Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity - Chapter 22 pps

Disturbances on Biodiversity: A Major Issue of Protected-Area Management in Nepal Khadga Basnet INTRODUCTION Nepal has been giving a high priority to biodi-versity conservation for more

Disturbances on Biodiversity:

A Major Issue of Protected-Area Management in Nepal

Khadga Basnet

INTRODUCTION

Nepal has been giving a high priority to biodi-versity conservation for more than three decades by creating and managing protected areas (protected areas), which cover more than 19% of the total area of the country There are nine national parks, three wildlife reserves, one hunting reserve, and three conservation areas and buffer zones Most of the protected areas lie along the international borders with China and India (Figure 22.1), and represent mainly two Global 200 ecoregions, as identified by the World Wildlife Fund These include alpine shrubs and meadows in the mountains and Tarai-Duarsavannas and grasslands in the low-land Tarai (see Box 22.1) For more than three decades, a large number of management prob-lems, including biological, sociocultural, eco-nomical, political, and developmental issues (Basnet 2003a, 2003b), have been encountered

in managing these protected areas Livestock grazing and pasture management proved to be one of the major issues of all the protected areas

of Nepal (Richard et al 2000) The main objec-tive of this chapter is to explore the impacts of anthropogenic disturbances (e.g livestock graz-ing and resource harvestgraz-ing) on the biodiversity

of alpine pastures in mountain parks, particu-larly focusing on:

1 Pasture management and pattern, fre-quency, and intensity of livestock grazing across the protected areas of Nepal

2 Effects of livestock grazing on wild-life and plant communities

3 Effects of resource harvesting on local species

These important questions from the biodi-versity conservation point of view are investi-gated through literature review, field research, and case studies from the mountain protected areas (e.g Shey Phoksundo National Park) of Nepal (Basnet 2000; Richard et al 2000) There are nine mountain protected areas that cover about 21,040 km2, including >2,954 km2

(Biodiversity Profile Project, 1995a,b; Basnet 2003b) in the alpine shrub and meadow ecore-gion Tarai parks, which cover more than 3,428

km2, come under Tarai-Duar savannas and grasslands ecoregion (Box 22.1) In the tarai parks, livestock grazing is strictly prohibited, but in the mountain parks, local residents can use pastures and manage them for their live-stock grazing Nepalese rangelands (grasslands, pastures, and shrub), which are not confined exclusively to the protected areas, usually have high biodiversity as they range from tropical savannas to alpine meadows and even to cold, arid steppes in the north of the Himalayas Grazing land covers about 1.7 million hectares (12% of the total area of Nepal) and almost 70%

of the total grazing land lies above 3,000 m (Table 22.1) Because of difficult terrain and steep slopes, almost 63% of the rangeland for-age is not accessible to livestock (His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, 1993; Pariyar 1998) 3523_C022.fm Page 293 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM

FIGURE 22.1 Protected areas of Nepal.

Khaptad NP (225 sq km)

Rara NP (106 sq km)

Shey Phoksundo

NP (3555 sq km)

Dhorpatan HR (1325 sq km)

Shivapuri WR (144 sq km)

Annapurna CA (7629 sq km)

China (Tibet)

KATHMANDU Langtang NP (1710 sq km)

Masaslu CA (1663 sq km)

Sagarmatha NP (1148 sq km) Parsa WR (499 sq km)

Khosi Tappu WR (175 sq km)

Makalu Barun NP &

Buffer zone (2330 sq km)

Kanchanjanga CA (2035 sq km) Royal Chitwan NP (932 sq km)

RBNP extension area (549 sq km)

& Buffer zone (344 sq km)

Royal Bardia NP (968 sq km)

& Buffer zone (326 sq km)

Tanakpur-sukla- Bardia Corridor

N

S

W E

India

LEGEND

Protected Areas of Nepal

National Park (NP) Conservation Area (CA) Wildlife Reserve (WR) Hunting Reserve (HR) Buffer Zone (BZ) RBNP Extension Area Corridors

Chure-basante- dudwa corridor

Copyright © 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Anthropogenic Disturbances on Biodiversity and Protected Area Management in Nepal 295

Box 22.1—Two Prominent Global 200

Ecoregions of Nepal

During the second half of the 1990s, WWF

identified more than 240 ecoregions as the

world’s most unique and biologically

repre-sentative places, meriting focused

conserva-tion They are called Global 200 ecoregions.

