Local Conservation Groups in Nepal –

Partnerships for conservation and

development

David Thomas (BirdLife Secretariat)

and Ishana Thapa (Bird Conservation Nepal)

December 2010

Booth for collecting fees from picnickers at

Phulchoki IBA

1

About this report

The Important Bird Area (IBA) Programme of BirdLife International aims to identify, monitor

and protect a global network of IBAs for the conservation of the world's birds and other

biodiversity. IBAs are key sites for conservation – small enough to be conserved in their

entirety and often already part of a protected-area network.

Working in partnership with communities and other stakeholders at IBAs towards shared

objectives of conservation and sustainable resource management is one of a range of

different approaches being adopted by BirdLife Partners to help conserve IBAs. Working

with people at IBAs helps to engage a mainly local constituency in IBA conservation. It builds

on what are often strong connections – be they economic, cultural, historical – between

people and the sites where they live, work and engage in recreation.

The way in which BirdLife Partners work with, coordinate and support individuals and groups

involved in the IBA Local Conservation Group (IBA LCG) approach varies across the BirdLife

network, reflecting the diverse contexts of the over 100 countries where BirdLife Partners

are working. However, shared features include: the attachment to a particular IBA, a

commitment to support the IBA’s conservation and sustainable use, a link to the national

BirdLife Partner, and being compromised mainly of volunteers. In Europe these local

volunteers are known as IBA-Caretakers, in Africa they are known as Site Support Groups,

and other terms are used to describe them regionally and nationally within BirdLife.

Several BirdLife Partners are demonstrating success in establishing and coordinating Local

Conservation Networks. This report is part of a project which aims to capture, document and

disseminate these experiences and the lessons learned from them. It is based on a visit to

Nepal by David Thomas in November 2010, and is based on discussions between DT and

Ishana Thapa (Senior Conservation Officer) and a visit together to LCGs at Phulchoki IBA.

2

Contents

1. Background: Important Bird Areas in Nepal 3

2. Local Conservation Groups in Nepal 4

Communications 6

Networking 7

Membership 8

Funding 8

Motivation and benefits 8

Challenges and successes 9

3. Case study: Phulchoki 9

4. Lessons learned 13

3

NP001 Annapurna Conservation Area NP010 Kanchenjungha Conservation Area NP019 Phulchowki Mountain forests

NP002 Barandabhar forests and wetlands NP011 Khaptad National Park NP020 Rampur valley

NP003 Bardia National Park NP012 Koshi Tappu WR and Koshi Barrage NP021 Rara National Park

NP004 Chitwan National Park NP013 Langtang National Park NP022 Sagarmatha National Park

NP005 Dang Deukhuri forests/w. Rapti wetlands NP014 Farmlands in Lumbini area NP023 Shey-Phoksundo National Park

NP006 Dharan forests NP015 Mai Valley forests NP024 Shivapuri National Park

NP007 Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve NP016 Makalu Barun National Park NP025 Sukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve

NP008 Ghodaghodi Lake NP017 Nawalparasi forests NP026 Tamur valley and Watershed

NP009 Jagdishpur Reservoir NP018 Parsa Wildlife Reserve NP027 Urlabari forest groves

1. Background: Important Bird Areas in Nepal

Bird Conservation Nepal (BCN) is the largest and oldest civil society organisation

dedicated to the interests of ornithologists, birdwatchers and conservationists in Nepal.

It has a varied membership, which includes students, teachers, professionals, bird

enthusiasts, conservationists, and the general public. Its objectives include to : promote

an interest in birds among the general public; encourage research on bird biology and

ecology; identify the major threats to birds and act to conserve birds and their habitats.

Habitats in Nepal range from alpine scrub and pastures in the mountain region to

tropical forests and wetlands in the lowlands. This diversity of habitats supports 862 bird

species, 31 of which are globally threatened (Baral and Inskipp 1995).

In 2005 BCN published Important Birds Areas in Nepal: key sites for conservation1. The

book was a joint effort by BCN and BirdLife towards protecting the country's critically

important biodiversity hotspots.

