NOTE TO USERS This reproduction is the best copy available. ® UMI Community Participation In Biodiversity Conservation In Nepal Damodar Khadka B.A., Tribhuvan University (Nepal), 1990 M.A., Tribhuvan University (Nepal), 1995 Thesis Submitted In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For The Degree Of Master of Arts in Natural Resources And Environmental Studies (Environmental Studies) University of Northern British Columbia February 2008 © Damodar Khadka, 2008 1*1 Library and Archives Canada Bibliotheque et Archives Canada Published Heritage Branch Direction du Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-48840-9 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-48840-9 NOTICE: The author has granted a nonexclusive license allowing Library and Archives Canada to reproduce, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, communicate to the public by telecommunication or on the Internet, loan, distribute and sell theses worldwide, for commercial or noncommercial purposes, in microform, paper, electronic and/or any other formats. AVIS: L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public par telecommunication ou par Plntemet, prefer, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou autres formats. The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission. L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation. In compliance with the Canadian Privacy Act some supporting forms may have been removed from this thesis. Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privee, quelques formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de cette these. While these forms may be included in the document page count, their removal does not represent any loss of content from the thesis. Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. Canada Abstract Biodiversity conservation has been going through a profound change in philosophy, policies and management approaches in the last thirty years. The traditional top-down approach to nature protection has been widely criticized for failing to include critical social elements in management practices, and is being slowly but surely replaced in many parts of the world by a socially more acceptable approach known as participatory conservation. The new conservation approach recognizes communities living in and around protected areas as key partners in wildlife management. However, the experience so far with the application of participatory conservation in protected area management shows that there are shortcomings associated with this strategy, raising questions about the practicality of the approach. In order to gain a better understanding of the approach and its inadequacies, a questionnaire survey of 377 households was employed in the communities in Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) and Chitwan National Park (CNP) for a comparative analysis of Nepal's two most popular protected areas managed under different policy frameworks and institutional arrangements. The results have identified major differences between the two protected areas in some key elements of participatory conservation, including the level of community participation, motivation factors for participation, and local attitudes toward protected area policies and authorities. in Table of contents Abstract iii Table of contents iv List of tables vii List of figures viii Glossary of terms ix Acknowledgement x Chapterl Introduction 1.1 Research context 1.1 Purpose of the research 1.3 Thesis structure 1 1 3 4 Chapter II The evolution of approaches to biodiversity conservation 2.1 Understanding biodiversity 2.2 Dilemma in protected area management 2.3 Management approaches 2.3.1 Top-down approach and its consequences 2.3.2 Criticism of the top-down approach 2.3.3 The participatory conservation approach 2.4 Local participation in biodiversity conservation 2.4.1 Defining participation 2.4.2 Constraints and opportunities in local participation 6 6 8 9 9 15 17 20 20 27 Chapter III Study Area: ACA and CNP in Nepal 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) 3.2.1 Location and physical attributes 3.2.2 Climate 3.2.3 Demographics 3.2.4 Conservation history 3.2.5 Management 3.2.6 Challenges 3.3 Chitwan National Park (CNP) 3.3.1 Location and physical attributes 3.3.2 Climate 3.3.3 Demographics 3.3.4 Conservation history 33 33 34 34 34 35 37 38 41 44 44 46 47 48 iv 3.3.5 Management 3.3.6 Challenges 48 51 Chapter IV Research methodology 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Research design 4.3 Research teams 4.4 Research methods 4.4.1 Quantitative method 4.4.2 Qualitative methods 4.5 Potential sources of error 4.6 Data manipulation, analyses and interpretation 54 54 54 57 58 59 62 63 66 Chapter V Results: Demographics of community participation 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) 5.2.1 Demographic characteristics 5.2.2 Community participation 5.2.3 Barriers to participation 5.2.4 Benefits from participation 5.3 Chitwan National Park (CNP) 5.3.1 Demographic characteristics 5.3.2 Community participation 5.3.3 Barriers to participation 5.3.4 Benefits from participation 5.4 Comparison between ACA and CNP 5.4.1 Community participation 5.4.2 Barriers to participation 5.4.3 Benefits from participation 5.5 Discussion 72 72 72 72 74 77 78 79 79 81 83 85 85 85 87 89 90 Chapter VI Results: Community participation and local attitudes 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) 6.2.1 Conservation awareness 6.2.2 Attitudes toward PA policies 6.2.3 Attitudes toward PA authority and officials 6.2.4 Perception of benefits from PA 6.2.5 Links between perception, attitudes and participation 6.2.6 Discussion 6.3 Chitwan National Park (CNP) 6.3.1 Conservation awareness 6.3.2 Attitudes toward PA policies 6.3.3 Attitudes toward PA authority and officials 6.3.4 Perception of benefits from PA 6.3.5 Links between perception, attitudes and participation 94 94 95 95 97 97 98 99 101 109 109 110 Ill 112 113 v Chapter VII 6.3.6 Discussion 6.4 Comparison between ACA and CNP 6.4.1 Conservation awareness 6.4.2 Attitudes toward PA policies 6.4.3 Attitudes toward PA authority and officials 6.4.4 Perception of benefits from PA 6.5 Discussion 114 126 126 127 127 128 129 Community participation in biodiversity conservation in Nepal 7.1 Summary of results 7.2 Research contribution and its wider applicability 7.3 Limitations of participatory conservation in Nepal 7.3.1 Ecological indicators 7.3.2 Incentives for participation 7.3.3 Political influence 7.3.4 Social inequity 7.3.5 Sustainability 7.3.6 Tourism impact 7.4 Issues for further research 7.5 Recommendations for successful participatory conservation 7.5.1 Education and awareness 7.5.2 Political commitment 7.5.3 Wildlife management 7.5.4 Equity in benefit sharing 7.6 Conclusion 136 136 140 141 141 142 142 143 144 144 145 147 148 148 149 150 151 References 154 Appendix 1 Study Area: Biodiversity conservation in Nepal 169 Appendix 2 Survey questionnaire 181 Appendix 3 Demographic characteristics of respondents in ACA and CNP 203 Appendix 4 Results of X2 test of difference in participation within PA 207 Appendix 5 Results of X2 test of differences in participation between PAs 209 Appendix 6 Statements included in creating composite variables 211 VI List of tables 1 Typology of participation 24 2 Protected areas and village categories included in research design 57 3 Sample sizes in ACA and CNP 61 4 Community participation in ACA 75 5 Barriers to participation in ACA 77 6 Respondents' ratings of barriers to participation in ACA 78 7 Local perception of benefits from participation in ACA 78 8 Community participation in CNP 81 9 Barriers to participation in CNP 83 10 Respondents' ratings of barriers to participation in CNP 84 11 Local perception of benefits from participation in ACA 85 12 Community participation between ACA and CNP 85 13 Barriers to participation in between ACA and CNP 97 14 Respondents' ratings of barriers to participation between ACA and CNP .... 88 15 Local perception of benefits from participation between ACA and CNP 89 16 Conservation awareness in ACA 96 17 Local attitudes toward PA policies in ACA 97 18 Local attitudes toward PA authority and officials in ACA 98 19 Local perception of benefits from PA in ACA 99 20 Results of logistic regression in ACA 100 21 Conservation awareness in CNP 110 22 Local attitudes toward PA policies in CNP Ill 23 Local attitudes toward PA authority and officials in CNP Ill 24 Local perception of benefits from PA in CNP 112 25 Results of logistic regression in CNP 113 26 Conservation awareness between ACA and CNP 126 27 Local attitudes toward PA policies between ACA and CNP 127 28 Local attitudes toward PA authority and officials between ACA and CNP .... 128 29 Local perception of benefits from PA between ACA and CNP 128 vii List of figures 1 Map of Nepal showing protected areas including AC A and CNP 33 2 Factors affecting local participation in AC A and CNP 139 vin Glossary of terms ACA Annapuma Conservation Area ACAP Annapurna Conservation Area Project BMC Buffer Zone Management Committee CAMC Conservation Area Management Committee CAMPFIRE Communal Area Management Program for Indigenous Resources CBC Community-Based Conservation CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CITES Convention on international Trade in Endangered Species CNP Chitwan National Park DNPWC Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation HMG His Majesty's Government ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Program IUCN World Conservation Union KCA Kanchenjungha Conservation Area KMTNC King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation NCS National Conservation Strategy NEPAP Nepal Environmental Policy and Action Plan (NEPAP) NTNC Nepal Trust for Nature Conservation PCP Participatory Conservation Program PPP Park and People Program RCNP Royal Chitwan National Park UNDP United Nations Development Program UNEP United Nations Environmental program VDC Village Development Committee DDC District Development Committee WWF World Wildlife Fund IX Acknowledgement This research would not have been accomplished without the funding support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHCRC) and additional financial support from the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC). I am grateful to my graduate committee members for their uninterrupted support and guidance despite frequent changes in the composition of the committee. I like to thank my supervisor Sanjay Kumar Nepal for providing me the opportunity to purse the program and for continuous support and guidance in developing the research design. I am also thankful to my co-supervisor Raymond Chipeniuk for his support and direction in planning and writing the dissertation, and committee chair Gail Fondahl for her support and guidance. Additionally, I like to thank Pam Wright for agreeing to be my new co-supervisor and helping me through my dissertation. Special thanks go to research partner Arian Spiteri who had been very helpful in designing the survey questionnaire and planning the field research in Nepal. Even though she didn't know the Nepali language in which the survey and informal interviews were conducted, she went to every single household surveyed, and collected rich amount of qualitative information through personal observation and informal chats with local people. I also owe gratitude to research assistants in Nepal: Alka Gauchan and Prem Kumar Basnet in Annapurna, and Sumita Chuadhary and Bikram Chaudhary in Chitwan. They were hardworking and proved to be instrumental in gaining us access and acceptance into people's homes at the times of social insecurity, political chaos, confusion, and suspicion. I am also thankful to the members of local communities both in ACA and RCNP for giving their valuable time off their busy schedule to participate in the survey. I also like to express my sincere thanks to individuals and institutions in Nepal who helped this research by providing valuable information through interviews and chats. I also like to express my condolence on the death of some of Nepal's leading conservationists whom I had the honor to interview before they died in a tragic helicopter crash in 2006. Finally, I like to thank my family