Two prominent and distinct ecoregions of

Nepal include:

Alpine shrub and meadow: Himalayan

alpine belt grasslands or meadows are

classi-fied according to their locations, type of

veg-etation, and diversity They include: (1)

Trans-Himalayan, (2) Northern Trans-Himalayan,

(3) Western Himalayan, (4) Eastern

Hima-layan alpine shrub and meadow, and (5)

High-altitude cold steppe (Wikramanayake et al.

1998) All the mountain parks belong to the

Eastern Himalayan alpine shrub and meadow

ecoregion, which is one of the two prominent

Global 200 ecoregions that stretches along the

northern part of Nepal It is characterized by:

(1) the highest species richness in the Eastern

Himalayas, (2) the highest area of endemism,

(3) the highest concentration of plants and

animals, (4) the highest numbers of globally

threatened species, and (5) a large number of

natural and anthropogenic threats including

landslides, overgrazing, encroachment, illegal

harvesting of NTFPs (nontimber forest

prod-ucts), and illegal hunting.

Tarai-Duar savannas and grasslands: The

tropical alluvial grasslands, distributed in the

lowlands of Nepal and Assam, are the last

remnants of a once-extensive ecosystem in

southern Nepal and northern India (Lehmkul,

1994; Peet et al 1997) These ecosystems

(known as Charkose Jhadi in Nepal) are the

tallest grasslands (up to 6-m tall) in the world,

and are now confined mainly to protected

areas (Bell and Oliver 1992; Peet et al 1997).

Some of the distinguished characteristics of

the ecoregion include:

1 A large number of rare, endangered and threatened, and endemic wildlife species together with some habitat specialists.

2 The highest densities of tigers, rhi-noceros, and ungulate biomass in Asia (Wikramanayake et al 1998).

3 Records of more than 100 species of mammals (including endemic spe-cies) and about 500 species of birds (including 18 endemic species).

4 High floral diversity with more than

248 grass species and 9 grassland assemblages (Lehmkul 1994, Peet et

al 1997).

5 Migration of megafauna (e.g ele-phants) and breeding grounds for endangered bird species (e.g Sarus crane).

6 Large number of human settlements and disturbances.

These unique habitats, at present, are facing several direct (e.g deforestation) and indirect (e.g population growth) threats and ecological degradation throughout their range.

PASTURE MANAGEMENT AND LIVESTOCK GRAZING

In Nepal, the highland resource management is closely related to the local religious institutions such as the gompas (monasteries) and their administrators, the lamas (priests), and also the villages Two parallel systems of resource man-agement, the gompa system and the talukdar

system managed by talukdars (collective name for government revenue collectors such as jimu-wal for irrigated fields and mukhiya for upland fields), are common in high-mountain areas of Nepal Both of these systems involved commu-nity participation in the management process, which followed unwritten rules and regulations formulated by lamas in the past Parajuli (1998) explored how these two systems operate in one

of the highland villages of Shey Phoksundo National Park (SPNP) (Box 22.2) In the gompa system of resource management, all natural resources were managed by a religious hierar-chic institution locally known as dratsang (a religious committee with different members in

a hierarchic system) It is mainly responsible for monitoring and regulating forests, wildlife, 3523_C022.fm Page 295 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM

296 Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity

pastures, and livestock grazing, including

rota-tion of herds in seasonal pastures and

commer-cial harvesting of pasture products Lamas also

fix the dates for harvesting medicinal plants,

fodder, and grass Thus, an annual calendar,

with specific dates for upward, downward,

inward, and outward movements of livestock in

different pastures is maintained Violators of the

rules are fined in cash or kind, and the revenue

generated is used in religious ceremonies or

community development The talukdar system

was introduced in 1911 to collect revenue from

various land users Besides liaising between

government and local people, the talukdar had

the responsibility of maintaining local security,

settling disputes, and controlling and managing

agriculture land, forests, and pastures by

pro-viding general guidelines based on the

tradi-tional rules and regulations made by the lamas

Thus, talukdars actually implemented the

lama’s system This system ended in 1996 when

the government assigned village development

committees (the lowest political unit) to collect

local revenues

Animal husbandry is an integral part of the

sub-sistence agriculture in both mountain and tarai

It is the main occupation of more than 68% of

the total households of SPNP (King Mahendra

Trust for Nature Conservation [KMTNC

2004a]) Literature review and case studies show that livestock grazing is common in both tarai and mountain parks of Nepal (Table 22.2), but the grazing pressure is higher in the Tarai parks for several reasons:

1 Tarai parks are mostly surrounded by human settlements, agriculture land, and degraded forests (BPP 1995c)

2 Grazing areas outside the protected areas are limited, and the frequency

of livestock grazing is high

3 Human population has been growing

in the buffer-zone areas, where the resources are limited

4 There are a large number of unpro-ductive livestock (Dhakal 1995; Shrestha 1998)

In contrast to the tarai parks, local residents are allowed to graze their livestock in the mountain parks, where human population is relatively low with sparsely scattered settlements, and alpine meadows are relatively large Besides, grazing pattern in the mountain parks is still guided by traditional transhumance systems (e.g rotational grazing) For example, livestock move upward in summer and reach the maximum altitude (3000

to greater than 5000 m) during July and August and then slowly return to the lower region (<3000 m) During December and January, live-stock grazing is at the lowest altitude of the area

TABLE 22.1

Distribution of rangelands in Nepal according to Land Resources Mapping Project (LRMP), 1986

Total Land Area of Nepal

Grazing Land Area of Nepal

Churia range (subtropical

zone)

Middle mountains

(subtropical and temperate

zones)

High mountains (subalpine

and alpine zones)

3523_C022.fm Page 296 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM

TABLE 22.2

Protected areas (including their buffer zones) of Nepal showing their altitudinal ranges, areas, and anthropogenic disturbances

Mountain Parks and Buffer Zones Altitude Range

(m)

Loss

Sources Core Buffer

Total area of the mountain protected

areas

Tarai Parks and Buffer Zone

Royal Bardia National Park

Royal Shuklaphanta Wildlife

Reserve

Note: X, XX, and XXX indicate moderate, high, and very high intensities of disturbances, respectively; NA = not available; U = unknown.

298 Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity

As a result, although the frequency of grazing is

very high, the intensity of grazing is not that

serious in comparison to the Tarai parks

Box 22.2—Shey Phoksundo National Park

The park, gazetted in 1984, is located

in Dolpa and Mugu districts of the

mid-western development region of Nepal (

Fig-ure 22.1) Covering about 3555 km2, it is

the largest national park, that represents

trans-Himalayan flora, fauna, and

ecosys-tems in Nepal With extensive alpine

grass-land (Figure 22.2) within an elevation

rang-ing from 2000 to 6883 m, SPNP also

represents the alpine shrub and meadow

ecoregion designated by Global 200

(Wikramanayake et al 1998) SPNP is

home to more than 30 species of mammals

(including 3 protected species in Nepal),

about 200 avifauna, and 6 reptilian species

More than 35 bird species found in SPNP

are internationally important (BPP 1995a,

Basnet 1998) Indicator species of the

upper region of the park include blue sheep

(Pseudois nayaur Hodson), snow leopard

(Panthera uncia Shreber), wolf (Canis

lupus Linnaeus), and the Himalayan thar

(Hemitragus jemlahicus H Smith) The

lower region of the park includes the

com-mon leopard (Panthera pardus Linnaeus)