1 Hem Sagar Barall and Carol Inskipp (2005) Important Bird Areas in Nepal: key Sites for Conservation. Bird

Conservation Nepal and BirdLife International, Kathmandu and Cambridge.

4

The book identifies 27 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) that merit some form of protection.

15 of these IBAs are included within existing protected areas while the other 12 are still

unprotected. Since this inventory was published BCN have identified a further 5 sites

that qualify as potential IBAs (NP28 Bagmati Valley; NP29 Forests and Grasslands of

Dadeldhura and Baitadi Districts; NP30 Khandbari-Num Forests; NP31 Manaslu

Conservation Area and NP32 Reshunga Forest).

The list of threats facing Nepal’s IBAs sounds familiar: it includes forest clearance and

degradation, drainage and pollution of wetlands, the cultivation and over-grazing of

grasslands, hunting and inappropriate development. Yet IBA conservation in Nepal faces

many special challenges. The mountainous terrain makes many IBAs accessible only by

foot, mule or helicopter flight. As a consequence it can be costly and time consuming to

visit the IBA network on a regular basis. Poverty levels in Nepal are the second highest in

Asia (according to the UN’s Human Development Index for 2010 – Nepal comes second

only after Afghanistan) and for many poor people living in remote, rural areas IBAs and

the goods and services they provide form the main source of livelihood. Nepal has also

come through a turbulent period politically, and local government has for a long time

been weak and ineffective.

However, the failure of local government, especially during the 10 year ‘People’s

Revolution’ that ended in 2006, has also created a ‘space’ in which communities have

organised themselves to manage resources and deliver services. The culture of self help,

institution building and resource management at the local level has helped to create

organisations which have become local-level partners with BCN for IBA conservation.

2. Local Conservation Groups in Nepal

Initially BCN’s work with local communities at IBAs was focused on research and survey

objectives. Faced with the challenge of delivering projects with limited staff and a small

budget they had to decide how most effectively, efficiently and sustainably to deliver

results. Their decision was to invest in people at the local level (rather than hire staff at

BCN) – and so began working with local groups as a sustainable approach to delivering

conservation (and development) at IBAs.

In every case LCGs are formed around existing community-based institutions of one kind

or another. At Phulchoki for example the LCGs are the various Forest User Groups that

have the rights and responsibility to conserve, manage and use the forests and

resources of this IBA. Because the FUGs have been active at the site for many years they

form natural partners to work with BCN. The FUGs have worked to restore degraded

forest land in the lower parts of the IBA, planting trees and rehabilitating forest for the

products and services it provides to communities (see section 3).

A stimulus for the development of the LCG network in Nepal came through funding from

CEPF to support the development of a civil society network for conservation in Nepal.

5

Although partly inspired by the experience of the Indian Bird Conservation Network

there are important differences. Most significant is that the network in Nepal involves

local, community-based civil society organisations attached mainly to IBAs (compared to

the IBCN focus on individual birdwatchers, many with a university or professional

background).

As Ishana explains, working with local people through LCGs is extremely valuable –

members know the local context and their local knowledge is invaluable in addressing

local resource management and conservation. BCN encourages LCGs to come up with

their own ideas as much as possible, so that their initiatives are genuinely initiated and

led from the local level.

There are now Local Conservation groups at 17 of Nepal’s 27 IBAs, and at many of the

IBAs there are several Local Conservation Groups (table below). For example at the Mai

Valley Forests IBA there are seven LCGs.

IBA Local Conservation Group(s)

name

Type of organisation (e.g.

FUG, Youth Group, local NGO)

Member of the

NBCN?