and friends for their understanding and support. x Chapter I Introduction 1.1 Research context Protection of biological diversity is indispensable for the survival of humankind (Schucking and Anderson 1991). However, inappropriate land use, the human population boom, massive agricultural and industrial expansion, and unsustainable patterns of natural resource use have posed serious threats to the world's biodiversity (IUCN 2003, Terborgh and Peres 2002, Greeen and Paine 1999, Soule and Wilcox 1980). Protected areas are one of the last refuges of the world's remaining biological wealth. Ironically, the protected areas themselves are not quite protected, as the majority of them have long been subjected to conflicts between the protected area authorities and local people living in and around them (Raval 1992, Calhoun 1991, Hough and Sherpa 1989). Such conflicts were the products of the traditional view of nature and humans as mutually exclusive, which justifies the separation of man and nature. This kind of early attitude toward nature led to the application of exclusionary and top-down management approaches to protected area creation and management, initially in the European colonies of North America and Australia, and later in the developing world. Protected areas created by forcibly removing people from their ancestral lands had grave social, cultural, ecological and economic consequences, including the decline of distinct groups of people and their unique cultures, loss of livelihoods, and impoverishment of communities dependent on forest resources within protected area boundaries (Dearden 2002, Raval 1992, Calhoun 1991, Hough and Sherpa 1989). The protectionist legacy of biodiversity conservation still afflicts many 1 Third World parks and reserves characterized by rivalry between park authorities and local communities over control of natural resources. Sweeping changes in social and political philosophy—which inspired a global clamor against authoritarian and repressive forms of governance in support of democracy and human rights in the 1960s and 1970s—had a profound impact on environmental thinking at that time. The authoritarian approach to biodiversity conservation was widely criticized on philosophical, social, political and moral grounds (Belsky 2002, Lane 2001, Lane and Chase 1996, Wells and Brandon 1992). Also referred to as the "fences and fines" approach (Machlis and Tichnell 1985: 96) the authoritarian approach to conservation fails to recognize the fact that biodiversity conservation happens in a broad social and political theatre and, therefore, needs social and political support for it to be successful (Pimbert and Pretty 1997, Western and Wright 1994, Wells and Brandon 1992, West and Brechin 1991). Taylor (2000) and Bryant (1995) argue that the top-down authoritarian approach to conservation is fundamentally wrong because it grants biodiversity conservation moral superiority relative to the ideals of human welfare and dignity. Shortcomings of the protectionist approach to biodiversity conservation set the grounds for the experiment of a more broadly based, people-friendly approach that attempts to integrate social needs, values and aspirations with conservation needs (Pimbert and Pretty 1997, Western and Wright 1994, Wells and Brandon 1992, West and Brechin 1991). There is no one defined model for people-friendly or participatory conservation. Variants of the approach have been implemented in and around different protected areas around the world, and are called by different names. Irrespective of their names, all instances of participatory conservation consider local communities as equal partners in conservation and seek their 1 active support and participation (Wilshusen et al. 2002, Brechin 2001, Hulme and Murphree 1999). Participatory conservation sees the environment not as an isolated entity but as an indivisible set of multiple and often complex social, political, cultural, and ecological realities and seeks local involvement and initiatives in the planning and management of protected areas (Bryant and Wilson 1998, Viet et al. 1995, Hackel 1993, Wells and Brandon 1992). There are two main justifications for local involvement in biodiversity conservation: First, the realization that non-participation of key stakeholders such as local communities in decision making will lead to failures of conservation initiatives, or at least diminish their chances for success; and second, the recognition that local communities have a right to be involved in making decisions that affect their lives (Brechi 2001, Salafsky and Wollenberg 2000). Participatory conservation has been implemented in and around many protected areas of different IUCN categories, management frameworks, and in different social and political contexts. The results so far have been mixed, with some protected areas achieving a fair degree of both social developmental goals and conservation objectives, and others struggling through implementation problems (Heckel 1999, Little 1994, Lusigi 1994, Wells and Brandon 1992). The majority of the problems facing participatory conservation stem from some misconceptions with regard to the contexts in which it is implemented, and the players who determine its success and failures. For example, local variants of participatory conservation are implemented mostly with the assumption that society is homogenous and predictable. In fact every society is heterogeneous with a complex plurality of values, needs and aspirations and with institutions and individuals spread across multiple social, political and cultural layers whose behavior patterns, attitudes and perceptions are highly intricate and unpredictable 2 (Heckel 1999, Little 1994, Lusigi 1994). As different institutions and interest groups in a society have different needs, values and aspirations, they respond to the same development and conservation initiatives differently (Machlis and Tichnell 1985). In order to make participatory conservation more practical and successful, conservation planners need to have a more comprehensive understanding and assessment of society, its elements and their interconnections with other realities of life. The research executed in this thesis is intended as a contribution towards such understanding. 1.2 Purpose of the research This study was inspired by some challenges experienced in the implementation of the participatory conservation approach under different protected area management structures, especially in developing countries. The main objectives of the study are to: • examine local people's perception of conservation benefits • assess local attitudes towards wildlife conservation and conservation agencies • explore local participation in conservation and development and its barriers, and to identify factors in participation A comparative perspective of CNP (top-down) and ACA (bottom-up) approaches to parks planning and management was applied to achieve these objectives. Some of the main questions asked for this purpose include: • which sections of local communities are participating and which are not participating in community programs initiated with support from protected areas? • what are local attitudes toward wildlife conservation and the agencies involved in it? • are there any barriers preventing local people from participating in community programs? If there are, what are those barriers? 3 • are there any relationships between local attitudes toward protected area management and policies, and community participation? Two distinct categories of villages, labeled as Non-tourist and Tourist, within each protected area have been considered for a comparative analysis of local participation and its contributing factors. The above questions will help discover the disparity or similarity in local perceptions and attitudes between the Non-tourist and Tourist village categories within each protected area, and also between AC A and CNP at the protected area level. The identification of key factors in community participation will contribute towards better understanding the strengths and inadequacies in protected area management approaches and policies. The knowledge gained in the process can be applied to improve participatory conservation approaches in broader social and political contexts. 1.3 Thesis structure This thesis has been divided into seven chapters. Chapter 1 provides a context of the research and its rationale. It also states the purpose of the study and the questions to be asked to attain the research objectives. Chapter 2 describes the concept of participatory approach to biodiversity conservation in the context of protected area management. Chapter 3 discusses Nepal's biological and cultural diversity, conservation initiatives and challenges, and the research locations in and around Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) and Chitwan National Park (CNP), the two protected areas selected for the study. Research design, methodologies and data collection and analysis techniques are explained in Chapter 4. Results of data analyses are presented in Chapters 5, 6 and 7. Chapter 5 describes the demographic characteristics of survey respondents, while Chapter 6 explains the results in the context of community participation with a focus on the relationship between 4 community participation and respondents' attitudes and perceptions of protected area authorities, and their conservation and development policies and programs. Finally, Chapter 7 discusses the results from preceding chapters and their implications for the improvement of the participatory conservation approach in Nepal and in other developing countries with comparable socio-political attributes. 5 Chapter II The evolution of approaches to biodiversity conservation 2.1: Understanding biodiversity The 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro defined biodiversity as "the variability among living organisms from all sources, including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are part: this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems". The definition has been widely adopted by, among others, Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 1994: Article 2) and other international conventions and organizations. The "variety" and "variability" of ecosystems, species, and genes on the planet can best be described as unfathomable. According to biologists, there are at least seven million and perhaps as many as fifty million species on the planet of which only 1.6 million are named and described by scientists (Raven and McNeely 1998, McNeely 1990). However, biodiversity is under serious threat. Many of the planet's animal and plant species are already extinct, while others are increasingly in danger of extinction. IUCN (2002) estimated that about 12.5% of the world's plants, 44% of birds, 57% of amphibians, 67% of reptiles, and about 75% of mammals are threatened by human actions. The losses are global in scope, but nowhere is the extinction as severe as in the tropics, also known as "the womb of life" for its richness in species and ecosystem diversity. The impact of human influence in natural evolutionary processes is so severe that renowned biologists are referring to the 6 current crisis not only as leading to the death of species but also as leading to the "end of birth" (Soule and Wilcox 1980). In order to stem this precipitous loss of the world's biological wealth, protected areas have been created around the world. The World Congress on Protected Areas (IUCN 2003) describes protected areas as a critical part of the earth's life-sustaining system, which provides many goods and services. Protected areas have been grouped into six major categories according to their management objective (IUCN 2003). Since the creation of the world's first protected area, Yellowstone National Park in 1872 in the United States of America, the number and size of protected areas have grown dramatically worldwide. By the end of 2003, there were 102,102 protected areas covering more than 18.8 million km (12.65%) of the earth's surface, of which 17.1 million km2 (11.5%) is terrestrial (IUCN 2003). Despite its growth, the current world network of protected areas has many shortcomings. First and foremost is perhaps the fact that the network does not adequately represent the planet's unique ecosystems and the world's major biomes (Green and Paine 1999). As protected areas are not distributed evenly worldwide, they fall short in providing appropriate and adequate protection to species and habitats (Green and Paine 1999). Many biodiversity hotspots in the tropics are under-represented in the network and therefore are losing a great number of plant and animal species. Similarly, as 80% of the world's protected areas listed by IUCN are less than 1,000 ha in size (IUCN 2003, Green and Paine 1999), they are too small to make an adequate contribution to slowing down long-term species loss (Terborgh and Peres 2002). 