and the musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster

Hodson) The Great Tibetan sheep (Ovis

ammon hodsoni Blyth), wild yak (Bos

grunniens Linnaeus), Tibetan antelope

(Pantholopos hodgsoni Abel), Tibetan wild

ass (Equus kiang Moorcroft), and the

Tibetan gazelle (Gazella gazella Pallas) are

some of the unique wild fauna that may

o c c u r i n t e r m i t t e n t l y a r o u n d t h e

Nepal–Tibetan border of the park (Figure

22.1) More than 407 medicinal and

aro-matic plants have been reported from the

park (Ghimire et al 2001) Based on

spe-cies diversity, the park can be divided into

three zones: (1) lower zone (below 2800

m), (2) middle zone (2800 to 4500 m), and

(3) upper zone (above 4500 m) (see also

Basnet 1998) The middle zone is the

high-est in species richness and habitat diversity The buffer zone (outside the park) of the park includes more than 449 km2 of nine village development committees There are about 3000 people in the park, 13,000 peo-ple in total, and more than 5466 households

in the park and buffer zone of Dolpa Dis-trict alone (Basnet 1998) Subsistence agri-culture, animal husbandry, and trade are the main income sources of local people

IMPACTS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING IN SPNP

Livestock grazing generates a large number of direct and indirect impacts on park management and wildlife species Some of the direct effects often cited (e.g KMTNC 2004a, 2004b, 2004c) include:

1 Competition for forage between live-stock and wildlife

2 Degradation of wildlife habitats and biodiversity loss

3 Poaching wildlife (e.g snow leopard, Tibetan wolf) that prey upon live-stock

4 Livestock trampling and killing a large number of wildlife species (e.g small mammals)

Indirect impacts include:

1 Harvesting medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs) from the pastures

2 Transferring diseases and parasites

to wildlife species

3 Soil erosion and compaction In this section, competition between live-stock and wildlife, habitat degrada-tion and biodiversity loss, and harvesting MAPs from the pastures have been presented as case studies

The issue of wildlife–livestock competition was examined in blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur) and livestock in SPNP (Basnet 1998, 2003a) The 3523_C022.fm Page 298 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM

Anthropogenic Disturbances on Biodiversity and Protected Area Management in Nepal 299

FIGURE 22.2 Land use map of Shey Phoksundo National Park, Dolpa.

Shey Phoksundo National Park (Landuse map)

29°00' LEGEND Land use classes:

Grassland Forest Perpetual snow/glacier Rock

Shrubs Cultivated land Lake

29°45' 29°45'

29°30'

29°15'

83°00' 82°45'

82°45'

29°15' 29°30'

3523_C022.fm Page 299 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM

300 Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity

study focused on three different but related

aspects: (1) productivity and vegetation cover

of alpine pastures, (2) status of blue sheep and

livestock, and (3) seasonal movement of blue

sheep and livestock along the altitudinal

gradi-ent and their overlap Pasture productivity and

ground cover were assessed using 12 20 m × 20

m plots and 36 20-m transects in upper Dolpa,

(Karang at 4100 m, Pauwa at 5000 m, Shey at

4150 m, and Pericopuwa at 3900 m) and lower

Dolpa (Ankhe at 2800 m and Suligad at 2600 m)

during a peak period of livestock grazing (Basnet

1998, 2003a) From each plot, a subplot of 20 cm

× 20 cm was randomly selected and all the

veg-etation was clipped and weighed to estimate

bio-mass per unit area of the pastures Information

on the livestock holdings of local people,

abun-dance of both wildlife and livestock and their

movement along the altitudinal gradient, spatial

and temporal (seasonal) overlapping of wildlife

and livestock, and food composition in the park

and buffer zone was gathered using the rapid rural

appraisal and additional questionnaire survey

The study showed that:

1 The pastures were productive with

standing biomass of 2 to 13 t per hectare, 47 to 66% ground cover by vegetation, and high species diver-sity with >407 species in all the alpine pastures of Dolpa (Ghimire et

al 2001)