Shree Janajagriti Youth Club Youth Club Yes

Golden Valley Youth Club Youth Club Yes

Shree Bhagyashali Youth Club Youth Club Yes

Shree Himali Pragati Samaj local NGO Yes

Shree Deep Jyoti Youth Club Youth Club Yes

Human Right Consciousness and

Development Centre

local NGO Yes

Mai Valley Forests

Shree High Altitude Herbal

Production and Conservation

Institute

local NGO Yes

Godawari Kunda CFUG FUG

Patale Muldol CFUG FUG

Jai Bhadre CFUG FUG

Naudhara CFUG FUG

Triveni CFUG FUG

Phulchowki

Mountain Forests

Diyale Dada CFUG

Kalika CFUG FUG Yes

Narti Community Forest

Conservation Committee

local NGO

Dang Deukhuri

forests/west Rapti

wetlands

Environmental Sustainable

Development and Research

Centre

local NGO yes

Jatayu Restaurant Management

Committee

CBO yes

Bishwo Jyoti Bikash Pratisthan CBO

Nawalparasi

Forests

Sunwal Community

Development Centre

CBO

The Earth CBO Ghodaghodi Lake

Samaiji CFUG FUG

Jagdishpur Jagdishpur Lake Conservation local NGO

6

Reservoir and Tourism Promotion Centre

Barandabhar

Forests and

Wetlands

Bird Education Society local NGO

Chitwan National

Park

Bird Education Society local NGO

Kanchenjungha

Conservation Area

Himali Conservation Forum local NGO Yes

Rampur Valley Khaireni CFUG FUG

Sukla Phanta

Wildlife Reserve

Nature Guide Association of

Suklaphanta

local NGO

Urlabari Forest

Groves

Madan Memorial School local School

Farmlands of

Lumbini area

Nature Guide Association of

Rupandehi

CBO

Koshi Tappu

Wildlife Reserve

Kamala Wetland Fisheries Group CBO

Annapurna

Conservation Area

Ghachowk Jatayu Management

Committee

CBO

Janata CFUG FUG

Betana CFUG FUG

Dharan Forests

Raja Rani CFUG FUG

Bardia National

Park

Bardia Nature Conservation Club CBO

Communications

The main means of communication across the NBCN has been their newsletter, of which

there have been 5 issues. However, limited funding (the end of the CEPF funded project)

has meant that it hasn’t been possible to continue with the production and distribution

of this publication. Nevertheless, some networking activities that were begun with CEPF

support have been continued. Although the CEPF project was focused on LCGs at just

two IBAs (Kanchenjunga Conservation Area and Mai Valley) the funding provided an

opportunity for a much wider development. Training in monitoring has been provided,

and by holding the training at IBAs this allowed exchange visits and valuable

connections to be made between different LCGs.

The main purpose of the network is shared learning. For example, the LCG at Ilam IBA

(Shree High Altitude Herbal Production and Conservation Institute) has expertise in the

cultivation of medicinal plants which is relevant to communities at other IBAs such as

Kanchenjunga Conservation Area; and the LCG at Jagdishpur IBA has experience in the

design, production and marketing of handicrafts suitable for Nepal’s tourist market

which is highly relevant to communities at other wetland sites, such as Koshi Tappu

Wildlife Reserve IBA, where there are similar raw materials for communities to work

with.

7

As in other developing countries communications between remote rural communities is

a challenge. Many don’t have easy access to computers, the internet or email. However,

mobile phones provide an extremely effective way of staying in touch and this is the

main way in which people at individual LCGs communicate. In some cases LCGs have

been able to move a stage further. The Deep Jyoti Youth Club – an LCG in the Mai Valley

that was supported by BCN – is one such example. Following the capacity-building

provided by BCN they were able to apply – successfully – for a grant from CEPF. As a

result they now have computers and other equipment allowing them to communicate

more effectively – as well as achieve much more (and apply for more funds through the

capacity such equipment brings).

The networking structure is informal. In some cases the LCGs are networking directly

amongst themselves. Those LCGs working on vulture conservation are the most obvious

example of this. There are 10 such LCGs, all of which have visited and learnt from the

first vulture restaurant at Pithouli, Nawalparasi. This direct personal contact, and the

exchange of phone numbers and contact details, has allowed an ongoing exchange of

experience and information between the LCGs involved in this particular activity. Similar

networking may take place between LCGs that have been introduced to one another

through exchange visits or participating in workshops and training together. Proximity

provides another factor in effective LCG to LCG networking. However for others BCN will

act as a ‘hub’ connecting LCGs.