7 2.2 Dilemmas in protected area management The most serious challenge to global biodiversity comes from conflicting land use systems around the world. Many protected areas either include or are surrounded by farmlands, industrial zones, and human settlements that interconnect important natural processes beyond the protected area boundaries (Greeen and Paine 1999). These land use patterns have been increasingly turning many protected areas into what some authors call 'island parks' (Terborgh and Peres 2002). Human pressure on natural habitats has consistently intensified, especially in the developing world where the combined impacts of population growth, agricultural and industrial expansion, increased demands for resources, civil conflicts, and large-scale development activities have further isolated protected areas, creating dilemmas in protected area creation and management. As human pressure builds, protected area management authorities get even more protective and apply tougher rules and regulations to curb local access to protected resources. The approach and policies taken to create and manage the majority of protected areas in developing countries and local disapproval of such practices have produced and, in some cases, intensified mutual distrust and acrimony between protected area authorities and local populations. As a result protected areas in much of the Third World are in direct conflict with local communities, casting doubt on their long-term survival. The calls for de-gazetting of national parks in Thailand (Dearden 2002), local disenchantment with the wildlife policies of Chitwan National Park in Nepal (Nepal 2000), and community defiance of hunting restrictions in Serengeti National Park in Tanzania (Laibooki et al. 2000) are some examples of conflict between protected areas and local communities. 8 Wells and Brandon (1992) and West and Brechin (1991) suggest that the park-people conflict is bound to worsen unless protected area conservation policies and programs are made compatible with the values, needs and aspirations of surrounding communities. Addressing local needs and values without compromising conservation objectives is complex. Different types of protected areas have been created and managed differently around the world. Their objectives, goals, mandates, and structures do not always allow them to forge partnerships with local communities. Even in cases where they do, there are limitations as to how far they can go to accommodate local needs and interests in management policies. For example, a strictly protected national park (IUCN category II) has much smaller scope for seeking active community participation in management than a multiple-use conservation area (IUCN category VI). Different categories of protected areas are in fact a reflection of different streams of much wider socio-political and conservation thinking, which is constantly evolving. In order to understand the dynamics of the park-people quandary, it is important to examine different approaches to nature conservation and their philosophical grounds. 2.3 Management approaches 2.3.1 The top-down approach and its consequences Yellowstone National Park became the world's first nationally protected area when it was created in 1872 in the USA. The park would subsequently serve as the "Yellowstone model", a popular term used to refer to all strictly protected national parks and wildlife reserves. In Australia, the Royal National Park was established in 1879. It was the world's second national park chronologically, but the first so to be officially labeled. These parks inspired the birth of Rocky Mountain Park in 1885, which was renamed as Banff National Park in 1930 to become part of the Canadian national park system, thanks to the building of 9 the transcontinental Canadian railway system (McNamee 1993). New Zealand created the world's fourth protected area, Tongariro National Park, in 1887, and became the first country to officially establish a national park in cooperation with indigenous people (Shultis 1995). These first four national parks laid the foundation for national level commitment to biodiversity conservation. Paradoxically, however, they also set precedents for social displacement and economic and cultural decline for traditional communities. Large numbers of aboriginal people were removed from their ancestral lands to make room for national parks in North America, Australia and New Zealand (Cronon 1995). Native Americans were forcibly removed from Yellowstone, Glacier, and Grand Canyon National parks in America. They were denied hunting rights, or their access to natural resources, including wildlife, was severely limited (Cronon 1995). Despite its many shortcomings, the idea of preserving nature within a defined geographic boundary quickly found its way into the developing countries (Lane 2001, Stevens 1997). National parks were created in new European colonies in Africa and Asia to attract international tourists by protecting charismatic mega-fauna such as lions, tigers and elephants that captured the imagination of Europeans and North Americans. The move was but a manifestation of the hubris of the new colonial powers which Stuart Marks (1984) calls pervasive 'cultural imperialism'. Kruger National Park in South Africa and Etosha National Park in what is now Namibia were some of the first Third World parks that followed the Yellowstone Model (Terborgh 2000). National parks in Asia were established in the second quarter of this century (Mishra 1991 cited in Nepal 2000). Governments, conservation organizations and resource managers in these countries eagerly embraced the Yellowstone model of nature protection without questioning its applicability in their own social, political and economic contexts (West and Brechin 1991). The Third World's naive 10 emulation of national parks was mainly driven by the hope of generating much-needed revenue through international tourism and economic incentives in the form of aid and grants for protecting large mammals and their habitats in the tropical and sub-tropical forests (Machlis and Tichnell 1985). It was not surprising that the national parks and wildlife reserves imposed on the people with little or no regard for their tradition and livelihood led to a series of social, economic and cultural consequences, including displacement and conflicts (Dearden 2002, Nepal 2000, Nepal and Weber 1993, Wells and Brandon 1992, Raval 1992, Calhoun 1991, West and Brechin 1991). The decline of the Ik tribe is perhaps the most disturbing example of the social, economic and livelihood consequences of national parks (Calhoun 1991). The displacement of the Ik, pronounced "eek"—tribe in northeastern Uganda by Kidepo Valley National Park led to a total breakdown of their unique cultural tradition, social organization, and ecologically friendly way of life (Calhoun 1991). Pushed to the edge of the park, they were forced to cultivate barren steep mountain slopes to which they could not adapt, and as a consequence they were faced with starvation. All this led to their plunge into social vices, with poaching of wildlife, smuggling, flesh trade and other social evils constituting a new way of life, a contrast to the tradition that considered over-hunting of wildlife a sin. Calhoun's illustration of the fall of Ik is based on Colin Turnbull's book The Mountain People (1972). Much like the Ik tribe, the Phoka people, displaced by the Myika National Park in Malawi, were relocated to lower altitudes infested with malaria. Their lack of natural resistance to malaria led to many deaths (Hough and Sherpa 1989). The displacement and despair caused by the strict protectionist approach to conservation were not limited to Africa. Gir National Park in the Indian state of Gujrat uprooted Maldhari herders, leading to their 11 social and cultural disintegration (Raval 1992). Contrary to the park authority's claim that livestock competed with the lions' prey ungulates for food, livestock grazing was found to be helping regenerate vegetation in the park (Raval 1992). A part of the problem with strict protection measures such as national parks comes from lack of research on their social implications on local livelihood. Corcovado National Park on the Osa Penunsula in Costa Rica displaced hundreds of villagers who eked out a living on banana plantations (Wells and Brandon, 1992). Left with no livelihood alternative, they invaded the park in 1985 and started panning for gold, causing severe damage to rivers through sedimentation and mercury pollution. An eviction order and compensatory benefits for the miners did not solve the problems, as new squatters soon invaded the park. Government attempts to evict them escalated to armed conflicts (Wells and Brandon 1992). Many of the displaced inhabitants chose to live around the park boundary and continued to enter the park illegally to collect forest resources. Indigenous, aboriginal and other local people displaced by national parks and other wildlife reserves are either poorly compensated or not compensated at all. When they are relocated, the new place does not usually provide an appropriate natural setting for them to revive their social and cultural traditions and livelihood, and maintain their beliefs and spiritual values. So communities thus displaced almost always choose to reside around the protected areas with the hope of making a living from the natural resources in the forests restricted by laws. As most rural communities in the developing world heavily depend on forest resources, restrictions on or denials of local customary rights of access to these forest resources inevitably lead to conflicts between protected areas and local communities. Some of these conflicts have taken violent turns, resulting in loss of lives. Gunung Leuser National 12 Park in Indonesia, Khao Yai National Park in Thailand, Chitwan National Park (CNP) in Nepal, and many other protected areas in developing countries share these problems (Wells and Brandon 1992). Oftentimes when local access to forests is denied, people find ways to engage in activities that directly conflict with the mandate and purpose of protected areas. Poaching, illegal extraction of forest products such as medicinal plants, fodder, firewood, etc., livestock grazing, vandalism of park properties, non-cooperation and even outright rejection of parks are some of the products of the park-people quandary (Dearden 2002, Nepal and Weber 1993, Wells and Brandon 1992, West and Brechin 1991). Maikhuri et al. (2000) recounts this dilemma in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve in India over local access to the reserve for nontimber forest products. The creation of the reserve also transformed the subsistence-barter local economy into a monetary market economy, forcing people to adapt to a new way of life (Maikhuri et al. 2000). Restrictions on local access to the reserve left the people with no choice but to seek ecologically destructive alternative livelihood practices, such as poaching (Maikhuri et al. 2000). Even strict law enforcement measures such as deployment of armed military units have failed to curb poaching and illegal resource extraction activities in many protected areas including Nepal's Chitwan National Park, Thailand's Khao Yai National Park and others (Dearden 2002). The legacy of hostility between the Royal Forestry department personnel and villagers around Khao Yai National Park, which cost lives on both sides in the early years after park establishment, still plagues the park. The park has lost a substantial land area to village encroachment (Wells and Brandon 1992). Dearden (2002: 2) observes: "Seldom does a week go by in Thailand without a national park conflict making the newspaper headlines. 