest in the world, with tree line as high as 4,300 m (Howard-Bury 1922). Forests that cover the five low-altitude river valleys flowing southward into Nepal provide exceptional habitat, with many Indian subcontinent species occurring in close proximity to those of the Tibetan Plateau. Among larger animals, the QNP contains the rare snow leopard, kiang (wild ass), and black- necked crane (Jackson 1991). It also supports Tibet's only populations of the Assamese macaque, as well as langur monkey, Himalayan palm civet, jungle cat, Himalayan musk deer and Himalayan tahr, and a number of small rodent and bat species (Feng et al. 1986; Wang et al. 1984).

Similar species variety characterizes QNP's plant associations. Besides forests, the Preserve also supports a great diversity of shrub and grassland communities. At least seven distinct rhododendron communities occur between elevations of 3,800 and 4,800 m; a cinquefoil sub- shrub association (Potentilla parvifolia) is found as high as 5,100 m; two species ofbuckthorn (Hippophae) form dense riparian groves in stream-beds above the tree-line; and juniper communities, a vegetation type that has been greatly depleted in many parts of Tibet, thrive in a nearly pristine state in some areas. Additionally, this part of the eastern Himalaya is well known for its spectacular displays of wildflowers (Polunin and Stainton 1984; Ward 1937).

The role of the High Himalaya as a meteorological barrier (Schweinfurth stet; Stainton 1972; Troll 1972) is particularly striking in the Preserve. The moist, S aspects of the range are strongly affected by the South Asian monsoon and average 2,000-2,500 m m of rainfall per year. In contrast, regions north of the range, and thus within its imposed rainshadow, receive less than 250 mm of precipitation annually and exhibit continental, semi-arid plateau climates with characteristically xeric vegetation formations (stet Schweinfurth 1957; Zhang et al. 1988). In addition to the the N-S temperature and rainfall gradient, there is a similar E-W climatic trend (Chang 1981; Zhang et al. 1988).

Archaeological, historical and contemporary cultural richness also characterizes the region. It is inhabited by approximately 68,000 people of whom more then 95% are Tibetan nomads and farmers who maintain a low- productivity subsistence livelihood. Major crops include highland barley, winter wheat, and some potatoes. Yak, yak hybrids, sheep and goat populations totaled 182, 518 animals in a 1989 survey (Coburn and Menzies 1987; Goldstein and Beall 1990; TASS 1990).

Evolution of the Qomolangma Nature Preserve: 1985-1991

During the 1970's local administrations in Tibet created two small nature preserves in the Zhangmou and Jilong valleys. In 1985, discussions began between Chinese scientists and Woodlands Mountain Institute concerning

the possibility of creating a single preserve encompassing a much larger area. The government of the Tibet Autonomous Region studied the proposal for four years, during which two field expeditions inventoried the area's biogeographical features and two international study exchanges introduced key personnel to preserve management options.

On March 18, 1989, less than four years from the date of initial discussions, the Qomolangma Nature Preserve became a reality through formal designation by the Government of the Tibet Autonomous Region. This was followed in August with the formal inauguration of the Qomolangma Nature Preserve Management Bureau in Shigatze, and the creation of a branch office in nearby Shegar. On 25 October 1989, the Working Commission of the Qomolangrna Nature Preserve and Woodlands Mountain Institute signed a twelve-year cooperative agreement to provide international assistance to the Preserve (Chien 1989 a; 1989 b). The QNP became the first nature preserve in China to combine nature conservation and socio-economic development (Campbell 1990 c).

These formal events were accompanied by a significant increase in integrated planning and applied research. A series of workshops in 1989 and 1990 developed a work program for the preparation of a QNP project MasterPlan (Campbell 1990 a, 1990 b). Field surveys were conducted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Tibet Academy of Social Sciences, the Culture Department, the Health Department, the Education Department, the Tourism Bureau, and the Environmental Protection Bureau of the Tibet Autonomous Region Government. These surveys and workshops facilitated production of the Master Plan for the Preserve area, to be formally approved in the spring of 1992. Since the creation of the QNP, the Tibet Autonomous Region Government has taken consistent and vigorous action to protect the project area. For example, on 24 June 1989, after careful field study, the construction of a major forestry access road - the Chentang road, in the E Preserve - was halted. This difficult decision was made despite the fact that over 1,000 workers were engaged in the project and RMB 7 million (US $ 2 million) had already been spent. Additionally, wildlife hunting has been curtailed in the preserve and new legislation to halt illegal hunting and trade in wildlife products is under preparation.

