| main page |

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:50:34 +0200
Author: "Giuliano Tallone" <direttore.arp@parchilazio.it>
Subject:  [PPMT]S3: Mountains and parks

Thank you to Khadga Basnet for starting the discussion on ManagementSystems: Parks, Protected areas and Community- based development with a very comprehensive and complete  introduction.

I would like to made some comment on the points underlined in the Discussion Paper, mountain parks being my main field of experience. I managed directly PAs on Alps and Appennines, and I shortly studied (in 1992) Kunjerab NP in Pakistan.

About the subject, I have some questions and (possibly) some answers.

Are PAs one of the most effective approaches to biodiversity conservation? Yes.
Are PAs dependent in their biodiversity conservation effectiveness from broader views as eco-regional approach, and from good knowledge and research? Yes.
Is PA's effectiveness dependent from good management policies, programs, strategies and schedule and implementation? Certainly, yes.
Is involvement of local people important for the effectiveness of PAs management? Yes, yes, yes.

The problem is how to balance in the real world and in the personal approaches to PAs management all these questions, trying to find the right solution, different in every local context, to our general constraints.

Example 1. Val Grande National Park, Italy (Alps). A wilderness area, used by man until 1950; after that complete abandonment, and now is knew as the "most wild area  on the Alp". The social and economic context of the 13 municipalities involved with the park is quite poor (in European standards) and local economy is based on industry in far plain areas. In despite of abandonment local people, living in the surrounding areas, feel that the park is ownership and heritage of the local community, and asked for a national protection thinking that the NP can put a lot of money for touristic infrastructure in the protected area. The National Park (established in 1991) was developed under constant co-operation with local authorities and now is well accepted by local people.

The main problems for the park authority development (I was the first director from 1995 to 2000) were lack of human resources, bureaucracy, lack of knowledge of PAs values and ideas in the local context, misunderstanding of park goals (tourism mega-development, immediate richness, generic environmental protection) in the park administrators, too. Only a long work of public awareness and development of park's Master Plan with clear analysis and park goals and objectives definition were able to built a good social background.

Example 2. Kunjerab National Park, Pakistan (Karakirum). I was involved in 1992 in a study visit in Hunza Gojal, Kunjerab National Park, and especially in Shimsal Valley, to evaluate a possible co-operation initiative for developing a research and management program to develop a proposal to enlarge the park, sponsored by Ev-K2-CNR Committee (the same that manage the Pyramid Laboratory at Mount Everest Base Camp). After that the project moved to different areas for the reasons I will shortly explain. The Kunjerab NP was, at that time, mainly an international and national effort, with few (if any) involvement of the local community of Shimshal Village. Local people, that I interviewed about that, was not aware of the reasons and goals of the KNP, and felt that the park was not a resource for them, but a major problem in a context with serious problems for surviving (Shimshal Village is at 3.500 m upper the sea level, and at that time wasn't linked to main roads). My opinion was that it is hard to develop a NP without an involvement of residents. Some years later I found a very interesting approach for the same area developed by local people with assistance of David Butz, Department of Geography, Brock University, called Shimshal Nature Trust. You can find information about that at: http://www.brocku.ca/geography/people/dbutz/shimshal.html or at John Mock and Kimberly O'neil site http://www.monitor.net/~jmko/karakoram/shimshal.htm . They are developing in Shimshal the concept of environmental stewardship. The approach is opposite: to help local people to use their own local knowledge for nature conservation. I think this is necessary in XXI century, the only possible approach.

About the stewardship concept I suggest you to visit the CSI (Conservation Study Institute) of American NPS http://www.nps.gov/mabi/csi/, directed by Nora Mitchell; the NPS in the last years is moving in the direction of an increased attention to parks-people relationships.

The very important point, I think, is to have a good management for parks based on these views and on a sound scientific knowledge of the area, that can lead to the establishment of goals that both can benefit biodiversity and can be shared with local people.

Giuliano Tallone
Director, Regional Park Agency
Rome, Italy
--

Moderator's comment

Giuliano Tallone's examples from Italy and Pakistan suggest that management issues are context-specific and so must be the strategies, programs etc. Are there any other examples from other regions or countries? -Khadga Basnet

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:45:18 -0500
Author: "Empar Alos Alabajos" <empar@lycos.com>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: Destructive competition among Lodges in Parks

Dear Mr. Basnet,

Thank you for a very lucid summary of the issues surrounding management of protected areas. I agree that community issues and even social welfare and humanitarian problems seem to have eclipsed purely ecological issues, but I'm guessing that this focus is inevitable when the protected areas are inhabited ... or even adjacent to inhabited areas ... if only because the residents are likely to have a tremendous impact on the natural environment.