13 Many social scientists and local activists see national parks as just another means of repression of local populations by central governments. Some have even called for the dismemberment of protected area systems with the lands to be given over to local landowners." Nepal's CNP shares this problem. Despite thirty years of strict conservation efforts with armed military support, the park has failed to control poaching of the endangered one-horned rhinoceroses, Royal Bengali tigers and other wild animals, just as it has failed to discourage illegal logging and firewood collection (DNPWC 2003, Shrestha 1999, Nepal and Weber 1993). Africa is not much different. According to Loibooki et al. (2002), illegal hunting of resident and migratory herbivores is widespread in Serengeti National Park in Tanzania. A survey found that the majority of the residents (three quarters of those surveyed) were involved in illegal bush meat hunting, mainly to generate cash income, while others did so to supplement their need for food (Loibooki et al. 2002). Likewise, local residents of Indonesia's Aceh Tenggara district, 82 per cent of which has been set aside for conservation, have long been involved in illegal logging and agricultural encroachment of the park, leading to rapid deforestation (Wells and Brandon 1992). In addition to poaching and other forms of local non-cooperation with park authorities, wildlife depredation of livestock and human mortality by protected wild animals are another major reason for local rejection of the protectionist approach (Maikhuri et al 2000, Nepal and Weber 1995, Raval 1992). Wildlife-related human mortality in CNP has increased dramatically in recent times. Within the three-month period between September and December 2003, royal Bengali tigers killed at least nine people in and around the park (DNPWC 2003). Many of the poor farmers living close to the park boundary lose up to 90% of their crops to wild animals every year, mainly rhinos, deer and porcupine. 14 2.3.2 Criticism of the top-down approach National parks and wildlife reserves are seen as manifestations of the top-down approach to biodiversity conservation. It is called top-down because the decisions are made at the top of the bureaucratic hierarchy and enforced through state and political laws (Bryant and Wilson 1998). Centralization of resource planning and management is at the core of the 'authoritarian' approach (Lane 2001). Also called "fortress conservation" for its protectionist emphasis within a geographic boundary, the top-down approach relies heavily on strict enforcement of rules and regulations violation of which is rigorously penalized. It is for this reason that the top-down conservation approach is also called a "fences and fines" approach (Machlis and Tichnell (1985: 96). As national parks and wildlife reserves are, by definition, strictly protected, they are also sometimes labeled as 'protectionist' measures in biodiversity conservation. The protectionist approach focuses primarily on protecting species and habitats by minimizing negative human impacts on them. Exclusion of human impacts sometimes requires extraction of resident communities from protected areas and control over local community access to forest resources within the boundaries of parks and reserves, which is why the protectionist approach is also alternatively referred to as the 'exclusionary approach' (Lane and Chase 1996, Wells and Brandon 1992). The top-down approach to nature conservation has been widely criticized (Wells and Brandon 1992, West and Brechin 1991), and a copious amount of literature explains why this approach is morally wrong, socially unjust, ecologically detrimental, and economically impractical. 15 False dichotomy The top-down approach to biodiversity conservation propagates purist or mechanistic environmental thinking that falsely dichotomizes society and nature, interpreting them as mutually exclusive and competing entities (Byrant 1998). When humans are seen as competing with nature, then there is no room for man in the wilderness, which leads to a perceived incompatibility between human actions and nature, thereby justifying removal of people from protected areas (Gbadegesin and Ayileka 2000, Byrant 1998). However, humans and their actions are seen as a part of the natural world. If this view is accepted, then humans and nature need to be received as inseparable and complementary, rather than competing, entities. Just as natural phenomena and processes shape society and culture, nature is changed and, in many cases, replenished by interaction with humans who live in it (Gbadegesin and Ayileka 2000, Byrant 1998). Human dignity and social justice The exclusionary approach to nature conservation is also criticized for ignoring moral parameters. Biodiversity conservation interventions, such as creation of national parks and wildlife reserves by forcibly removing traditional communities from their lands are considered by some to be unethical and unjust (Brechin et al. 2002, Pimbert and Pretty 1997, West and Brechin 1991). Granting biodiversity conservation moral superiority relative to the ideals of human welfare and dignity is fundamentally wrong (Bryant 1998). When viewed from a human justice perspective, social and cultural protection is as important as nature preservation. However, the top-down approach to protected area planning and management ignores fundamental human dignity, needs, and values in favor of other species and their habitats. 16 Legitimacy The preservation-first approach to nature protection mostly involves government authorities and a bureaucratic management structure where only scientists or experts define environmental problems, even though they may be totally unaware of the social and political realities of their conservation decisions. The legitimacy of such institutions and their decisions that infringe on social and cultural territories of traditional rural communities and their customary rights can be questionable (Brechin et al 2002, Marks 1999). It is argued that traditional communities have the right to be involved in decision making over issues that potentially affect their lives and livelihoods (Brechin et al. 2002). Adaptability and learning Biodiversity conservation happens in a broad social and political theatre and it takes multiple players for it to be successful. Traditional communities are one of these critical players. They constitute a vast repository of ecological and experiential knowledge about their natural environment. However, the science driven protectionist approach does not recognize such wealth of traditional and experiential ecological knowledge, thereby missing out on an important learning process (Gbadegesin and Ayileka 2000). Nature conservation is as much a social and political process as it is natural, and for this reason it needs social players such as local communities for it to be successful (Brechin et al., 2002). 2.3.3 The participatory conservation approach The 1960s and 70s saw the rise of social and political scientists who led a world-wide campaign against authoritarian and repressive governments calling for social and political reforms and human rights (Belsky 2002, Lane 2001, Stevens 1997). The struggle for 17 democracy, human rights and citizen empowerment essentially meant a reversal of roles and, of course, the transfer of power from the top (state bureaucracy) to the bottom (people or local communities). This larger socio-political movement coupled with rising grassroots environmentalism had a sweeping impact on biodiversity conservation and protected area management as well (Lusigi 1995). The change in environmental philosophy was the genesis of a more people-friendly approach to biodiversity conservation, one which is now called by many different names, including "the bottom-up approach", "people-centered conservation", "people-oriented conservation", "community-based conservation", "community-based natural resources management", and the most popular alternative, "participatory conservation". Brechin et al. (2002) describe bottom-up or people-centered conservation as a broad suite of strategies that addresses the social, economic and ecological needs of people while giving local communities a major role in biodiversity conservation. Brown (1998) calls it a self-help process that allows people to identify their needs and desires, and, for that matter, can potentially increase local confidence, competence and greater involvement in managing their own affairs. The participatory conservation approach sees the environment not as an isolated entity but as an indivisible set of multiple and often complex social, political, cultural, and ecological realities (Bryant 1998). The recognition of this interrelationship justifies the need to incorporate conservation mandates and goals into the social, political, cultural, economic and institutional realities of society to address local need, values and aspirations (Blaikie and Jeanrenaud 1997, Lusigi 1994). According to Hulme and Murphree (1999), the participatory approach to biodiversity conservation represents three major changes in conservation philosophy and practice: 1) the rise of neo-liberalism and market forces as a remedy to the financial woes of conservation; 2) 18 a departure from the authoritarian to a democratic tradition of resource planning and management with a focus on community participation and empowerment; and 3) sustainable use of natural resources. These changes are reflected in a wide variety of protected area management strategies applied in many developing countries. The basis of the strategies is complementarities and trade-offs rather than conflicts between conservation and development. According to Dudley et al. (1999), the people-oriented participatory paradigm is characterized by the following changes: • a shift in the protected area management focus from the center to the periphery • increasing emphasis on integrated approaches to protected area management and planning • emphasis on bottom-up approaches to creation and management of protected areas with a focus on local communities • acknowledgement of traditional resource management practices, institutions and local ecological knowledge • an end to natural science domination in the interpretation of environmental problems and the corresponding rise of social science perspectives on biodiversity conservation issues • a change in protected area managers' role from facilitation to direction • a conservation focus transcending protected area boundaries to include land as a potential connector between ecosystems • growing recognition of the social, environmental, ecological and aesthetic values of protected areas 19 • the rise of neo-liberalism in nature protection in which the natural resources of protected areas are commodities and valued for markets There are two main justifications for local involvement in biodiversity conservation: first, the realization that non-participation of key stakeholders such as local communities in decision making will lead to failures of conservation initiatives, or at least diminish their chances for success; and second, the rights of local communities to be involved in making decisions that affect people's lives (James and Blarney 1999). It is believed that not only does participation make better citizens but it makes people socially, ethnically and environmentally more responsible and active in collective decision-making. As such, local participation in protected area management and natural resource conservation is increasingly seen not merely as a strategy to prevent failures of conservation programs and projects but as a management obligation on ethical grounds (Wilshusen et al. 2002, Brechin 2001, James and Blarney 1999, Pimbert and Pretty 1997). Conservation policy makers and protected area authorities in the developing countries are increasingly using these justifications to build partnerships with local communities directly or indirectly impacted by conservation mandates. But what is local participation? What does it mean for people living in and around protected areas? How does it make conservation more effective? In order to find answers to the above questions, it is imperative to conceptualize participation itself. 