Fruitful international exchanges during 1989 and 1990 were highlighted[ by the 1989 participation of QNP scientists in the Makalu-Barun Conservation Project field workshop in Nepal and participation of a Nepalese park management specialist in workshops and field surveys in Shigatze. A Senior Advisory Committee Meeting in the United States in September, 1990, involving a study tour of national parks, national forests, wildlife refuges, and universities, brought together members of both projects.

International support for the Qomolangma Nature Preserve comes through the twelve-year cooperative agreement with Woodlands Mountain Institute mentioned previously. Under this agreement, Woodlands provides or

110 GeoJournal 27.1/1992

arranges for the provision from international sources of technical assistance, partial support for materials, vehicles, equipment, planning, implementation costs, and international exchange. The Tibet Autonomous Region Government provides existing scientific and technical assistance, offices and equipment, daily office expenses, personnel salaries, and most of the implementation costs.

The ambitious management of the QNP combines participatory resource management, local economic development, ongoing scientific research and integrated management through the use of controlled-use zonation. Within the large 34,480 km 2 region, three types of management zones have been established. Seven core zones, representing 31% of the preserve, will be strictly protected. Buffer zones, or scientific experiment zones, make up 20% of the preserve where limited human use will be permitted. Villages, farmland, prime pasturage, and other areas of economic importance are designated as peripheral zones in which all developmental activities are structured on a self-supporting basis. Peripheral zones will operate within appropriate environmental guidelines and will make up 49% of the preserve.

Principles Common to the Establishment of the two MTNPA

The experiences of both Nepal's Makalu-Barun National Park and Conservation Area, and China's Qomolanqma Nature Preserve, reveal several common characteristics that may be applicable to efforts to protect other MTNPA. These guiding principles, however, do not constitute a step-by-step "recipe" that NGOs can follow for the establishment of new MTNPA. Differences in governments, socio-economic conditions, political climates, available technical and financial resources, and potential non-governmental partners will vary greatly between countries, and strategies must understandably be flexible, creative, and realistic.

Furthermore, the following points address pre-project considerations only and make no attempt to review the challenges of field implementation. The intent is to merely provide insights that may facilitate the establishment of additional MTNPA in the world:

1. Based upon the best available information, identify a dominant and driving rationale for MTNPA establish- ment. While initial justification for MTNPA establishment

may be aesthetic, biophysical or cultural, one of these reasons is usually dominant. It may be strengthened, challenged, or combined as more information about the region becomes available through initial field surveys. The experience of both projects, however, indicates that stating this justification clearly and powerfully is a sine qua non without which the project cannot materialize; ie, nothing is more important than an easily acceptable statement of why the MTNPA should exist.

For example, the Makalu-Barun Conservation Project was initiated primarily to protect what was identified to be one of the most diverse, and last remaining, biological resources in Nepal. Although the area is also visually spectacular, and field studies later documented the presence of a unique cultural diversity, the conservation momentum was primarily driven by the biological rationale. Later, it was highlighted for immediate action by the potentially adverse impacts of the forthcoming Arun I I I hydroelectric facility and road project.

The Qomolangma Nature Preserve was initiated with a primarily aesthetic focus: ie, to preserve the ecosystem of the highest mountain on earth. Whereas this grand vision was politically powerful on a global scale, the driving force for local Tibetan leaders came from an interest in promoting environmentally sound socio-economic development.

2. Establish a local support constituency. From the outset, a diversified local support base needs

to be established. The experience of the case studies in China and Nepal suggests that this broad spectrum of local support is just as necessary as the traditional governmental park (or forestry) department support. Local people, scientists, country planners, tourism planners, decision makers in government, leaders of the private sector, the mi l i t a ry - all affected sectors of leadership need to be involved. In both case studies, this involvement was facilitated through host country and international field study programs. Field visits allowed policy makers and practitioners to experience first-hand the proposed MTNPA as well as to understand better the successes and failures of MTNPA area management in other regions.

