Governance Vs Accountability: A case of Protected Area Management with People's Participation in Nepal

Transcription

1 Governance Vs Accountability: A case of Protected Area Management with People's Participation in Nepal Bishnu Chandra Poudel University of Joensuu, Bishnu.poudel@forestrynepal.org IUFRO Division VI Symposium Integrative Science for Integrative Management (14 17 August, 2007) Session: Exploring the Diverse Roles Local Communities Play in Protected Area Management

2 Outline of presentation 1. Nepal 2. Protected area management 3. Buffer zone management 4. Governance in PA management 5. Accountability 6. Who is responsible 7. Conclusion

3 1. Nepal Total Area : sq km Aspect :Southern slope of Himalayan Latitude :26 22 and N Longitude :80 40 to E Avg length :888 km E to W Avg width :193 varies from 148 to 241 km from North to South Altitude :57 m (Mukhiyapatti) to 8848 m (Mt Everest) Boundary :East, South, West India, and North China

4 Land use Land Use in Nepal 30 Land use category Area (Mill. Ha.) Forest 4.27 Shrubland 1.56 Grassland 1.77 Area (%) Forest Shrub land Grass Land 21 Farm land 7 Uncul tivate Land Use Category 3 Water, 18 Urban and Farmland 3.09 Uncultivated inclusions 1.09 Water, stream And river 0.38 Urban and industrial 2.62 Total Source: DFRS, 2000

5 2 Protected area management Total 16 Protected Aareas 1. National Parks 9 2. Wildlife Reserves 3 3. Hunting Reserve 1 3. Conservation Areas 3 4. Buffer Zone 11 protected areas provides conservation to at least 80 of the country s 118 ecosystems representing almost all ecological zones covering an area of 28, sq. km that is 19.70% of the total area of the country

6 2 Protected area management Map and Photo source:

7 2 Protected area representation Two protected areas Eight protected areas Five protected areas Four protected areas Five protected areas Five protected areas

8 Protected area management: history Wild life rich areas were using by royal palace as Hunting sanctuary 1959: established King Deer Park 1963: Rhino sanctuary declared (current Chitwan National Park) 1973: National park and wildlife conservation act gazetted 1973 First national park established (Chitwan national park) Amendments in act in 1982, 1989 and 1993 After Rio and multiparty democratic political system in Nepal encouraged people s participation in PA management 1995 Park and people project started in support of UNDP Nepal 1996 Buffer zone regulations gazetted to start buffer zone management program 1999: Buffer zone management guidelines developed by Ministry Until now 11 buffer zone areas are developed and established

9 Buffer zone management a balance between the long term objectives of protected areas and the immediate needs of the communities living in and around them is one of the challenges the aim is to mitigate conflicts a community based approach to conservation, management, including sharing of revenues from protected areas with local people living in the buffer zones around protected areas an integrated conservation strategy The objective is to stimulate new livelihood opportunities and the use and development of alternative natural resources such as buffer zone community forests, thus promoting community self reliance and minimizing dependence on critical biological resources Source: DNPWC, 2007 and Budhathoki, 2004

10 Buffer zone management Systematic planning and management of the buffer zone programs as prescribed in Buffer Zone Management Regulations 1996 and Buffer Zone Management Guidelines 1999 Source: Budhathoki, 2004

11 Governance in PA management Concepts: governance is the art of steering societies and organizations governance involves the interactions among structures, processes and traditions that determine how power is exercised, how decisions are taken, and how citizens or other stakeholders have their say protected area governance has emerged as a key theme in biodiversity conservation in general, and protected area management in particular (for example in Nepal: after ACAP, 90s) Source: Jamison Ervin, 2007

12 Five principles of sound governance Legitimacy and voice particularly the level of participation and the degree of consensus in decision making; Accountability of management to local communities, the public and other key stakeholders, including transparency of decision making; Performance includes responsiveness, efficiency, effectiveness and efficacy; Fairness in decision making, equitable benefits sharing among key stakeholders, and application of the rule of law; Leadership/Direction policy makers, strategic vision and clear direction based on the ecological, historical and sociocultural complexities of protected areas Source: Graham, 2003