2.4 Local participation in biodiversity conservation 2.4.1 Defining participation Because of its application as an instrument in a wide range of rural development schemes, local participation has been understood and interpreted differently, and at times it 20 sounds vague (Little 1994: 347). The very term "participation" implies a string of political and sociological epistemologies and, therefore, it makes participatory democracy hard to define. Participatory democracy has been described as "acts of citizens that are intended to influence the behavior of those empowered to make the decisions" (Chekki 1979: xiii cited in James and Blarney 1999). Paul (1987) cited in Littlel(994: 347) defines the term as: "an active process by which beneficiary or client groups influence the direction and execution of a development project with a view to enhancing their well-being in terms of income, personal growth, self-reliance or other values they cherish." Local participation has also been described as "organized efforts to increase control over resources and regulative institutions in given social situations on the part of groups and movements of those hitherto excluded from such control" (Pearse and Stiefel 1997 cited in Little 1994:350). Alternatively, participation is a process that empowers people to mobilize their own capacities, and to be active social actors rather than passive subjects in managing their resources, making decisions and controlling activities that affect their lives (Cernea 1985:10 cited in Wells and Brandon 1992: 42). Community participation in biodiversity conservation is rooted in participatory democracy, which brought about sweeping political changes in the developing world by dismantling authoritarian rules in the 1950s and '60s (James and Blarney 1999). It has been argued that participatory democracy implies direct involvement of amateurs in decentralized and dispersed forms of decision-making, which leads to empowerment. Community empowerment allows members of a given community to exert control over social functions and processes, and it internalizes external elements to produce results relevant to community needs and aspirations (Zimmerman et al. 2001, James and Blarney 1999). Similarly, community development can be cited as a typical example of community empowerment under 21 participatory democracy. Support for participatory democracy started to grow mainly after the failure of the majority of rural development projects in the Third World was attributed to noninclusion of key stakeholders including local populations (Pimbert and Pretty 1997). Sherry Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation is one of the earliest, perhaps the best known, and certainly the most often cited continuum of participation. It has been subsequently modified by both theorists and practitioners of participation to encompass the complexity the subject intends to cover. Arnstein (1969) identifies three broad categories of participation based on the depth of process used and the degree of involvement that is appropriate for different specific situations: non-participation, tokenism, and citizen power. Each category represents a different level of participation and involves several steps geared toward achieving a greater degree of citizen empowerment. For example, placation and consultation are used as prescriptive measures to cure non-participation, and to achieve tokenism (Arnstein 1969). The levels of participation continue until the highest degree of participation, or what Arnstein (1969) calls citizen power, is achieved. Citizen power is the stage at which citizens (or local communities in the context of community-based conservation) achieve delegated power to make decisions in planning or implementation of conservation programs, and also to ensure accountability for their actions. In Arnstein's model, the hierarchy of community participation culminates in absolute local control, with the community fully empowered to make decisions at all levels of planning, implementation and natural resource management independent of any interference from regulatory authorities. Arnstein's model has been used and modified by many conservation scientists and authors (Berkes 1999, Gujit and Shah 1998, Pimbert and Pretty 1997). The typology presented by Pretty (Pimbert and Pretty 1997:9) examines layers of participation that 22 characterize the majority of the contemporary rural community development and conservation initiatives undertaken through protected areas and biodiversity projects, and thus is of particular relevance in the context of this research. The participation model developed by Pretty (Pimbert and Pretty 1997:9) shares some similarities with that advanced by Arnstein (1969). However, unlike Arnstein's model, Pretty's typology (Table 1) lists categories of participation based on the level of power or delegation of the scope of authority given to participants. Pimbert and Pretty (1997) argue the meaning and purpose of participation must be made explicit right at the outset so that appropriate methods and type of participation can be applied. For example, at least functional participation is required if the objective is to achieve sustainable and effective management of biodiversity. Different protected areas have implemented participatory development and conservation projects in boundary communities in order to build partnerships with local populations. However, as Pretty's model shows, the scope, meaning, and purpose of participation vary according to protected area category, management structure, and institutions involved. For example, while some protected areas allow community involvement in all areas of natural resource management within and beyond the protected boundaries, others are fairly limiting in terms of the level and scope of participation allowed. The community participation literature identifies five key areas for local participation: a) information gathering, b) consultation, c) decision-making, d) initiating of action, and e) evaluation (Cohen and Uphoff 1977). Local involvement in all these five stages of decisionmaking can be considered full participation, which is hard to achieve in participatory conservation programs implemented within a larger bureaucratic form of protected area management. 23 Table 1: Typology of participation (Pretty 1994 in Pimbert and Pretty 1997: 9) TYPOLOGY COMPONENTS OF EACH TYPE 1. Passive Participation People participate by being told what is going to happen or has already happened. It is unilateral announcement by an administration or project management without any listening to people's responses. The information being shared belongs only to external professionals. 2. Participation in Information Giving People participate by answering questions posed by extractive researchers and project managers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches. People do not have the opportunity to influence proceedings, as the findings of the research or project design are neither shared nor checked for accuracy 3. Participation by Consultation People participate by being consulted, and external agents listen to views. These external agents define both problems and solutions, and may modify these in the light of people's responses. Such a consultative process does not concede any share in decision-making and professionals are under no obligation to take on board peoples' views. 4. Participation for Material Incentives People participate by providing resources, for example labour, in return for food, cash or other material incentives Much in-situ research and bioprospecting falls in this category, as rural people provide the fields but are not involved in the experimentation or the process of learning. It is very common to see this called participation, yet people have no stake in prolonging activities when the incentives end. 5. Functional participation People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project, which can involve the development or promotion of externally initiated social organization. Such involvement does not tend to be at early stages of project cycles or planning, but rather after major decisions have been made. These institutions tend to be dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but may become self-dependent. 6.Interactive Participation People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the formation of new local groups or the strengthening of existing ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple perspectives and make use of systematic and structured learning processes. These groups take control over local decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining structures or practices 7.Self- mobilization People participate by taking initiatives independent of external institutions to change systems. Such self-initiated mobilization and collective action may of may not challenge existing inequitable distributions of wealth and power. (modified from Pretty, 1994) In the mid-1970s, UNESCO's Man and Biosphere (MAB) made the first concerted efforts at initiating community participation to achieve biodiversity conservation through 24 local economic development, which led to the creation of biosphere reserves. There are about 507 biosphere reserves worldwide in 102 countries. Komodo Biosphere Reserve of Indonesia and Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, located in the Himalayan Mountains in the northern part of India, are some examples. Even though MAB made some efforts to incorporate social and economic components of protected areas and their surroundings, local participation was limited to consultations in biological research activities in the buffer zone management (Wells and Brandon 1992), largely because of the hierarchical top-down management structure in which local participation was sought. Nonetheless, MAB opened up the possibility for a wider local involvement, leading to the formulation of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP) in the 1980s, Community-Based Conservation (CBC), Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CNRM) and others in the 1990s and after (Wells and Brandon 1992) Community participation has now become an integral part of protected area management strategies, especially in developing countries, where both strictly protected national parks and reserves as well as multiple-use conservation areas have used the approach to forge partnerships with local communities to address social and economic problems and ecological concerns. Though it is too early to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the participatory conservation approach on both social and ecological fronts, the last ten years of experience with its implementation in diverse social, political, economic, cultural, management and policy environments around the world indicate positive results (Campbell 2003, Wells and Brandon 1992). Some countries have achieved considerable success in using the participatory approach to bring about positive social change and public support for conservation. Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) in Nepal, Administrative Management 25 Design (ADAMDE) and Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project (LIRI) in Zambia, Communal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe, La Amistad Biosphere Reserve (LABR) in Costa Rica, Mimarua Sustinable Development Reserve (MSDR) in Brazil, Michuri Mountain Conservation Area (MMCA) in Malawi are some of the examples of successful implementation of participatory conservation (Wells and Brandon 1992). ACA's participatory process allows people living in the conservation area to address their developmental and conservation needs and concerns through local institutions and community mobilization in which the community has the power to make and implement their own decisions (KMTNC 2003). The conservation area has proved to be a catalyst in bringing about positive economic and environmental changes in what is known as one of the world's biodiversity hotspots (KMTNC 2003). Similarly, Zimbabe's CAMPFIRE has earned considerable international attention for its unique approach to resolving livelihood and conservation problems in southern Africa (Child 1996). CAMPFIRE was initiated in the mid1970s. However, the first major project came only in 1989, when it was implemented in the Nyaminyami district surrounding Mausadona National Park in the remote northwestern region of Zimbabwe. CAMPFIRE has proved to be a model for successfully demonstrating how decentralization and devolution lead to local institutional development and capacity building essential for local initiatives to succeed. Wildlife tourism is to CAMPFIRE what ecotourism is to ACA, both generating considerable amounts of revenue for the continued operation of their social programs. Just as ACA's participatory conservation model has been emulated by other protected areas in Nepal, CAMPFIRE has been replicated in many African countries, including South Africa (Murphree 1994). 26 Different variants of the participatory conservation approach have achieved some successes in motivating voluntary local participation in addressing social, economic and ecological problems in and around many protected areas in the developing world. However, it would be naive to assume the participatory conservation approach is immune to shortcomings and barriers. 2.4.2 Constraints and opportunities in local participation Political will Biodiversity conservation and natural resource management function within macropolitical, economic and conservation policies. These macro-policies reflect, among others, central and regional government regulations pertaining to land use management and resource conservation and therefore affect a rural community's access to land and natural resources and, for that matter, can be strong determinants or deterrents in community participation in conservation programs (Little 1994). For example, the nationalization of forests in Nepal in the early 1950s led to a breakdown of traditional community resource management institutions and practices resulting in widespread deforestation in the country (Shrestha 1999). Since community participation is a key element of participatory democracy, it can be successfully implemented only in a democratic political environment, as it is better positioned to provide necessary policy and legal frameworks than other forms of governance (Little 1994). Lack of political will has created a barrier in successful implementation of participatory conservation in many developing countries caught in political instability, economic stagnation and social disparity. 27 Decentralization and devolution of authority At a cursory glance, most governments and conservation authorities in the developing world have made necessary legislative and policy revisions to allow wider local participation in biodiversity conservation programs. However, the political and administrative environment in much of the developing world is less than ideal for decentralization and community empowerment (Agrawal and Gibson 1999). Decentralization is mostly erroneously measured by the number of local and regional administrative centers, and not by the real devolution of authority (Mahanty and Russell 2002). In the context of participatory conservation, devolution means the mechanisms through which protected area authorities place trust on local communities, allowing them to make independent decisions over natural resource management (Agrawal and Gibson 1999). But real devolution eludes most resourcedependent communities, largely because of the protected area authorities' unwillingness to relinquish control over decision-making to local communities (Pimbert and Pretty 1997). In the majority of the developing countries, the main conservation paradox is that while protected area authorities acknowledge the need for wider local participation, they are still clearly restraining the form and level of public participation (Pimbert and Pretty 1997, Little 1994). Participatory conservation requires central authorities to create or recognize and strengthen existing local institutions to facilitate community participation in decision-making. However, in most countries in Asia and Africa local traditional institutions and their management practices have been either ignored or replaced by central or regional bureaucratic and professional bodies (Pimbert and Pretty 1997). This dilemma is represented by tokenism in Arnstein's (1969) ladder of citizen participation. Token decentralization of conservation laws in developing countries has only added to the burden of resource-dependent communities with the responsibility of protecting 28 natural resources without real authority to make independent decisions on conservation policies and practices (Mahanty and Russell 2002). While it is true that decentralization and devolution of decision-making rights to communities are important preconditions for local participation, they alone do not necessarily guarantee successful community participation in conservation. Local participation is a complex process influenced not only by national and local policy and administrative frameworks, but also by a string of institutional, socio-economic, and cultural forces (Gupte 2003, Agrwal and Gibson 1999). Understanding and interpretation of community Another major constraint in community participation arises from the interpretation of community itself (Little 1994, Western and Wright, 1994). The term "community" is often loosely and falsely used and interpreted to mean a homogenous group of people living within a geographically defined area sharing common values, needs, aspirations and goals. However, this understanding of community as a homogenous, monolithic and predictable group of people ignores the diversity of interest groups, conflicts and multiple values within society (Murphree 1994). For Little (1994: 357) "community" is a commonly misused term that invokes a false sense of tradition, homogeneity and consensus. The heterogeneity within a given community also includes social institutions, their knowledge base, and behavior patterns. Understanding the plurality of interests, values, attitudes and perceptions of social groups within a community is critical in the planning, design and implementation of participatory conservation programs. For example, an incentive provided to one section of the society as a reward for involvement in participatory conservation may turn other sections against it. Managing socially, politically and economically diverse communities within a 29 given society as a precursor to successful management of biodiversity is practically tricky, mainly because it is a complex social-engineering process aimed at changing people's behavior, practices, attitudes and perceptions at a wider community level. There is evidence that participatory conservation programs around some protected areas have been successful in cultivating a positive local attitude toward biodiversity conservation (Mehta and Kellert 1998). However, local perception of and attitudes toward wildlife conservation have also been found to be linked to external support to local social and economic development, suggesting that local attitude is subject to change in any direction depending on the kind and length of support provided to local people. Though local attitude toward biodiversity conservation in and around protected areas has been positively changing over the years, actual local support to participatory conservation and the institutions involved has been largely limited (Mehta and Heinen 2001, Gillingham and Lee 1999, Mehta and Kellert 1998, Wells and Brandon 1992). The shortcomings in the implementation of participatory conservation have prompted some conservation scientists to call for a return to the protectionist approach to nature conservation. While some issues raised about the effectiveness of the participatory conservation approach in protecting biological diversity are valid and, therefore, merit serious discussions, there can be no justification for a departure from the participatory conservation paradigm. Biodiversity conservation is a collaborative process of human endeavor that can happen only in a participatory social and political environment. The one and only conservation model that allows diverse social actors to contribute to biodiversity conservation is the participatory conservation model, because it is most inclusive and flexible to any social, economic, and political conditions (Hackel 1998). 30 However, the merits of the participatory conservation model should not be taken to mean it has no inadequacies. Experience with various local adaptations of the participatory conservation model in and around protected areas has identified a number of problems, especially at the planning and implementation stages. Identifying target groups for specific development and conservation programs has been cited as a major problem in the implementation of participatory conservation (Mehta and Heinen 2001, Songorwa 1999, Mehta and Kellert 1998). In other cases, lack of policies and programs for legitimizing institutional development and capacity building have stalled community mobilization for participatory conservation (Songorwa 1999). Participatory conservation programs implemented without adequate understanding of social hierarchy, gender bias and cultural differences that exist in traditional rural societies of Nepal and India have deepened class conflicts and inequalities with regard to local access to natural resources and support from protected area authorities (Gupte 2003, Mehta and Heinen 2001, Mehta and Kellert 1998). State authorities in these and other developing countries have been reluctant to recognize local institutions and conservation bodies as legitimate partners in nature protection. The rivalry between state authorities, conservation bodies, local communities and protected area managers over conservation mandates, such as harvesting of natural resources in and around protected areas, has created a new set of management challenges (Pimbert and Pretty 1997). Elsewhere, the excessive use mandate of some conservation areas has raised local expectations to unreasonable heights, creating confusion about conservation priorities (Wilshusen et al. 2002, Hackel 1998). Such challenges suggest that participatory conservation has its share of flaws. Sometimes the flaws are management related. At other times they are more specific to the existing social and political conditions of the locations where the 31 programs are implemented. Every situation is different, and it is naive to assume that one standard model of participatory conservation fits all social, political, and cultural contexts. Irrespective of whatever the shortcomings are, they provide excellent learning opportunities. Participatory conservation is a fairly new model adopted by many protected areas managed under different policy environments and institutional partnerships, and has yet to go through rigorous scientific assessment and evaluation. Nepal is one of those countries where both strictly protected national parks and multiple-use conservation areas have eagerly implemented the participatory conservation strategy to protect biological diversity in collaboration with local communities. Except for a few routine program evaluations by implementing agencies, participatory conservation as a management strategy has not been studied in detail in Nepal. Investigating the planning and implementation aspects of the strategy and its demographic and policy contexts is crucial to identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the approach so as to make participatory conservation more effective. There currently is considerable lack of understanding of how different groups of people in a given community respond to participatory conservation approaches and strategies, their institutional arrangements and policies regarding biodiversity conservation and community development. This study has made an attempt to gain that critical knowledge by examining the implementation of participatory conservation approach in two different protected areas in Nepal, namely Annapurna Conservaiton Area (ACA) with a bottom-up management approach and Chitwan National Park (CNP) under a top-down bureaucratic management approach. Detailed descriptions of these protected areas are provided in the next chapter. Fore more information on Nepal and its conservation issues, see Appendix 1. 