Networking

At present the NBCN comprises a very loose network with no strict criteria.

Organisations must be community-based, local and not-for-profit organisations – the

goal and purpose of the network as a whole are not defined but reflect those of BCN as

a whole. MoUs aren’t signed between the LCGs and BCN, but (at least to begin with)

BNC charges a small membership fee to join. For those LCGs with which it has worked as

part of a project this fee has been paid from project funds, but as projects have ended

payments have also ceased – but BCN have been keen to maintain the relationship

because of the mutual benefits that it provides. As a result only about half of the total

30 LCGs that are part of the NBCN have paid the current year’s fee.

Because it works with existing organisations BCN has limited influence on the structure,

membership or governance of organisations. However, it does aim to have influence, in

line with its own values and principles, wherever it can. A first step before taking on any

organisation as an LCG partner of BCN is to carry out an organisational assessment to

find out more about its structure, membership, capacity etc. In some cases – for

example where the LCG is an FUG – members are elected from the wider community. At

others this may not be the case, but based on the results of the organisational

assessment BCN will usually suggest changes that should be made – for example the

election of officers and the inclusion of more women or people from lower castes. In

some cases BCN has initiated projects which have involved the creation of a separate

8

working group within the organisation/LCG for project implementation. In such cases

they have more influence and can apply criteria to that group – such as minimum levels

of participation by women for example.

Membership

Through experience BCN have learnt that Youth Clubs form effective partners for IBA

conservation. Members are more energetic and active than CFUGs and community-

based organisations comprised more of older members of the community. “Previously

they were just playing football” explains Ishana, “but then they got interested in the

work of BCN”. They are motivated by a number of things, including the opportunity to

diversify their knowledge, experience and capacity in the conservation field, the

opportunities the work provides for continuing work with other conservation NGOs (for

example members of Deep Jyoti Youth Club LCG are now working with the Red Panda

Network) and the income and career opportunities that working with BCN provides. Of

course many are also motivated by an interest in biodiversity and an interest in

conserving the nature and resources around them!

Although youthful and energetic, Youth Club members are often less influential than

older people from the community. However, it has been BCN’s experience that the

benefits outweigh this disadvantage – working with senior officials of Village

Development Committees, for example, has proven to give painfully slow progress. But

in order to ensure that older members of the community are involved, engaged,

informed and supportive they are often enrolled as ‘advisors’ to the Youth Group.

Funding

Some LCGs have their own funds – Forest User Groups in particular often have

mechanisms for fundraising based on licences for use of forest products for example,

and there are several funding schemes nationally focused on FUGs (for example the

DFID Forest Livelihoods Programme). However, to hold the network together and allow

it to function effectively as a network BCN see increased funding, both for individual

LCGs and for BCN’s coordination role, as critical. Funding to BCN would help them to

carry out their role – of coordination, training (especially on bird identification and

monitoring), and provision of essential equipment, such as binoculars and field guides.

Motivation and benefits

LCGs see a number of benefits from being part of NBCN and the relationship with BCN.

These include:

o The regular receipt of information from BCN

o Opportunities to engage with BCN in activities at the site (LCG) level and nationally

o Greater status and profile from working with a national organisation.

9

o Enhanced fundraising prospects – this is a significant benefit. For example, the

relationship with BCN acts as a ‘reference’ meaning that donors are more likely to

work with the LCG. Funding that some LCGs have received through the CEPF as well

as the DFID Livelihoods and Forestry Programme is an example of this.

o More respect and different treatment from government officers, e.g. the District

Forest Officer (again, a consequence of the association with a national organisation)

o Increased prospects of becoming involved in new projects coming to the area. This is

probably related to evidence of experience of project work, the profile and

‘reference’ that comes from having worked with a national organisation, and the

desire of new organisations entering an area to maintain continuity. This has

happened at Koshi Tappu IBA, where the LCG with which BCN was working is now a

local partner of a UNDP wetlands project.