Therefore I will persist in this bias and pose a question that has concerned me for some time: competition among tourism service providers.

The major tourism destinations in Nepal, whether in the mountains, the Terai (plains of Nepal), or Thamel, have attracted a phenomenal investment in basic services such as food and accommodations and even packaged tours. The result, particularly during periods of market collapse (such as the past two years), is inevitably economic hardship. Furthermore, lodge-building places a significant stress on local resources, and in many protected areas special exemptions are made from general restrictions on timber cutting. While it may be best to allow a free market to sort things out in the city, I wonder whether something cannot be done to protect lodge owners in park areas.

In the Annapurna Conservation Area Project, an effort was apparently made to prevent cutthroat competition: each community has a committee that fixes prices for food items and rooms. Unfortunately, these committees seem to be dominated by the wealthier proprietors, who have been content to perpetuate a system that is tilted against the older establishments. As each new lodge is built to fancier and fancier specifications, the latest arrivals attract most of the customers, and the less upscale accommodations are not allowed to compete by offering cheaper prices. In fact, some places do offer discounts surreptiously, but that places them at risk. Inevitably, many lodges must fail, and families default on loans, losing not only their lodges but also their agricultural land and homes.

Is there no way to put a cap on lodge building and to limit destructive competition?

Empar Alos , Director, Bridges-PRTD

-------------------

Moderator's comments

One of the objectives of protected areas is to promote tourism without affecting the prime objective of protecting biological diversity in general. In this context. the question raised by Empar about `competition among tourism service providers' is important. The example of ACAP is a relevant in this discussion. What everybody knows about ACAP is `it is a good model of community-based conservation'. It seems that nothing went wrong in ACAP in its long history because critical reviews are very rare if any. Very often, good lessons are learned from `what went wrong?' Continuing cutthroat competition (e.g., in local lodges) and survival of the `wealthiest and most powerful' at the expense of community resources is a real problem. Tourism Management Plan developed through participatory process and its proper implementation looks only option. However, this kind of problem must be common in many places and I wonder what solutions are available! I would like to request our participants to bring those solutions for discussions.

Thank you.

Khadga Basnet

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:40:26 -0500
Author: "Nakul Chettri" <chettrin@rediffmail.com>
Subject:  [PPMT]S3: Re: Lead Paper for e-discussion

Dear friends,

I congratulate Dr Basnet on bringing this comprehensive Discussion paper to all of us. It is indeed a great effort  to bring these complex Management issues in a few-page note.  I do appreciate the importance of and challenges for biodiversity conservation, either in local or in landscape level, that has been cited in the paper. All these issues, especially the lack of skilled human resources, limited funds, top-bottom approach etc are the real constraints towards effective conservation initiatives. But there are much more beyond to be considered to make conservation actions effective.

The first emphasis I would like to put is on formation of Protected areas. People should know and should be involved during feasibility assessment, notification process and on delineation of protected area. Generally, the protected areas are formed without the consensus of the local people living there and depended on them. And later they will be told that they will not be allowed to use the resources from the forest. Such situations are leading to serious park-people conflicts.

A good majority of people are unaware of the Forest Acts or any such legal notifications. While working in Sikkim and Darjeeling, I visited and stayed in many of the remotest areas. Interaction with people revealed that they don't know anything about the Forest Acts or any notification. Therefore, effort should be made to disseminate such notifications and legal issues up to the community level either by pamphlet in local language or by some other means such as street plays, campaign drives etc. In many places there are strong inter departmental conflicts and misunderstandings which have slowed down the development and conservation initiatives. For instance while I was working in one of the village of Senchel Wildlife

Sanctuary, Darjeeling, India, it was noticed the Darjeeling Gorkha Autonomous Hill Council was willing to help in renovation with tar on a existing motorable road to a village called Rampuria. This road construction would have helped the products to nearest market easily. But, the Department of Forest has not given the NOC since last couple of year in spite of people's constant request and follow-up. People are willing to plant trees and be self-sufficient in fuel wood and timber, but they fear on raising the plants into big trees as after it becomes trees they need to seek for legal permissions, which is not as easy as said, for cutting their own trees. Therefore, something has to be done to ease the process to inspire plantations in community lands.