32 Chapter III Study Area: Annapurna Conservation Area and Chitwan National Park in Nepal 3.1 Introduction ACA and CNP reflect diametrically different philosophies of and approaches to biodiversity conservation, and have been eagerly experimenting with their own adaptations of participatory conservation in order to improve their relationships with local communities for a collaborative management of wildlife in their respective jurisdictions. Nepal is of the world's richest countries in biological diversity, but at the same time one of the world's poorest in economic and social development. This combination creates interesting opportunities and challenges in biodiversity conservation rarely found anywhere else in the world, making the country an ideal choice to study participatory conservation. This chapter describes ACA and CNP in detail. Please see Appendix 1 for more information on Nepal. Figure 1: Map of Nepal showing protected areas including ACA and CNP Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) N t Chitwan National Park (CNP) Source: DNPWC, 2003 33 3.2 Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) 3.2.1 Location and physical attributes Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) is Nepal's largest protected area. Established in 1986, it is in the mid-west mountain region of Nepal, and covers 7,629 km2 of land area in 55 Village Development Committees (VDCs) of Kaski, Lamjung, Manang and Mustang districts. ACA was also the country's first conservation area. It is highly inclusive in terms of geophysical characteristics representative of the mid-mountainous region of the country (Bunting et al. 1991). The phenomenal biogeographical diversity found in the conservation area is globally outstanding, representing four broadly defined climatic regions: alpine, mountain desert, temperate and sub-tropical (MKTNC 2003). Elevation rises from 1,000 to over 8,000 meters within a short latitudinal distance of 120 km. The natural diversity of the area includes some of the world's highest mountains (over 8,000 m), the world's deepest valley (the Kaligandaki River Valley between the Dhaulagiri and Annapurna ranges), the world's deepest river gorge, the world's highest lake (Tilicho, located on the northern face of Tilicho mountain in the Annapurna range), and Nepal's most popular trekking destination, visited by over 48,000 trekkers every year (KMTNC 1997). 3.2.2 Climate In terms of climate, ACA can be divided broadly into two parts: The southern and the northern regions. The southern region is relatively warm and wet compared with the northern region, which mostly remains dry and cold most of the year. Southern Annapurna has the distinction of being the rainiest area in the country, averaging over 3000 mm precipitation annually, whereas the northern region gets only 250 to 500 mm (KMTNC 1997). Temperature varies significantly between the north and the south. As elsewhere in the 34 country, May and June are the hottest months, December and January the coldest. The average annual temperature in north Annapurna is 12. 2° Celsius, whereas the average temperature for the south is 16. 3° Celsius (KMTNC 1997). A combination of geomorphologic, altitudinal and climatic variations in the conservation area has created ideal conditions for a wide variety of vegetation types, such as broadleaf and coniferous forests, alpine meadows, and even alpine deserts (Shrestha 1999). AC A supports 22 forest types with 1140 plant species, of which 426 are believed to have medicinal properties (KMTNC 2002). Many of these floral species are endemic to the region. Since the Annapurna region is situated at the intersection of the two major bioregions between the east and west Himalayas, it houses an astonishing number of floral and faunal species, representing both the bioregions (KMTNC 2002, Shrestha 1999). Faunal richness of the conservation area includes 21 species of amphibians, 39 species of reptile, 478 species of birds, and 101 species of mammal (DNPWC 2003, KMTNC 1997). Annapurna is the only area in Nepal where all six species of Himalayan pheasants are found. The Kaligandaki Valley is a major divide for bird distribution in the country and therefore is home to species from both the east and the west Himalayas (KMTNC 2002, Shrestha 1999). The valley is also a key route for migratory birds from Tibet. In addition to its rich species diversity, ACA is also known for a number of endangered and rare species, such as snow-leopard (Panthera uncia), Himalayan musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster), Tibetan Argali sheep (Ovis ammon), Tibetan Wolf (Canis lupus) and 38 breeding species of birds at risk (KMTNC 1997). 3.2.3 Demographics Annapurna Conservation Area is equally rich in cultural diversity. The area is home to 120,000 people, belonging to over 50 different ethnic groups that represent two major cultural 35 traditions, the Indo-Aryan and the Tibeto-Burman (Bista 1969). The Tibeto-Burman ethnic groups such as Tibetans, Magar, Gurung, and Thakali inhabit the upper mountainous parts of the area, while some of the Tibetao-Burmana and Indo-Aryan ethnicities, such as the Gurung, Magar, Tamang, Brahman, and Chhetri dwell in the lower hills and valleys with other occupational castes, such as Damai (tailors), Sarki (cobblers), Sunars (goldsmiths), and Kami (blacksmiths) (Bista 1969). Traditionally, the Tibeto-Burman groups of people follow Buddhism or a mix of both Buddhism and Hinduism, while the Indo-Aryans are strictly Hindu by religion. AC A is also considered a mecca for trekkers and mountaineers. The region boasts a number of the country's best and most popular trekking routes complete with scenic snowclad mountain peaks, glaciers, verdant rolling hills, valleys, lakes, rivers, steams and religious and cultural landmarks of archeological significance. A study indicated that 60 percent of the tourists coming into the country's mountain destinations visit ACA (Nepal 2002). The conservation area attracts about 50,000 foreign tourists every year and thereby generates significant revenue for the country (KMTNC 2002). Consequently, tourism is a major source of local economic activity and livelihood. The Annapurna region served as an important route for salt trade between Tibet and India for hundreds of years (Nepal 2000). In the early 1950s salt trade in the area started to decline, mainly because of the import of cheaper sea salt from India. It was also a time when the country opened its door to the outside world. Tourists started to come to Nepal, prompting entrepreneurs such as the former salt traders in Annapurna to invest in more lucrative tourism businesses (Nepal 2000). Besides tourism, subsistence agriculture, animal husbandry, and horticulture are some other major occupations in the area. The region mainly grows millet, maize, wheat, barley, rice and potato. There is a 36 growing tendency for young people to leave their homes for foreign employment, mainly in India, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. 3.2.4 Conservation history Tourism in the Annapurna region started after Nepal opened its doors to the outside world in the early 1950s. It grew following the completion of the Prithvi Highway linking the capital city with Pokhara in 1973 (Nepal et al. 2002). Extension of air service and infrastructure development in Pokhara and Jomsom increased the number of foreign tourists visiting the area, leading to a spurt in the construction of hotels and lodges along the trails on the fragile slopes of the mountains (Nepal et al. 2002). The growth in tourism led to widespread deforestation, causing soil erosion and associated socio-economic degradation in the mountains, and flooding and silting problems in the valleys and the plains in the south. The ecological degradation of the Annapurna region caught the attention of Nepal government and foreign researchers associated with international conservation agencies, who then recognized the urgency for preventing further damage to the ecology of the region. T.S Choate was the first to conduct a field reconnaissance in the Annapurna region for the suitability of a national park in 1971. He was followed by FAO consultant J. Bower in 1974 (Sherpa et al. 1986). Later, in 1980, Nepal's prominent tourism entrepreneur and conservationist Kama Sakya proposed a multi-use recreational area for sustainable development and environmental protection of the area (Sherpa et al. 1986). In 1985, B. Bunting and M. R. Wright from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) conducted a feasibility study for a national park in the region. The study found that the people in the region favored a multi-use conservation area instead (Hough and Sherpa 1989, cited in Nepal and Weber, 1995). The survey report provided the basis for the establishment of Annapurna Conservation 37 Area in 1986 as a pilot project at Ghandruk, the tourist hub of the region, covering only one VDC with an area of 200 km2. The area was expanded to cover the additional 1500 km2 of 16 more VDCs in 1992. AC A was officially gazetted in 1992 and handed over to the Nepal Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC), formerly King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation (KMTNC), for management for an initial period of ten years (KMTNC 2003). This was the first time in the country that a non-governmental organization was authorized to manage a protected area. NTNC was created through a legislative act in 1982 (KMTNC 1997). NTNC manages ACA through Annapurna Conservation Area project (ACAP), the implementing agency for the conservation area. 3.2.5 Management ACA marked a major shift in the management approach to protected areas in the country. In a departure from the traditional top-down and authoritarian model, the management of ACA followed bottom-up structure and processes to accommodate not only environmental and ecological mandate, but the social, economic and cultural needs and aspirations of the people living in the conservation area. ACA is now known around the world as a successful example of community-based or participatory conservation (Wells and Brandon 1992). The ACAP management structure comprises a hierarchy of three tiers, with the ACA board on the top, the general assembly in the middle, and the seven field bases at Ghandruk, Lwang, Sikles, Bhujung, Manang, Jomsom and Lo Manthang at the lowest level (Bunting et al. 1992, KMTNC 1997). ACAP describes the management structure as 'conducive' to the idea of decentralized decision-making in the management processes. These field bases 38 encourage and facilitate the formation of local committees so local people can participate in community development and conservation programs (KMTNC 2003). The conservation area has been divided into a series of zones so that appropriate management prescriptions can be applied according to the use and purpose of these zones. The zoning is also expected to reduce potential harmful impacts of the intensive use zone on the ecological processes in sensitive protected zones (Bunting et al. 1991). ACA's 1986 operational plan outlines five management zones: i) Special Management Zone, which includes areas with outstanding scenic beauty but without any indigenous settlement over 100 years old, ii) Wilderness Zone, with terrain above 15000 feet untouched by any seasonal grazing, iii) Protected Forest, including areas above the Intensive Use Zone and below the Wilderness Zone, iv) Intensive Use Zone, including areas with intensive agriculture and human settlement on the southern slopes, and v) Biotic Zone with areas untouched or unaltered by human technology and action, such as the restricted Nar-Phu Valley and the upper Mustang above Kagbeni (KMTNC 1997). One of the secrets of ACA's success lies in its focus on local people. It considers local communities not only as partners in conservation, but also as stewards of their natural resources (KMTNC 1997). People are empowered to enjoy their rights and