Opportunities for greater influence in sub-national and national policy are not

considered to be an important reason or expected benefit for organisations joining the

NBCN.

Challenges and successes

One of the key challenges that BCN have faced in working with LCGs has been the very

limited knowledge of birds. Whilst many people will have a good knowledge of

plants/trees – reflecting their many uses for medicine, foods, timber, etc., far fewer will

know about birds or see their relevance to them and their livelihoods. BCN has

therefore had to work hard to create an interest and motivate LCG members to work for

bird conservation. The answer has been to link bird issues to broader natural resource

management issues. At their project at the Mai Valley IBA for example, they have linked

bird monitoring to forest patrolling and broader issues of forest quality – so that the

monitoring becomes a part of existing activities and relates to livelihoods benefits from

the forest.

BCN consider the success with vulture projects to be one of the most significant

achievements of the LCG network to date. From a single LCG to begin with the

development of vulture restaurants and measures for vulture conservation have now

been replicated in 6 places, with 6 LCGs, as the groups learn from one another and share

their experiences. BCN puts this success down to the way in which conservation work

has been intertwined with Income Generating Activities for the LCGs.

3. Case study: Phulchoki

Most of Nepal’s forests (that are not official protected areas) are managed as

community forests. Community ‘Forest User Groups’ (FUGs) manage allocated areas of

forest in accordance with management plans approved by the District Forest Office.

There are over 14,000 FUGs in Nepal, and most are coordinated and represented by an

umbrella organisation, FECOFUN (Federation of Community Forestry Users, Nepal).

10

Several IBAs in Nepal are managed in this way, and the FUGs are therefore natural local

partners to work with BCN for conservation and development of these sites.

Phulchoki Mountain, the highest peak on

the rim of the Kathmandu Valley, lies 16

km southeast of Kathmandu. With its high

rainfall the mountain supports a luxuriant

growth of subtropical broadleaved forests

on the lower slopes, with mixed oak and

rhododendron and patches of bamboo

higher up. 288 bird species have been

recorded on Phulchoki and the site is

particularly important for the restricted-

range species Spiny Babbler and Hoary-

throated Barwing and for populations of

characteristic species of the Sino-Himalayan Subtropical Forest biome.

Previous loss of tree cover resulted in a considerable reduction of water in streams

flowing from Phulchoki. At the mountain’s base there lies the Mahedeva temple and

two springs, revered by Hindus, where a major festival 'Singh Asta Mela' is held every 12

years. Loss of tree cover during the eighties caused disruption in the stream flow and

the previously clear stream waters became laden with muddy silt. However, in 1995 the

government of Nepal gave a large area of these forests into the safekeeping of the

nearby villages of the Godavari area (and the core of the Phulchoki forest, an area of

500 sq km (5000 ha) at higher altitude, has since been designated a Conservation

Forest). Each village ward has been designated a certain tract of forest to care for and

protect. These community forests have become successful and the forest has shown

significant regrowth. Conservation by communities has done much to reverse the

degradation of services such as water supply.

Phulchoki lies only 40 minutes from the

centre of Kathmandu, and as such it is a

popular location for Nepalis escaping the city

at weekends. The presence of the national

Botanic garden and the Mahedeva temple are

additional attractions. (All from BirdLife

International (2010) Important Bird Areas

factsheet: Phulchowki Mountain forests.

Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on

10/12/2010).

11

BCN has been working with 6 of the FUGs at Phulchoki, which vary in size 57 to 338

members, and manage areas of forest ranging from 34.75 to 283 ha. Their structure and

governance is similar in each case, following a nationally-approved model – members

are from the local community and pay an annual membership fee of about 100 Rupees

(about £10). Members elect an 11 member Committee, which is supposed to include at

least 6 women. In practise most of the FUGs at Phulchoki fail to do this as few women

come forward for election, being unable to find the time because of their domestic

commitments at home. Each FUG will agree a 5 year management plan with the District

Forest Office, which will stipulate permitted levels of harvest and other management

arrangements. The FUG also takes on the responsibility of patrolling the forest – using

funds from the membership fees and other revenue generating activities members are

paid to patrol the forest on a regular

basis, according to an agreed timetable.