Conservation initiatives in the trans-boundary areas should be balance both in policy formulation and conservation actions. The common conservation areas among the two countries or states should comprehend for win win policy by cooperative and joint actions. Conservation in down-up approach is only effective when there is sense of belonging among the community. People living in the remote areas are starving for their sustenance. They can't see beyond their day's bread. So, there is a great challenge to feed these hunger and bring conservation thoughts among them.

It is true that effective conservation could be achieved only through community participation but emphasis should also be given to bring all other development and conservation GOs, NGOs and CBOs in one platform and formulate strategies and actions plants together right from the planning phase. Such practices strengthen the cooperation and confidence among the stakeholders.

Dedicated and strong community mobilisers are vitally important to bring the activities in action. The actions should be coordinated by the mobilisers and bring all the stakeholders in one platform. Inter Departmental coordination, involvement of Non Governmental Organization, Community based Organizations and in community level can be controlled.

Thank you,

Nakul Chettri
----------

Moderator's Comment

Nakul Chettri has brought up some good examples and suggestions to emphasize particularly on community involvement, development and communication among stakeholders. Some of his suggestions include:

These are the basis of community-based conservation, which probably everybody agrees on. The question is how to put them into practice? Is there anybody who likes to bring practical issues associated with what Nakul Chettri has raised? -Khadga Basnet

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:04:13 -0700
Author: jshores@juno.com
Subject: [PPMT]S3: Balance and Development

Khadga Basnet" <kbasnet@ntc.net.np> began this session with an eloquent summary of management systems from a "parks and people" perspective. I would like to add several comments for further discussion.

Origin of protected areas

I believe we should recognize a much earlier origin of the management of biodiversity, probably by several centuries. In many parts of the world with hierarchical political systems, the power elite established hunting reserves. Local people were prohibited from entering these areas, prohibited from hunting particular species, or prohibited from other uses. The hunting preserves in the United Kingdom and in southern Asia are probably the best examples. In other areas of the world, anthropologists have suggested that inter-group conflict, either real or ritual, acted to establish virtual exclusion areas (often broad corridors along the frontiers between territories) that served as protected areas or biodiversity refuges. Under this scenario, the evolution of the national park concept represents a giant step forward in expanding equity, opportunity, and participation. We have come a long way, but there is still much to do and not much time. Some of the policy questions are daunting but exciting: How do we balance the desires of the current human population (local, regional, national) with the desires of those who will be on the Earth perhaps a hundred or a thousand years from now? Who speaks for the trees? Who is a "local" and who represents them? What do we mean by "community"? What happens when the community grows? What happens when technology changes (gunpowder, chainsaws, 4-wheel drive, GoreTex fabric, ...)?

Giuliano Tallone <direttore.arp@parchilazio.it> summarizes this in a statement "The problem is how to balance in the real world and in the personal approaches to PAs management all these questions, trying to find the right solution, different in every local context."

Landscape and Eco-regions

Prior to the III World Parks Congress in 1982, there was much discussion of what percentage of a national territory could or should be included in a protected area system. Many political and business interests wanted the target percentage to be as small as possible. A smaller number would be easier to achieve and would leave more lands open to private exploitation. But the regional planners and ecologists wanted a target percentage as large as possible. They recognized that the more land that was managed sustainably, the greater would be the chances of biodiversity conservation. In the end, the target for the 1982 Congress was 10%. I have always described this "ten percent" target as the largest number we could set at that time without scaring the politicians.

Competition

Empar Alos Alabajos <empar@lycos.com> raises the issue of competition between tourism facilities. Tourism enterprises will always face a higher risk because the tourist spending is purely discretionary. One of the ways the free market compensates the higher risks is to allow for higher profits. In a risky situation, an investor will insist on a higher return.

One way to manage the risk from competition is create exclusive contracts. In effect this creates a monopoly or other barriers. But once again we have the danger that the political and economic elites will gain control of the contracts. Ensuring that real local participation is possible will be a continuing challenge.

Community Development

In many mountainous regions of the world, there has been significant out-migration of population to regional centers and capitals over the past several decades. Promoting economic development creates an attraction. Migrants are drawn to the development poles in search of better jobs. My question is: Where do we locate the development? If too far from the protected area, the communities nearest to the park will not share in the benefits. If too close to the park, then the influx of new job-seekers will make the population grow even faster in the buffer zone of the park. What do you suggest?

