Experience and Lesson Learnt of BufferZones Community Forest to Improve the BD in Nepal

1. NAMASTE and
WELCOME
1

2. Experience and Lesson
Learnt of Buffer Zones
Community Forest to Improve
the Biodiversity in Nepal
(CBFM and Governance)
NRM 603
Manoj Neupane
AFU, Hetauda
manoj.neupane@gmail.com

3. Presentation Outline
1. Introduction
2. Objectives
3. Methodology
4. Review of the finding
5. Conclusion and Recommendation
6. References
3

4. Introduction
4
Pathak et al., 2017

5. Introduction
5
• Forest outside the core area of
National Parks and Wildlife
Reserves
• Managed by local community as
Community Forest
• Can be considered as impact zone
and includes the area directly
affected by
i) the prohibited use of forest
products of PAs
ii) the grazing in the PAs and
iii) the wildlife (e.g. crop damage ) of PAs regularly or
occasionally
The Conservation and Improvement of biodiversity and
ecosystem services is directly linked with the success of
Community Forest (Thani et al., 2019 )

6. Objectives
6
General Objective :
To review the Experiences and Lesson Learnt from
buffer zones Community Forest to Improve the
Biodiversity in Nepal
Specific Objectives :
• To find the Evolution of BZCFs concept in Nepal
• To identify the roles of BZCFs in Biodiversity
Conservation
• To find the issues and challenges faced by the
BZCFs in improving the biodiversity in context to
Nepal

7. Methodology
7
Secondary data
• Different literatures, journals & thesis
reports
• Other related materials from different
sources
• Consultation with the experts on the field

8. 8
Concept of BZCFs
• The fourth amendment in the NPWC Act(1973) in
1993 provisioned the concept of buffer Zone
• The amendment provided a path for the allocation
of 30 to 50 % of the park or reserve revenue to
buffer zone user committees
• Aimed to incorporate people’s participation in
management of the protected areas
• The management of the buffer zone community
forests is governed by the Buffer zone
Management Rules of 1996 and was further
Institutionalized with Guideline 1999

9. 9
BZMC and its derivatives
Figure: Three-tier structure of Community based People’s institution in the
Buffer Zone Management (Source: Thing & Poudel, 2017)

10. 10
BZ
• A buffer zone is considered an effective means to
mitigate and contain the Park- local people conflict
(Nepal and Weber, 1994)
• There are 677 BZCFs that cover altogether 198,550
hectare of forest area benefiting around two third of a
million households (DOF, 2015)

11. 11
BZCF Outcomes
•
Micro-enterprises through harvesting of
NTFPs (eg. Fragrant Wintergreen in Syaubari
BZCF in Langtang NP (SHL/LNPBZSP, 2010)
BZCF
Outcomes
Access to natural
capital
Enhanced diverse
livelihood assets and
capitals (Gaire, 2006)
Economic benefits through
community based ecotourism
[Bagmara BZCF, Chitwan (Rijal,
1997)}

12. 12
Achievements of BZCFs
• Improved Ecological Condition of Forest and
Forest Cover Outside PAs (Paudel et al., 2007)
• Good Recovery of Buffer zone forests have
attracted wild-life species like Rhino, Tiger,
Deer etc. just like in the adjoining park and
enhanced the wild-life based Ecotourism
models (e.g. Chitwan )
• Increased species richness of vegetation,
density of forests, regeneration of plants, and
wildlife in BZCFs ( Timilsina, 2007)

13. 13
Achievements of BZCFs
• 1,062,823 (approx.) people are
directly dependent upon the
resources in BZ community
along with nearby villages
(DNPWC, 2074)
• BZCF program has helped to
save agricultural crops from
damage by the wildlife through
barbed wire fencing, biological
fencing and through using
watchers (Kanel et al., 2006 )

14. 14
Issues of BZCF
• Lack of separate guidelines on the regulation and
management of BZCF
• Mismatch and inconsistencies between the legal rules
of BZ and actual practices and functioning of BZCFs
(Paudel et al., 2007)
• Poor linkage of community forestry with livelihoods
and poverty alleviation
• Elite dominancy within group are the major issues and
gaps in Buffer zone community forestry programs
(Javeri & Adhikari, 2016)
• The legal and institutional provisions of Buffer zone
community forest are not strong enough for local
institutions to function as autonomous and perpetual
in comparision to the community forests (Paudel et al.,
2007)

15. 15
Challenges :
• Community forests in buffer zone and protected
forests also have issues of human wildlife conflict
(Pathak et al., 2017)
• Although the government has launched wildlife
damage relief guideline, subsidy in not sufficient and
getting process is tedious (Thing, 2014)
• BZCFs have also been found to interfere with the
customary rights of traditional and indigenous fishing
communities in the rivers (Prasain, 2006; Jana, 2009;
Thing, 2014)
• Continuous loss and degradation of forests in the Terai
and Siwalik regions have added the challenges in
biodiversity conservation

16. 16
Lesson Learnt
• Nepal’s BZCFs have achieved remarkable progress in
biodiversity conservation but still a lot needs to be
done in terms of resource use and utilization
• A large sum of money could be generated from the
buffer zones of PAs for the benefits of local people and
be used for various development activities
• Nepal’s conservation programs and policies follow the
top-down approach and hence the implementation
phase becomes difficult (Prasain, 2006)
• Having good policies without emphasis on its influence
to the particular group/ stakeholders is not enough for
its implementation
• Nepal’s BZ program shows the ambiguity of the
participatory approach, inequitable access and benefit
sharing(Pathak et al., 2017)

17. 17
Conclusion
• BZCF program is a remarkable intervention in the
participatory conservation pathways for Nepal
• Conservation benefits have been shared with the
local communities
• Despite significant achievements, there are
shortcomings like inequitable share of resources,
elite capture, Human-Wildlife conflicts

18. Reference
18
• DoF. 2015. Community Forestry Bulletin. Department of Forests,
Babarmahal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
• Kanel, K. R., Poudyal, R. P., & Baral, J. C. (2006). Current status of
community forestry in Nepal. Retrieved November, 17, 2019.
• Nepal, S., & Weber, K. (1994). A Buffer Zone for Biodiversity
Conservation: Viability of the Concept in Nepal's Royal Chitwan National
Park. Environmental Conservation, 21(4), 333-341.
doi:10.1017/S0376892900033646
• Pathak, B. R., Yi, X., & Bohara, R. (2017). Community based forestry in
Nepal: Status, issues and lessons learned. International Journal of
Sciences, 6(3), 119-129.
• Paudel, N.S., Budhathoki, P. and Sharma, U.R. 2007. Buffer Zones: New
Frontiers for Participatory Conservation? Journal of Forest and
Livelihood, 6(2): 44-53.
• Thani, P., KC, R., Sharma, B., Kandel, P., & Nepal, K. (2019). Integrating
biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services into operational plan
of community forest in Nepal : status and gaps. Banko Janakari, 29(1), 3-
11
• Timilsina, L.B. 2007. Contribution of Buffer Zone Management on
Livelihood Support. A Case Study from Chitwan National Park, Nepal. A
Master’s Dissertation, University of Klagenfurt, Austria

19. 19