2 Pasture productivity was

signifi-cantly higher (p < 05) in lower Dolpa than in upper Dolpa

3 The pastures were not overgrazed or

degraded except in a few small areas

in Shey, Pericopuwa, Pungmo, and Jagadula, where large herds of live-stock were kept continuously for sev-eral weeks during summer

Regarding the status of blue sheep and

live-stock:

1 Blue sheep are widely distributed on

the grassy slopes with cliffs above the timberline (3900 m), sometimes

d e s c e n d i n g a s l ow a s A n k h e

(2800 m) during winter (Wegge 1979; Yonzon 1990)

2 More than 400 individuals were sighted mostly in the trans-Hima-layan pastures such as Naure (4540 m); Shey (4150 m); Yak-yong (4600 m); Angjir, Kagmara, Pungmo (3700 m); Namdo (4082 m); Key (3830 m); and Vijer and Pauwa (4500 m); some

of which (e.g Shey, Pericopuwa, and Kagmara) have been known for sta-ble populations of blue sheep for years (Schaller 1974; Yonzon 1990; Prieme and Oksnebjerg 1992; Rich-ard 1994; Basnet 1998)

3 Livestock density was relatively low with 5466 households, each holding

an average of 2.2 cows, 8.9 sheep or goats, 0.2 buffalo, and 1 yak

4 The livestock number has been decreasing recently due to changing socioeconomic conditions (Dhakal 1998) and increasing frequency of wildlife predation by the Tibetan wolf

Regarding the seasonal movement and overlap of wildlife and livestock:

1 Blue sheep move to a lower region (as low as 2800 m) of their range during winter and forage on shrubs and forbs that emerged after live-stock grazing in summer, whereas the livestock move to even lower regions (below 2800 m), where the winter cold is less severe and the food is relatively abundant

2 There is some overlapping between blue sheep and livestock during sum-mer and early fall when the grass is relatively abundant

When there is a scarcity of food, blue sheep spatially separate themselves, escaping to very steep slopes which the majority of livestock cannot reach (Schaller 1973, 1974) Studies on wildlife–livestock interactions in other pro-tected areas of Nepal (e.g Kanchenjunga Con-servation Area) and India (e.g Pin Valley National Park) also showed similar results 3523_C022.fm Page 300 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM

Anthropogenic Disturbances on Biodiversity and Protected Area Management in Nepal 301

(Bhatnagar et al 2000; Timilsina and Basnet

2000; Watanabe and Otaki 2002) The study

concluded that livestock–blue sheep

competi-tion in SPNP was quescompeti-tionable because of the

park’s stable populations of blue sheep and

abundant resources for the last three decades

(Schaller 1974; Yonzon 1990; Richard 1994;

Basnet 1998) and proposed long-term

experi-mental research to answer the question of

com-petition or facilitation

Plant diversity in relation to grazing pressure

in three alpine pastures of SPNP was studied

by a team of students and instructors of San

Francisco State University (Carpenter and

Klein 1995) The objective of the study was to

gather information about the floristic

composi-tion of pastures located at different distances

from a major livestock thoroughfare to

com-pare patterns of dominance and species

diver-sity to heavy, intermediate, and low levels of

grazing pressure They selected three pastures:

(1) Roman Campsite, where a large number of livestock graze and pass through, (2) Murwa Meadow, with medium traffic of livestock and grazing, and (3) Norbu Knoll, which is less accessible to livestock (Table 22.3) Species diversity of plants, ground cover, and plant heights were measured using point samples along 20-m transects Data analysis showed that

1 Plant cover decreased with increased grazing intensity from 94.2% at Norbu Knoll to 77.4% at Roman Campsite

2 Species of Graminaceae, Primu-laceae (Androsace globifera), Aster-aceae (Anaphalis triplinervis), and Plantaginaceae (Plantago sp.) fami-lies made up 69.4% and 55.5% of total plant cover at the heavy- and medium-grazed sites, Roman Camp-site, and Murwa Meadow, respec-tively, but at Norbu Knoll with less grazing pressure, only two species