3. Establish an outside, highly credible advisory group. In both cases a special Senior Advisory Committee of

distinguished international figures was established that consisted of political leaders, conservationists, scholars, and businessmen. By virtue of their individual reputations and experience, this Senior Advisory Committee provided a level of credibility to both projects that greatly augmented field work, fund-raising, and publicity endeavors, in addition to the central role of project guidance. The field-based meetings (often held in the MTNPA themselves) were central to the committee 's success.

4. Establish a Task Force o f host country specialists to conduct detailed assessments o f the proposed MTNPA feasibility, biophysical and cultural features, and prospective management strategies; and to take the lead in project promotion. Because data on most proposed MTNPA are so limited,

detailed, quantitative studies that document the biophysical, socio-economic and cultural values of the particular site are important from the management and, when implementation is dependent on external grants, fund-raising perspectives. While the benefits of reliable

GeoJournal 27.1/1992 111

data from a project management perspective are self- evident, the production of quality field reports also represents tangible outputs critical to developing and maintaining credibility with international donors. As an example, the Working Paper Series, Component Plans, and final Management Plan developed by the Makalu-Barun Task Force were instrumental toward rapid international endorsement of the Nepal project, as well as the success of later fund-raising endeavors.

5. Link conservation with development in project design, incorporating the needs of local people in conservation projects. Traditional MTNPA have excluded people, and in

Nepal several cases of enforced resettlement during the 1970s resulted in a severe resentment for national parks that was felt throughout the country (Wells 1991). Increasingly, however, it is being recognized that the long- term conservation of many MTNPA will only be possible through the active participation of local people in ways which blend natural resource protection, conservation, and socioeconomic development. Tangible benefits from adhering to park regulations - eg, prohibiting expansion of swidden cultivation into existing forests - must be immediately apparent to local people whether in the form of benefits from increased tourism, agricultural productivity, training, or employment opportunities. Both projects were designed on this principle and utilized management zones (national park, conservation area, strict nature reserve; core zones, peripheral zones, buffer zones), representing varying degrees of usage, as the primary management tool. Additionally, both Makalu-Barun and World Bank/Arun I I I project representatives recognized the importance of combining development and conservation objectives, thus working in mutually supportive ways during the design process of each project.

6. Develop short- and long-term funding strategies and mechanisms.

Following identification of the rationale for preserve establishment, seed grants from private donors constituted the primary funding source during the first several years of each of the two case studies. This flexible, private money allowed for the initiation of pilot field projects, the creation of the advisory groups, project proposals and political momentum prior to approaching international governments and conservation foundations for larger amounts of money for actual implementation.

Raising adequate funds, however, is a time-consuming and demanding activity that occupied key staff on a nearly full-time basis between 1984-1991. The strategy employed

involved a process of shared and collaborative responsibility - the Institutional Director and Program Director provided direction, experience, and contacts; technical staff wrote proposals; secretarial staff provided office and document production support; and all three groups shared in editing and support responsibilities. Successful fund-raising strategies included a clear and powerful articulation of project purpose, sensitivity to donor priorities, a network of supporting contacts, and a well-articulated, multiple-year project strategy.

It should be noted that all six of the principles described above operated within a larger vision. The individuals involved in both projects all believed, with remarkable unanimity, in what they were doing, how they were doing it, and who they were doing it for. They represented a collection of individuals of remarkable and diverse strengths but with a trust in a common objective. Without the shared goal of protecting mountain environments and advancing mountain cultures, and the confidence that resulted from this vision, the successes achieved to date would not have been possible for either initiative.

Conclusion

We have presented a summary of significant characteristics common to the successful establishment of two new MTNPA in the Himalaya. This was initiated by a small American NGO working intimately with conservationists in Nepal and China's Tibet Autonomous Region over a period of eight years.

New challenges await both the Makalu-Barun and Qomolangma projects as, in the coming years, these models of participatory and multi-sectoral management are tested, refined, and implemented. Nevertheless, a significant first step has been made in their design and official designations. This process can and should be replicated elsewhere in the mountain world.