John Shores
international consultant / parks, biodiversity, and community-based tourism
San Jose / California / USA

 ----------------------------

Moderator's comment/s

John Shores' excellent presentation will enlighten many of us leading to more discussion on session 3 - on Origin of protected areas, landscape and eco-regions, competition among tourism service providers in the protected areas, and community development which are the focus of present discussion.

He has raised some relevant and valid questions which I would like to copy here for further discussion. If anybody would like to take off with these questions, please do so.

How do we balance the desires of the current human population (local, regional, national) with the desires of those who will be on the Earth perhaps a hundred or a thousand years from now? Who speaks for the trees? Who is a "local" and who represents them? What do we mean by "community"? What happens when the community grows? What happens when technology changes (gunpowder, chain saws, 4-wheel drive, GoreTex fabric, etc)? -Khadga Basnet

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 17:54:23 +0545
Author: Suman Rai <srai@icimod.org.np>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: Re: Lead Paper for e-discussion

Following Dr. Basnet's excellent lead paper as well as Dr. Nakul's crisp outlining of the basics I would like to bring to notice a couple of points here.

Participation as we suggest is highly dependent on how one practices it. It can range from sharing of information to devolving control over development process and content. More often than not parks are external ideas. But this not to say parks don't have merits as a development option. There could be a genuine need for a park and each case differs from the other and by now we know not to generalize. But usually participation in practice in most cases has unfortunately become an external agenda. We often make communities participate in our ideas and projects. The challenge for us is to truly in practice be able to reverse this or work towards a mutuality where dialogue results in respect for each other's ideas and aspirations. But when external ideas are supplanted we also introduce new rules. More than often, as Dr. Nakul points out, these rules are not understood locally. This is true. Recent literature on Community Forestry in Nepal points out that community forestry rules are understood by less than half of the forest user group members. But equally, development policies and policy-makers and practitioners also have largely failed to understand community rules. And we very seldom talk of this. In most cases, institutions - rules and norms - for resource management exist in local communities. Moreover such institutions have sustained many years, are practiced, understood, and institutionalized. Their non-codification does not mean they are informal - for insiders these rules and norms are very much formal. Supplanting of external rules often marginalizes poorer and socially disadvantaged sub groups within resource users. This is because the clout to interpret new rules is more than often appropriated by local elites. In the process certain sub groups face inequitable outcomes. If there is a merit for a park or protected area what is required is a slow process for introducing it, understanding by project personnel of the existing rules of resources management, negotiation with communities (not failing to include marginalized groups as they depend most on natural resources) on finding effective operational rules which can be sustained and institutionalized in the longer run, and above all agreement on mutual rights and obligations (communities and state) over the new arrangement.

Suman

-----

Moderator's comment/s

Thank you for your excellent points, Dr. Suman Rai. If the external ideas override the internal ideas (including local skill, practices, plan and programs, etc), then the top-down approach dominates. There is no community-based conservation!! Shingo nawa and Osho nawa (century-long practices of local community) of Sagarmatha Nationl Park are good examples.

By mid-eighties, they were almost non-functional but because of their economical and cultural long-rooted existence and new enlightenment among planners they have been reviving. However, `All old is not Gold'. Practices and evaluation/success of any conservation effort are relative because they are context (e.g., space and time) specific. They depend on `what, where, why, when and whom' and not just on the rhetoric of the past.

I totally agree with Drs. Chettri and Rai that our challenge in biodiversity conervation is how to educate or aware local community (e.g., community forest user groups) about their rights, responsibilities, and initiatives in their part. - Khadga Basnet

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:32:13 -0500
Author: NS Jodha <njodha@icimod.org.np>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: Re: Destructive competition among Lodges in Parks

Dear friends,

I have a few comments on processes or dynamics of destructive competition affecting tourism facilitators.

1. Firstly this is a form of phenomenon called, "NON-PRICE COMPETITION" in economics, where you superficially differentiate your product, add some non-essentials (while fundamentally providing the same final service/goods) and justify overcharging. This sort of throat cutting can be eliminated only through mutual agreement between the involved parties as done in the case of Annapurana Park.

2. Another option is some officially enforced arrangements, as I saw in Leh town of Ladhak in India, where Hotel Buildings had to meet some conditions of size and sophistication. No outsider agency (eg. Hotel Chains responsible for out-competing the low-resource locals), was allowed to own tourism facilities. This was the situation during 2000; I am not aware of the situation today.