TABLE 22.3

Rangeland conditions and frequency of most common taxa in three grazing sites in the Murwa River Valley of Shey Phoksundo National Park

Frequency of taxa

Source: From Carpenter, C and Klein, J (1995)

3523_C022.fm Page 301 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM

302 Land Use Change and Mountain Biodiversity

(Graminaceae species and Rhodo-dendron lepidotum) comprised 37.6% of plant cover

3 Species richness was inversely

pro-portional to presumed grazing inten-sity For example, 61 taxa were recorded at low intensity of grazing (Norbu Knoll), 33 at medium inten-sity of grazing (Murwa Meadow), and 27 at high intensity of grazing (Roman Campsite)

4 A log series index (alpha) showed

that Norbu Knoll had the highest spe-cies diversity (alpha = 15.79) com-pared to 7.49 in Murwa Meadow and 5.32 in Roman Campsite

5 Mean plant height varied

signifi-cantly (p < 05) from each site (Table 22.3)

These findings support the intermediate

dis-turbance hypothesis: Low and high levels of

grazing intensity result in a decrease in standing

crop and species richness of the rangeland

com-munity

People and Plants Initiative of the World

Wild-life Fund (WWF, UK) and UNESCO have been

conducting long-term research on conservation

of plant resources and community development

in SPNP (Ghimire et al 2000, 2001) Many of

the more than 407 MAPs in SPNP (Ghimire et

al 2001) are facing threats from commercial

harvesting One of the main objectives of the

ongoing research project is to explore the

impacts of harvesting MAPs on the

pasture-lands Highly threatened MAP species (

Nar-dostachys grandiflora, Neopicrorhiza

scrophu-lariiflora, Dactylorhiza hatagirea, Delphinium

himalayai, and Jurinea dolomiaea) of high

eco-nomical and ecological values (Box 22.3) were

selected as study units for monitoring Different

pastures growing these species were selected at

an altitude of 3900 to 4300 m inside the park

and at 3763 to 4270 m in the buffer zone and

20 5 m × 5 m plots, each subdivided into 25

1 m × 1 m subplots were established and

marked permanently Seven plots inside the

park were chosen for experimental harvesting

of N grandiflora, and N scrophulariiflora Using Latin square and randomized block designs, these plots were assigned for five dif-ferent levels of harvesting with five replicates:

(1) no harvesting, (2) 25% harvesting, (3) 50%

harvesting, (4) 75% harvesting, and (5) 100%

harvesting of N scrophulariiflora In case of N.

grandiflora, the five levels of harvesting were:

(1) no harvesting, (2) 10% harvesting, (3) 25%

harvesting, (4) 50% harvesting, and (5) 75%

harvesting Within each subplot, plants were tagged and their growth, mortality, reproductive capacity, and phenology were recorded at reg-ular intervals throughout a year The remaining plots, both in the park and buffer zone, were located along a gradient of different human pressure to assess structure and population dynamics of all the selected species (Box 22.3)

in natural conditions This experiment showed that

1 There was a general trend of decreas-ing ramet (vegetative offshoot) recruitment and survivorship with the increasing intensity of harvest-ing

2 A moderate harvesting intensity (25% harvesting) had the least impact on ramet density of N scro-phulariiflora (in case of N grandi-flora, 10% harvesting had the least impact)

3 Beyond these minimum levels of harvesting, there was a reduction in the rate of ramet recruitment

4 N globiflora was more vulnerable to harvesting than N scrophulariiflora

A similar trend was observed in the population dynamics of these species in the buffer-zone plots The outcomes of the experimental and observational assessment in the park and buffer zone suggested that commercial harvesting has been a major problem in protecting species and managing alpine pastures (Ghimire et al 2001)

Currently, 23 different medicinal and aro-matic products of more than 21 plant species are traded from Dolpa District This has caused heavy pressure on local pasturelands and MAPs The district forest office records showed that commercial harvesting for export has been 3523_C022.fm Page 302 Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:52 AM