Problem overview:
Awareness and visions: A sustained approach for natural resources management and conservation 'to enhance the quality of life of forest communities to reduce their dependencies on natural resources'
Integrating stakeholders: Community participation and transparency is important to the success of the programme. People are involved in each step of the project cycle, needs assessments, program prioritization, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
Background in summary:
Previous conservation programmes were inefficient and inhumane: His Majestys Government of Nepal initiated a long-term programme for the protection and conservation of natural resources. In due course this proved to be both inefficient and inhuman because local people were displaced with little regard to their welfare, which resulted in illegal poaching and graft.
The new approach is to cooperate with forest communities: A new approach began, based on the realization that sustained management of protected areas required the cooperation and support of the local people. Such support is only possible with the simultaneous development of the local communities. Buffer Zone development is the key to this approach and the Parks and People Project is based on this philosophy.
Parks & People programme was set up in buffer zones: The Department of National Parks and Wildlife set up the Parks and People project in 1995. The project focuses on the effective management of the parks, participatory community development and conservation in the buffer zones. Community participation and transparency are especially important to the success of the programme.
The objectives of Parks & People programme are:
- To enhance the capacity of the Department staff and local communities around the protected areas to ensure effective and sustainable management of parks and buffer zones.
- To facilitate local peoples initiatives for socio-economic development.
The project is still new and has its problems. However, the project is constantly under review and adjustment.
See document in full
Good practice rating:
(1 for the best, 5 for the lowest score) |
|
Sustainability
|
Efficiency
|
| 2 |
 Improvement in either the environment of economic condition with no harm to the other. |
2 |
Cost efficient. |
| 2 |
Sustainable over time (not one-off) |
Process |
| Adaptability |
1 |
Participation of the community |
| 3 |
Location adaptability (can the project be done in other places?) |
1 |
Participation of resource owners/users |
| 3 |
Socio-cultural adaptability. |
- |
Partnerships between various actors (Governments, NGO, Academia, Private) |
| 3 |
Level of development adaptability. |
- |
Degree of coordination and cooperation between government departments. |
| 2 |
Style of government adaptability. |
2 |
Ability to attract political interest/support |
| 2 |
Degree of decentralization adaptability. |
- |
Procedures for feedback and review. |
Comments on this example:
Advantages for having community forests are that communities will act as a forest buffer zone to prevent illegal access, poaching and logging. Also would act as a barricade to hinder forest fires from spreading beyond the forest boundaries. However, with people living in the forest, human activities surely would cause some negative effects on or disturb the natural condition of the forest. For example, the case where wild animals feed on agricultural products of farmlands within the forest boundary, consequence are, the farmers lose their products, while, the animals get confused of where their natural food source should be.
|
Sustainability of the project:
|
Awareness and visions: This example demonstrates how the act of conservation, although done out of good intention, could affect other people tremendously.
Improvement in either the environment or economic condition with no harm to the other: Many countries have announced forest areas into national parks or conservation areas, resulting in the relocation of communities living within and around forest boundaries. People living in these communities normally do not own any property and when they are removed from forest areas, they become homeless. However, Nepal has managed the problem efficiently by allowing these communities to stay within the buffer zone, in which their existence will not affect the natural state of the forest. This is considered a very successful solution in terms of improvement in environmental condition while not affecting society or economy.
|
Adaptability of the project to other situations:
|
| Process of decision making and implementation: |
Integrating stakeholders: Participation of stakeholders is considered a very critical factor when it comes to policy formulation or any kind of decision-making that will affect more than just one party. The Government of Nepal would have been able to avoid the conflict with forest communities in the first place if they had involved local participants in the decision-making process before establishing and enacting the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2029.
Community participation is the new approach that is being tried out in many countries. This has replaced the former command and control approach, which has failed in most cases. Involving the people themselves in managing the resource gives them a sense of ownership, and responsibility to protect the resource. It is also necessary that the approach provide a mode for benefit sharing if, the fullest cooperation of the people are to be obtained. The prospects of eco-tourism in such parks and the provision of employment opportunities to the people involved.
Cost efficient: The initial decision of the government to increase officials in monitoring and preventing illegal access of forest communities was cost inefficient. On the contrary, the governments second decision to set up community forest and buffer zone is very cost efficient. This way, communities will stop their actions of illegal access and poaching and would also act as keepers of the forest, hence, much expense will be reduced in hiring forest rangers or police.
|
Documentation: |
Literature or other written project review references
|
Source of Information: |
Parks and People Programme Annual Report 1997.
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
Kathmandu
|
Contacts: |
|
Submitted by: |
Mr. Bharat Bahadur Pradhan
Director
Institute for Sustainable Development
Kathmandu
Nepal
(Fax: 977-1-418455)
|
References: |
|
|