The forest is used by local people for a

range of forest products, most

important of which are fuelwood, fodder

(for livestock) and leaf mulch (used as a

bedding for livestock, and as a

fertilizer/soil improver) – see table

below. Most members of the FUGs are

gathering these products on a regular

basis, mainly for their own use rather

than for barter or sale. Other products harvested include medicinal herbs, flowers,

timber (for construction) and other materials for domestic use (e.g. construction of

brooms).

Use Plants

Medicine Nepal Pepper,

Fruit/Vegetable Fern, yam, mushroom, Nepalese hog plum, Bay berry

Fuel Wood Schima, Castanopsis, Oak

Fodder Quercus glauca

Leaf mulch

Decoration Orchid, Rhododendron

At a larger scale, the forest is an important watershed. Rivers and streams originating

from Phulchoki supply water to the local town of Godawari and beyond , and the water

is used for irrigating farmland adjacent to the forest. In Kathmandu water shortages are

a common problem in the summer months, so the FUGs also sell water, which is

collected by tanker and delivered to hotels and other institutional users in the capital.

Another significant source of revenue for one FUG (Godavari Kunda) comes at the time

of the annual Dashain festival which is also celebrated at the Mahedeva temple and the

Naudhara temple (where the sacrifices take place) that lie on the edge of the forest. The

12

festival is celebrated throughout the country by the sacrifice of goats, hundreds of

which are corralled in fields around the temple. The Government contract the FUG to

provide fodder for the goats – buying about 75 truck loads each year.

The forest is only 16 km from

Kathmandu, and many people are

attracted there at weekends, to

picnic in ‘parklands’ on the forests

boundary. Visiting in winter, when

the forests and hills are

transformed by a blanket of snow,

is also a popular activity. Much of

BCN’s support to the FUGs has been

focused on enhancing the revenue

that the FUGs capture from these

visitors. Several years ago, with

support from the Whitley Fund,

they helped 5 FUGs (Godavari Kunda CFUG, Patale Muldol CFUG, Jai Bhadre CFUG,

Naudhara CFUG and Diyale Dada CFUG) to improve facilities and put in place a more

organised system for charging. Each LCG identified their own priorities, which included

improving the water supply, constructing toilets, building tables, chairs and shelters,

fencing and erecting signboards. Their efforts have made a significant difference to the

income that the FUGs receive. At Godavari Kunda for example, the community were

receiving about Rs5000 from picnickers. Since the improvements to the picnic area they

have ‘auctioned’ the lease to the interested members of user group on their picnic site

each year and now receive about 65,000 Rs. These funds contribute to forest patrolling

and FUG management costs, but they are also used for projects in the village – including

improvements to the roads and bursaries for school children from some of the poorest

households.

There has also been an attempt to improve

incomes from bird-guiding in the forest, and

BCN has provided training to some FUG

members. However outcomes have been

disappointing – there has been little interest

from national visitors, and specialist tours have

tended to bypass the

community and FUGs,

instead going directly into

the forest (on a public road)

using tour company guides.

13

Although the Whitley Funded project has now ended, BCN has maintained close contact

with the FUGs that it worked with at that time and regular trips to the forest for birding

allow contact to be maintained.

4. Lessons learned

• It is better to work with Youth Groups – they are more energetic and motivated to

engage.

• It is important to keep elders involved because of their influence – including them as

‘advisors’ to the (youth-based) LCGs has been an effective way of doing this.

• It is important to include livelihood aspects of biodiversity conservation as this helps

to ensure the long-term engagement of local communities

• Institutional development and capacity building at the local level are very important

for sustainable biodiversity conservation.

• Network and communication among the LCGs is essential for knowledge

enhancement, sharing and spreading innovations, and generating new ideas for

supporting conservation at the local level.