It is to be hoped that the insights derived from the experiences of Woodlands Mountain Institute may be of value to other NGOs, scientists, and governments attempting to preserve mountain environments world- wide. In this process, the importance of increased communications and collaboration between all entities involved - NGO, academic, development and donor agencies - cannot be overstated. In all likelihood, this building of partnerships will represent the single most critical component toward the effective establishment of new, protected mountain areas.

References

Allan, N. J. R. et al. (eds): Human Impact on Mountains. Rowman and Littlefield, New Jersey 1988.

Byers, A.C.: Contemporary Tourist Impacts on Three Sides of Everest. Unpublished paper presented a the IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. Caracas, 1992 a.

112 GeoJournal 27.1/1992

Byers, A. C.: Sub-Alpine Forest Dynamics and Pollen Analysis in the Upper Barun valley, Nepal. Unpublished report. Woodlands Mountain Institute, 1992 b.

Campbell, J.G.: Closing Speech: Community Development Workshop, Shigatze, May 10-12, 1990. Qomolangma Nature Preserve, Shigatze 1990 a.

Campbell, J.G.: Seminar on Community Development in Qomolangma Nature Preserve, Shigatze. Unpublished report. Woodlands Mountain Institute, 1990 b.

Campbell, J.G.: Mt. Everest Ecosystem Conservation Program. Unpublished paper presented at the 8th Meeting of Investment Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in the Asia/Pacific Region, The World Bank, Washington, DC 25 September 1990, 1990 c.

Chaffey, E: Livestock Survey in Northwest Sankhuwasabha. Unpublished report, Makalu-Barun Conservation Project, Kathmandu 1989.

Chang, D.H.S.: The Vegetation Zonation of the Tibet Plateau. Mountain Research and Development 1:29-48, (1981).

Chinese Academy of Sciences: The Mammals of Mount Qomolangma (Mt. Everest) Area in China. Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 1990 a.

Chinese Academy of Sciences: Physical Geography of the Mt. Qomolangma (Everest) Region. Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 1990 b.

Chien, Chun Wuei Su: The Signing of an Agreement: 26 October 1989, Lhasa, Tibet Autonomous Region, China Unpublished report. Woodlands Mountain Institute 1989 a.

Chien, Chun Wuei Su: Unpublished Trip Report, February 13 to March 28, 1989. Woodlands Mountain Institute, 1989 b.

Coburn, B.; Menzies, N.: Report on the Summer 1987 Tibet Study Tour. Unpublished report. Woodlands Mountain Institute, 1987.

Cronin, E.W.: The Arun: A Natural History of the World's Deepest Valley. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1979.

Dunsmore, S.: Mountain Environmental Management in the Arun River Basin of Nepal. Occasional Paper No. 9, International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu (1988)

Feng Zuo-jian; Cai Gui-quan; Zheng Chang-lin.: The Mammals of Tibet. Science Press, Beijing 1986.

Fleming, R.L., Tr.: A Natural History of the Everest Area: A Summary. Unpublished Report, Makalu-Barun Conservation Project, Kathmandu 1989.

Forbes, A.A.: Preliminary Report on Forest Management Systems in Bung and Chheskam Panchayats. Unpublished report, Makalu-Barun Conservation Project, Kathmandu 1989.

Goldstein, M.C.; Beall, C.M.: Nomads of Western Tibet. Berkeley University of California Press, 1990.

Howard-Bury, C.K.: Mount Everest: The Reconnaissance. Edward Arnold, London 1922.

Ives, J.D.: The Mountain Malaise. In: Singh, T.V.; Kaur, J. (eds.), Integrated Mountain Development. Himalayan Books, New Delhi 1985.

Jackson, R.: Threatened Wildlife, Crop and Wildlife Depredation and Grazing in the Makalu-Barun Conservation Area. Report 12, Working Paper Publication Series, Makalu-Barun Conservation Project, Kathmandu 1990 a.