3. In today's market-driven world those who do not opt for competition (cut-throat or otherwise) are bound to suffer. I remember the situation in East Africa, where I worked during early 1980s. Some of the best wild life parks of East Africa ( eg. Gorngoro Crater, Serangeti and Mukumi Parks and the Snow on Equator i.e Mt.Kilimanjaro) are located in Tanzania with common border with Kenya. These attractions were flooded by tourists but with little income for Tanzania.

REASON:

The President of Tanzania Mr. Nayrere (?) father of UJAMA (African Socialism) was of the view that if tourists want to see our wild life parks, they should have spirit of adventure and should be able pass through natural hardships (as we people do). Hence there is no need for extra facilities and luxury hotels for them. So much so that he permitted only dirt-road from airport to city of Dar -E- Salam (the national capital).

RESULT:

All rich tourists visited Tanzanian parks but stayed in Nairobi (Kenya) with all facilities and best hotels- with a few hours driving distance from Tanzanian parks. While Tanzania got meager entry tax revenue, Kenya got the lion's share of tourists expenditure. To meet the situation socialist (?) Tanzania closed the road links between the two countries. Tourists had to come by air from Kenya to Tanzania via Ethiopia. However, much later after realisation of the logic of economics/market Tanzania decided to improve its infrastructure and facilities for the tourists. Another option of tourism - revenue sharing arrangement could not be thought of as one country was socialist and the other had focused on primacy to market.

LESSON:

One cannot wish away market or competition simply by non-participation. The alternative is negotiation and mutual adjustments. This applies to the lodge owners in Nepal as well.

Thanks.

N.S. Jodha,
Policy Analyst, ICIMOD
----------------------

Moderator's Comments

Thank you Dr. Jodha, for providing an explanation of "NON-PRICE COMPETITION "and excellent examples why it is needed how it can be eliminated - Local agreement and mutual understanding and regulatory enforcement, and Mutual cooperation and adjustment between two countries in larger scale scenario.

Dr. Jodha has also brought up an emerging issue of trans-boundary Eco-tourism or wildlife tourism with an excellent example from Tanzania and Kenya. Although, the case of Gorngoro Crater, Serengeti etc. have changed since 1980s, similar issue has prevailed for years in many other trans-boundary and border parks and reserves, but only recently conservationists are realizing it. For example large-scale conservation approaches (e.g., trans-boundary biodiversity conservation) are partly in response to such issues.

However, the success of these approaches depends on how the concerned countries cooperate with each other. Nepal is a good example of trans-boundary conservation or trans-boundary eco-tourism issue because most of the protected areas of Nepal are along the borders with India and China.

There are certainly criteria/standard for constructing any building including offices (e.g., size, story) inside the protected areas (e.g., national parks and reserves) but I am not quite sure about ACAP. Would anybody care to enlighten us?

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:33:45 -0500
Author: "Bridges-PRTD" <bridges-prtd@lycos.com>
Subject:  [PPMT]S3: Re: The truth won't out

I am pleasantly surprised that Dr. Basnet has (implicitly) raised the issue of self-censorship with regard to the amazingly positive reviews of ACAP. It is not surprising, in a country where research and development activities are so dependent on bureaucratic consent, that those with an interest in continuing to function in Nepal will mind their manners.

The same is true of probably a lot of other places as well. There are other pressures, of course - the desire to protect one's own job and the survival of the program by pretending that things are working out according to plan; and simple "political correctness."

Until the authorities signal that they are actually interested in substantive progress regardless of whose toes get crunched in the process, all of us will be involved in a game of blindman's bluff.

Seth Sicroff
--------------

Moderator's comments

Dr. Sicroff made my points clearer. It is essential that the success of community-based conservation be evaluated from the field and local expressions, not from `slick' reports and speeches of powerful organizations which provide very often lip services. Community-based conservation effort must entail a strong relationship between grassroots communities and other players (e.g., donor agencies) with direct communications. Any other comments and suggestions for discussion? - Khadga Basnet

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 15:51:05 +0530
Author: "bskarky" <bskarky@kmtnc.org.np>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: Re: The truth won't out

In response to Seth Sicroff's posting:

Whether one wants to do a write up or conduct a research in ACAP, KCAP or MCAP, one can freely pursue their subject interest. In Nepal, the professionalism level in the environment and conservation sector is reflected by a high level of commitment

open to constructive criticism and appraisals. Publications on tourist destinations (conservation and protected areas) in Nepal are authored more by freelance journalists, trekkers and students. It is not uncommon to read about a trekking circuit or about a Himalayan hamlet in French, German and Spanish travel magazines. Every year there are numerous research theses done by students in universities worldwide. And most of them are never even seen by the people that work in the field. So your concern about amazingly positive reviews with an interest to continue to function in Nepal rarely fits the context; in fact if there are any floating around, I'd say my hat's off. Good job in the field always pays back!