13 PA governance types (Borrini Feyerabend 2004) Government managed protected areas Type A Co managed protected areas Type B Private protected areas Type C Community conserved areas Type D (governance by indigenous, mobile and local communities, human communities have shaped their lifestyles and livelihood strategies to respond to the opportunities and challenges presented by their surrounding lands and natural resources; in so doing, they simultaneously managed, conserved, modified and often enriched their environments) In Nepalese context, PA governance type may related to the Type A, B and D

14 PA governance elements used in study/methods Assessed PA governance elements Transparency Accountability Strategic vision People s participation Methods used Household interviews, questionnaire survey, field observations Two stage sampling, CFUGs and households. Households were selected based on ethnicity/caste, accessibility/remoteness, wealth rank Interview was carried out for total 64 households (15% of total CFUGs members)

15 Study area

16 Changes in society after people s participation More awareness on role of forest resources Communities have developed concept of the natural resources Park people conflict reduced More funding is available Community solidarity has increased Fund collection from savings and credit programs Cooperation from villagers is increasing Livelihood assets are increasing Literacy level is increasing

17 Governance regarding PA management in Nepal Accountability of PA agencies Ministerial role: Policy development, declaration of buffer zone (area, access, indigenous resource practices, cultural aspects, type of park people conflicts); responsibilities of political and non political leaders Public institutions of accountability: access to information, capacity to analyze and report, ability to get action, comprehensiveness of mandates Civil society: effective in demand for accountability

18 Governance regarding PA management in Nepal a well formulated policy framework provision of well structured community institutions means to achieve people s participation in PA management a shift from bureaucratic interest to the local priorities, has improved the relationships between park authorities and local communities, However, the accountability!!! The program is at different scales and stages of implementation in different PAs delay in implementation has hampered the wider application inadequate support from the park the issue of transparency in the use of buffer zone funds and the inadequate representation of women and indigenous people in decisionmaking bodies such as the Buffer Zone Management Committee the program has not been successful in addressing the priorities of the poor, marginalized and indigenous communities Contd..

19 Accountability regarding PA management in Nepal elites and politically influential people control the decision making bodies and hence the financial resources more beneficial to local elites and large scale farmers than to marginalized indigenous communities to date, 75 and 54% of the Buffer Zone Management Committee members are, respectively, from higher castes and are active members of political parties there are not as yet any female representatives in the Buffer Zone Management Committee despite the formation of large numbers of female User Groups, only 16% of the Buffer Zone Management Committee members are from indigenous communities park benefits are not proportionately distributed so that some PAs are getting more income and some very little buffer zone model may not be sufficient to ensure sustainable management of biodiversity, and there may be a need for more community empowerment in both use of resources and decision making processes Source: Budhathoki, 2004; McNeely & Schutyser, 2003; Heinen & Metha, 2000; Agrawal & Ostrom, 2001

20 Perception on indicators of governance (accountability) Responses of major caste groups on governance Group discussion in Tripurakot, Maddhu We are not sure at what area of PA management we are prioritizing but, people s participation is the important for us to implement all programs, about accountability we are poor

21 Perception on indicators of governance (accountability) Responses of minor caste groups on governance We never asked for the post, leadership, and responsibilities and neither the higher caste people gave opportunities, we always struggle for rights Group discussion in Tripurakot, Maddhu 21

22 Perception on elements of governance (accountability) Perception of respondents Cases Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Transparency Accountability Strategic vision People s participation

23 Who is responsible? At the same time, think about this village, and harmony there and try to provide more services without any disturbances in this harmony

24 Conclusion People s participation is must for forest management and nature conservation in Nepal Accountability is the poor element of governance in PA management in Nepal Therefore multi level governance should get the priority Market based entrepreneurship development could reduce the gap between elites and poor More support to women, indigenous people and minor groups is needed Direct politician s interest in nature conservation do not allow local people access in the resources There is need of long term support to achieve contribution and governance together from PA management Extended power to the local people would start governance with the hope of more access on goods and services and provides ample room for secured nature conservation and biodiversity

25 Acknowledgements IUFRO for support and giving opportunity to participate Mae A. Davenport for accepting paper in this session Prof. Paavo Pelkonen, Faculty of Forest Sciences, University of Joensuu for support, Prof. Siegfried Lewark for his continuous encouragement to participate conference WWF Nepal for research support in 2004/05 Local people around Shey Phoksundo National Park for their invaluable support during research