Jackson, R.; Ahlborn, G.: A High-Altitude Survey of the Hongu Valley with Special Emphasis on Snow Leopard. Consultant Report, Woodlands Mountain Institute and HMG Department of National Parks and Wild Conservation, Kathmandu 1987.

Jackson, R.; Nepali, H.S.; Sherpa, A.R.: Apects of Wildlife Protection and Utilization in the Makalu-Barun Conservation Area. Report 11, Working Publication Series, Makalu-Barun Conservation Project, Kathmandu 1990.

Jeffries, M.: Sagarmatha, Mother of the Universe: The Story of Mt Everest National Park. Cobb/Hornwood Publications, Auckland 1985.

Khanal, N. R.: Study of Geo-Hydrology, Land Use and Population of Makalu-Barun Conservation Project Area. Report 14, Working Paper Publication Series, Makalu-Barun Conservation Project, Kathmandu 1991b.

Khanal, N. R.: Geo-Ecological Study of Apsuwa Watershed. Report 15, Working Paper Publication Series, Makalu-Barun Conservation Project, Kathmandu 1991a.

Makalu-Barun Conservation Project Task Force:The Makalu-Barun Conservation Project Management Plan. Makalu-Barun Conservation Project, Kathmandu 1990.

Nepal Electricity Authority: Arun III Hydroelectric Project: Detailed Engineering Services. Environmental and Socio-Economic Report. Vo k 1: Main Report. Government of Nepal, Kathmandu 1990.

Nepali, R. K.; Sangam, K.: Status of Community Needs, Resources and Development: Sankhuwasabha Disrict. Report 7, Working Paper Publication Series, Makalu-Barun Conservation Project, Kathmandu 1990.

Numata, M.: Vegetation and Conservation in Eastern Nepal. Jour. College of Arts and Sciences, Chiba University 4,559~569 (1986)

Numata, M.: Ecological Studies in the Arun Valley, East Nepal and Mountaineering of Mr. Baruntse, 1981. Himalayan Comm. Chiba University, 1983.

Polunin, O.; Stainton, A.: Flowers of the Himalaya. Oxford Univ. Press, Delhi 1984.

Reinhard. J.: Khembalung: The Hidden Valley. Kailash VI, 5-36 (1978)

Schweinfurth, U.: Die Horizontale und VertikaIe Verbreitung der Vegetation im Himalaya. Ferd. Dtimmlers Verlag, Bonn 1957.

Shrestha, T.B.: Development Ecology of the Arun River Basin in Nepal. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu 1989.

Shrestha, T.B.: The Makalu-Barun Conservation Project in the Everest Ecosystem. Unpublished paper presented on Environment Media Seminar Toronto, Canada, March 1990, 1990 a.

Shrestha, T.B.: Scientific Research Management Plan. Makalu- Barun Conservation project, Kathmandu 1990 b.

Shrestha, T. B.; Shakya, P. R.; and Nepali, H. S.: Scientific Report on 1989 Field Survey: General and Phyto-Ecology. Report 8, Working Paper Publication Series, Makalu-Barun Conservation Project, Kathmandu 1990.

Stainton, J.D.A.: Forests of Nepal. John Murray and Company, London 1972.

Taylor-Ide, D.: The Barun Valley Report. Project Report. The King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation/Woodlands Mountain Institute, Kathmandu 1984.

Tibet Academy of Social Sciences (TASS): General Survey of Social Science, Qomolangma Nature Preserve. Report Summary, 1990.

Troll, C. (ed.): Geoecology of the High Mountain Regions of Eurasia. Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden 1972.

Wang Zuxiang; Li Dehao; Cai Guiquan: New Materials on Birds and Mammals from Qomolangma Area and an Approach to the Subspecies of Hemitragus jemlahicus. Acta Biologica Plateau Sinica 2:81-100 (1984)

Ward, K.: Plant Hunter's Paradise. Reprint. Minerva Press, 1937.

Wells, M.; Brandon, K.; Hannah, L.: People and Parks: An Analysis of Projects Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. Draft report. The World Bank, Washington DC 1990.

Zhang Jing-wei; Li Bosheng; Chen Wei-lie; Wang Jin-ting: Vegetation of Xizano (Tibet). Science Press, Beijing 1988.