Bhaskar Singh Karky
--------------

Moderator's comment/s

Mr. Karky is right that many university students and researchers are allowed to conduct their research in protected areas of Nepal. The important question is: how much of these findings are used in planning and programming of the PAs? Dr. Sicroff, would you like to add something here? -Khadga Basnet

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:32:35 +0530
Author: "Kishor Pradhan" <kishor@panos.org.np>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: Role of radio in awareness raising

 Hi MF-Asia,

The following part of the moderator's question maybe to some extent can be answered by the LI-BIRD's radio programme initiative in Pokhara, focusing on raising awareness of the people on agro-biodiversity conservation.

 ... how to educate or aware local community (e.g., community forest user groups) about their rights, responsibilities, and initiatives in their part...

Well it cannot be guaranteed that radio (with proper programme content) can definitely help to raise awareness of communities. But it is worth noting that the private or public or community FM or non-government radios in Nepal to-date numbers about 26 and it is estimated to reaching out to about 9 million people in Nepal (that is almost half the Nepali population) and the broadcast frequency that is FM of the non-government radios are easily accessible to people as the broadcast can be easily received with inexpensive radios with FM channels costing just about 100 Nepali rupees (about USD 1.30), the Chinese type which everyone of us know floods most of the developing country community markets. And the other point to note is that for more 'independent' and 'local content' radio programmes people or communities with access to FM radios switch to it rather than state owned other frequency waves.

This kind of public radio FM wave trend for social communication is building up in other parts of South Asia also, specially encouraging has been in Pakistan with the Pakistani government recently issuing 21 licenses to start public radio stations. In Bangladesh ham radio is already in practice for radio communications though media organisations are still lobbying hard to pressure the Bangladeshi government to liberalise broadcast policies and provide full-fledged licenses for public radios. In India there are some metro public radios and voices have been raised for giving licenses for community radios. Afghanistan is getting quite big with public radios and most of the development agencies are investing and using radios for development and social communications. Radio can be one of the most effective medium for community education or awareness-raising but its more effective with plural community media approach.

The details about LI-BIRD's initiative is below.

LI-BIRD Ko Chautari Radio Programme - Nepal

Summary

In October, 2001, Local Initiatives for Biodiversity,

Research and Development (LI-BIRD) initiated a rural participatory radio programme that focuses on biodiversity-related issues. The word 'Chautari' means "a resting-place under the shade of a tree" - usually the Ficus religiosa bengalensis, where social, cultural, and religious information of value is exchanged. The programme is meant to complement the government's agricultural radio programmes.

Main Communication Strategies

The programme uses materials generated by participatory methods of collecting local knowledge and practices generated from farming communities. Technologies developed by the farming community, as well as the research outputs of university and research stations, are also used. This radio programme is part of a wider package of efforts to increase local awareness about the importance of agro-biodiversity. These efforts include sharing the methods and approaches developed in the project activities at local, national, and international levels. Local content is shared at festivals, rituals, and dances, as well as through publications, posters, video films, and TV programmes. These approaches are rooted in local culture and customs, but are communicated with tools that have been adapted to suit the purpose of biodiversity conservation.

Farming communities are encouraged to provide suggestions and feedback. Prizes for the best questions and suggestions and the correct answers given for the week have been introduced to create interest and motivation among young listeners. Winners are awarded portable FM radio each week to encourage people to make use of this communication device.

Development Issues

Agriculture, Environment.

Key Points

Campaigns to raise public awareness about the value of sustaining biodiversity in Nepal have included formal meetings, orientation training, personal contacts with key people, and project information in the form of flyers in the community's vernacular language. Despite these efforts, programme organisers noted that the intended messages were not reaching key members of farming communities, particularly women and children.

Nineteen radio episodes have aired. Organisers claim that, as a result, there has been increased public awareness of biodiversity issues in the Pokhara valley; increased direct sharing of new findings and information with target communities; common forums for panel discussions between the farming community and high level policy makers; the integration of biodiversity education with traditional culture and literature; the bringing together of various stakeholders into common communication links; the documentation of value of local biodiversity; and the provision of feedback to local level conservation and development agencies.

Partners

LI-BIRD, the Annapurna FM Radio Station.

For more information, contact:
Krishna Prasad Baral
kblibird@cnet.wlink.com.np
---

Moderator’s Comments

Mr. Pradhan has provided a means of educating people or raising their awareness about biodiversity conservation. Radio is one of the effective media to spread messages in mountainous country like Nepal. But I wonder if the program has been evaluated - how successful the program has been? Has the program brought about changes among the target groups?  Anybody would like to make further comments or suggestions? -Khadga Basnet

Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:42:12 -0500
Author: "stephan" <climber@kingston.net>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND PAs Management

Hello,

I have recently be participating in a parallel list serv discussion in which attitiudes towards community co-management of PAs was described as a "pendulum" effect in which the conservation community was tiring of community participation and complementary economic development activity and moving back towards a strict protection model for management of PAs. If this is indeed the case then I am dismayed. It simply will not work.

As a "northern" PA specialist I have come to the following positions over the last decade working in the developing world.

1. There will never be another successful PA in a developing country anywhere in the world unless community co-management is seen as axiomatic. And I do not mean mere participation during the establishment process - I mean the establishment of full, legally-based collaborative structures, tailored to the specific cultural context.

2. Almost every PA (north and south) will need an alternative livelihood programme of some nature, for local communities - local benefit local acceptance and support. In other words, the "biosphere" model is a useful starting point for almost every PA, not an approach to be considered later in a process. Again this is axiomatic - barring the possible need for some strictly protected areas for specific scientific purpose, but these would be an exception in most contexts.

3. There is nothing wrong with continuing international support for a system of PAs. If there are global benefits (e.g. for protection and recovery of endangered species) then why should we not pay, in perpetuity if necessary. Sustainability within some arbitrarily (and historically) defined political boundaries is an unnecessary stricture. We need to conserve species biodiversity and habitat "spaces", irrespective of location and boundaries. And the whole planet benefits, hence the whole world should pay.

4. There is a huge body of knowledge about PA establishment processes in developing country experience that could teach and inform developed countries - and it is largely being ignored by governments and NGOs alike. Our arrogance in North America, in specific, is often staggering!

I do not believe that the oft-described pendulum effect really exists out there. If anything it is that many of the international organizations, and this absolutely applies to IUCN, are slowly adapting to international realities ( a "paradigm" change, pardon the jargon). In essence the ENGO/PA community absolutely must become a sustainable development community if it is to have even an slight chance of success.

I also think that this is a very dated discussion - much of this "debate" occurred in 1992 (and indeed before) - the most effective PA organizations already make parks WITH people, not in spite of them.

Sincerely,

Stephan Fuller, Canada 
www.fuller-imc.com
---------------

Moderator's Comment/s

Stephan Fuller's remarks are clear and self-explanatory. If anybody would like to add or discuss further, please you are welcome. I have just a minor point to add to about...

...community co-management of PAs was described as undergoing a "pendulum" effect in which the conservation community was tiring of community participation and complementary economic development activity and moving back towards a strict protection model...

I would not be surprised at all about it if the communities were `exploited' in the name of participation without much complementary local development.

For example, some communities (in Nepal) complain that they are really tired of responding to a series of questionnaire surveys, PRA discussions, and so on and so forth. In some cases that is the only participation of local community (if anyone would like to call it a participation!). -Khadga Basnet

Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 03:58:22 +0000
Author: "Paromita Ghosh" <paroghosh@hotmail.com>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: Re: COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND PAs Management

Dear All members of MF,

Greetings from the Himalayas! Though I am not participating in the e - discussion actively, I have been reading all the postings with lot of interest and appreciate the wonderful ideas and suggestions from the experts. I am not an expert in this field but it is a very general problem which most of us have observed. Ironically most of the world's bio-diversity hotspots are located in poor developing countries where population is increasing at a much faster pace than the developments in any other sector.

Hence I feel a determined and drastic population check in these countries can be one of the most effective step towards biodiversity conservation. The methodologies and ideas presented in this forum and available elsewhere can only be effective when population growth is sustained. I would like to have some ideas coming up in this forum as to how community participation and protected area management schemes can encourage population control along with biodiversity conservation.

Regards,

Paromita Ghosh, G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment & Development, India

-------------------

Moderator's Comment/s

Dr. Ghosh, nobody is an expert of such a complex subject! We are trying to learn from each other by sharing our thoughts and experiences. Thank you for your thoughtful ideas and input that has added an important dimension for discussion. Certainly biodiversity and poverty have shared their common domain. Eastern Himalaya,a hotspot of biodiversity is a good example.

Many of the protected areas in the region have experienced the pressure of increasing human population in their buffer zones. This is partly because of in-migration to the areas where the protected areas are providing some community services through community development programs. This problem can be partly solved by combined effort of the park and the buffer zone community to check in-migration, developing market centers away from the buffer zone area, and so on. But the question is: how far a park management can spread its programs without losing its effectiveness? Is park management system an appropriate stage to address human population growth issue of any country? Please discuss on the issue raised by Dr. Ghosh.

-Khadga

Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 04:51:07 +0100 (BST)
Author: "krishna poudel <kpoudel_pokhara@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: [PPMT]S3: Re: Lead paper for e-discussion

 Dear Friends,

First I Congratulate Dr. Khadga Basnet for his wellstructured discussion paper on "Management systems: parks, protected areas, community-based development"

Here I want to share few notes what I found in the Himalayan case which I thought relevant.

1. Mountains have the most fragile ecosystem. In case of Nepal Himalayas many PAs confined over the Mountains are scattered from west to east. Recently, the Terai Arc concept has been formulated and also trying to join the PAs locating at Terai horizontally. We don't have to think the biodiversity conservation within a narrow and closed system. Many high altitude flora and fauna migrate from up-land to low-land along with gravitational forces. Similarly, the aquatic life needs their successive flow even from down-stream to up-stream. Therefore, the bio-diversity conservation practices in the mountainous terrain need to develop the vertical linkages of PAs or Conservation areas. In paper or in theory we have provision for at least certain amount of water flow regularity or fish ladder to be constructed over the hydropower or irrigation project dam, but in practice seems rare. This situation we can see at down stream of Marsyangdi Hydropower Dam near Khaireni along the Prithvi Highway during the dry months. Who will monitor for this?

2. This is an example of Community Organization of Marpha Village working on biodiversity conservation - The community wildlife management is not a new phenomenon to the Marphali people. From the very origin of Thakali settlement they were conscious about wildlife management based on Mukhiya system. They had written rules and regulation formed by the community. Four Mukhiyas and their subordinates were responsible to administer the natural resources on the basis of that written document preserved by the community. They did not have specific rules related to wildlife. Four Mukhiyas used to decide themselves according to the nature problems they encountered. To look after natural forest and pasture, eight watchmen called ‘chho’ used to be appointed in rotation from each household. There was no effect of nationalization of forest in 1957 and introduction of community forestry programme in 1978 on conservation and management of natural resources. Their own customary system is dominant even today.

3. The other important point is the identification of community needs by the conservationist. In many cases, even in the conservation scheme, (bottom-up approach), community needs are identified by the externalities. One presumption might be due the low level of awareness of local people. While doing this, so-called bottom-up approach also modified and induced. In such practices poaching and illegal operation introduced even from the community level, even though the community level management is claimed.

4. Lastly, the issue of balancing the biodiversity conservation and community development should be viewed through the earning opportunities of local people's livelihood. Once their children cry for food, s/he will not dare to stay only by hearing the sweet-bird's songs. Therefore, the conservation scheme/activities needs to be developed parallel through the economic resources. Should be introduced cultivation even within the green forest crown by selecting less harmful for the biodiversity preservation. If they feel the conservation/Pas landscape is their livelihood bases then they feel their responsibility to guard. 'No children bite the breast'.

Krishna Poudel, Ph.D., Department of Geograpahy Education, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu

-------
Moderator's comment/s

Thank you, Dr. Poudel, for raising some pertinent issues, which, I hope will excite more discussions. Horizontal and vertical wildlife corridors are equally important because wildife move in any direction. There are several examples of development/proposition of vertical corridors but I would like to cite an example from Nepal - actually the areas you have mentioned (e.g., Marsyangdi, Khaireni etc). The linkage between Chitwan National Parks-Parsa wildlife Reserve and Annapurna Conservation Area has been identified (see Basnet et al. 2000; WWF Publication) through several river valleys (Narayani, Kaligandaki, Marsyangdi, Madi, Seti rivers). Similarly a vertical corridor along Trisuli to connect Manaslu Conservation Area and Langtang National Park with that of Chitwan has been identified. The concept is there...

A real bottom-up approach must explore, improve (where necessary) and utilize local indigenous system of resource managment and also identify alternative means of income generation. Let us refine when it is bottom-up when not? what are other customary systems that are still functioning or that are not functioning but need to be revived? which crop can be introduced (if at all) without affecting the forest diversity? Can anybody help?

-Khadga Basnet

| main page |