responsibilities and take charge of their natural resources. This form of empowerment is expected to give people a sense of ownership of their common property resources as incentives for participation in community development, sustainable resource management, and protection of wildlife (KMTNC 1997). In order to achieve these multiple goals, the conservation area has adopted three main guiding principles: people's participation, a catalysis or matchmaking role, and sustainability (Nepal et al. 2002). The principle of people's participation pertains to 39 involving local people in the planning, decision-making, and implementation of development and conservation programs, and delegating authority to implement these programs under locally formed grassroots organizations. ACAP also acts as a catalyst or matchmaker (Lami) between local communities and national and international agencies by making financial and technical resources available to address conservation and development needs of the area (Nepal et al. 2002). Sustainability, on the other hand, is critical in securing the long-term social, economic and environmental security of the area. The project helps local people with necessary training and education to build the capacity of their local institutions so that they can sustain development and conservation programs with their own resources and without external support. The development of a viable local self-sustaining system is particularly important, because local institutions will have to eventually take over the management of ACA. ACAP encourages members of local communities to invest money, time, and labor as part of the strategies to build local institutional capacity (KMTNC 1997). The capacity-building element of ACA's participatory conservation model contributes to the institutionalization of development and conservation endeavors at all levels of community involvement. In turn, institutionalization is expected to improve long-term sustainability. In ACA, grassroots organizations at VDC and community levels serve as vehicles for social change, and conservation awareness and practices. The Conservation Area Management Committee (CAMC) serves as executive body in each of the area's 55 VDCs. Various locally formed user groups and user committees mobilize community members under CAMC (KMTNC 2003). Typically, any development or conservation proposal must come through a user group or user committee and must be approved by CAMC before it can be forwarded to the appropriate field base. The field base assesses the proposals on the basis of 40 the felt needs of the communities before providing necessary technical and financial support to community projects. For a proposal to be approved for funding, members of the group or committee must be willing to cover part of the cost of the project by contributing cash, labor or locally available raw materials (KMTNC 2003). Some of the most common areas of work in ACA include tourism management, alternative energy sources such as solar panels and mini-hydropower development, income-related skill training, drinking water, health and sanitation, conservation education and awareness, tree plantation, forest patrol and wildlife monitoring (KMTNC 2003). ACAP uses community development, alternative livelihood and economic growth as a quid pro quo for local contributions in conservation so as to achieve its overarching goals of sustainable development and biodiversity conservation. Even though it is hard to measure ACA's conservation success, as there is no baseline data on the ecological status of the areas, nearly twenty years of development and conservation efforts have certainly brought many positive changes in the region (Nepal 2002, KMTNC 2002). The traditionally agriculturebased economy has signs of diversification, with more and more people adopting other economically attractive options such as horticulture, livestock raising, bee keeping, and tourism services. On the environmental front, forest cover has increased, with a corresponding decrease in firewood consumption, a better health and sanitation status, an increase in the population of endangered wild animals, and a rise in conservation awareness and education (KMTNC 2003). 3.2.6 Challenges The success described above does not mean ACA is completely free of challenges. Most of the largely rural population inhabiting ACA still depend on the area's forests for their 41 daily needs, such as firewood, fodder, grass, and herbs. (KMTNC 2003, Nepal et al. 2002). Firewood collection has remained a major threat to the area's ecology. During the field survey, the researchers heard many local complaints against the household quota on firewood, which they say is too little to meet their needs. ACA has been trying to encourage local people to use other sources of energy, such as electricity, solar power, and kerosene. But as these alternative energy sources are expensive and in short supply, their use is limited to some hotels and lodges along the trails. Even the rich hotel and lodge operators prefer to use relatively cheaper firewood. Many hotel and lodge operators routinely exceed their firewood quota. They pay people to collect firewood for them in both community forests and protected forests. A survey of the area in 2001 listed 921 lodges, campsites and teashops (KMTNC 2002). As more and more hotels, lodges and teashops are built to cater to a growing number of tourists, the demand for firewood is bound to grow in the absence of affordable sources of alternative energy. Tourism has helped people in and around ACA in many ways. It has infused cash into the local economy, generated employment and helped subsidiary industries, including horticulture and trade (Nepal et al. 2002). However, as tourism is limited to specific villages on the main trail, not all communities in the conservation area benefit from tourism. The disparity in income between villages has clearly widened the gap between the rich and poor in the area (Mehta and Heinen 2001, Nepal et al. 2002). ACAP has tried to bridge this gap by reinvesting some of the tourism revenue back into the communities to address economic and livelihood issues of the socially disadvantaged groups, but given the hierarchical social structure domination by social and political elites the marginalized sections of the society have not been able to avail themselves of the 42 opportunities fully (Mehta and Heinen 1999). In addition to social disparities, unregulated tourism in ACA has caused considerable pollution of the fragile mountains slopes and water bodies (Nepal et al. 2002, Nepal 2002). Due to lack of adequate waste disposal and treatment facilities, most of the wastes end up in the rivers and steams, causing serious health, sanitation and ecological problems (Nepal 2000). Poaching is another serious threat to the conservation area. Despite a substantial decrease in illegal hunting of wildlife recently, organized poachers from other districts in the western region make hunting trips every year to the core wildlife habitats in the conservation area, where they camp for months, killing and trapping members of endangered species such as musk deer, snow leopards, and blue sheep. ACAP conducts regular forest patrols in collaboration with local members of anti-poaching squads. However, given the large size of the conservation area, the patrols cannot possibly always cover all parts of the forests to effectively curb hunting and trapping of wildlife. Besides poaching, demand for the recreational use of some of the strictly protected wilderness areas continues to mount. The opening of the ecologically sensitive Upper Mustang part of the conservation area to tourism is one example. The decision to open the area for trekking has been justified on the grounds that the proceeds from tourism will help improve the area's socio-economic condition. But as the entry fee to the area is quite expensive (US $700 per person for a ten-day visit), the number of tourists visiting the erstwhile restricted zone has remained too low to generate enough revenue to bring any really positive change in the area's economy (KMTNC 2003). Poverty, unemployment and food scarcity characterize a harsh life in the area, in contrast to the prosperity enjoyed by some communities in the south, such as Jomsom. 43 The vast region of the conservation area and its natural and cultural diversity are well matched by economic inequality, which has fostered resentment among the people at the receiving end of the tourism and developmental benefits. However, it is almost impossible for ACAP to make everybody happy, especially in a context in which its authority and mandates clash with that of other powerful stakeholders and interest groups in the area. For example, the Mustang DDC initiated the construction of a highway that cuts through some of the highly sensitive parts of the conservation area without consulting ACAP and without any environmental impact assessment. This is just one case of how development and resource extraction activities such as roads and mining by local government can compromise ACA's ecological integrity. The incompatibility in priorities between conservation and development authorities in the area leads to the question: will local communities be able to protect the area from harm from the detriments of haphazard development when they eventually take control ofACA? 3.3 Chitwan National Park (CNP) 3.3.1 Location and physical attributes Chitwan National Park (CNP) straddles four districts, namely Chitwan, Nawalparasi, Makwanpur, and Parsa in the southern part of the mid-central administrative development region of the country (DNPWC 2001). Initially covering over 544 km2, the park was extended to 932 km2 in 1977. The National Park and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1973 set the legal ground for the establishment of the park. The park is administered under the Chitwan National Park Regulations (1974) and is managed by the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) under His Majesty's Government of Nepal. CNP was designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in November 1984 (DNPWC 2001). 44 The park boundary is demarcated by the Narayani River in the west, Rapti and Narayani rivers in the north, Parsa Wildlife Reserve in the east, and the boundary of Balmiki Tiger Reserve in India in the south (DNPWC 2003). CNP lies in the middle of the Chitwan valley and is flanked by two Siwalk (hill) ranges: the Churia and Somseshwor. These hills rise as high as 800 meters. Like the rest of the mountains and hills in the country, the Churia and Somseshwor hill ranges are the result of tectonic movements of the Tibetan plateau in the north and the Deccan plateau in the south. They are fragile, being mostly composed of gravels, sand and silt (KMTNC 1997). The Chitwan valley floor, on which most of the park is situated, is made up of rich alluvial flood plains. About 85 to 90% of the park falls within the Rapti watershed. The park is also surrounded by a 767 km buffer zone, which was created in 1996. The buffer zone is also regarded as a zone of impact and encompasses forests, agricultural land, settlements, highways, roads, rivers, lakes, canals and other forms of land use. There are 33 villages in the buffer zone (Shrestha 1999). Like other districts in the Terai belt, Chitwan is known for its hot and humid tropical monsoon climate. CNP houses diverse biogeographical features, including riverine floodplains, sal forests, grasslands, wetlands and rugged hills. Forests cover about 84% of the park area, while grasslands, shrubs, and other features of land—including rivers and sand banks—occupy 4.7%, 0.5%, and 10.2 % of the remaining area, respectively (DNPWC 2002, KMTNC 1997). The park vegetation includes seven types of forest and six types of grasslands. The buffer zone also has many community and private forests, and also a corridor forest called Barandabar. The corridor forest serves as a critical link between the Siwalik and Terai ecosystems, providing habitat to wildlife and refuge to 45 winter and summer migratory birds. Community forests also significantly expand wildlife habitats beyond the park boundary. 3.3.2 Climate The climate is generally hot and humid with the mercury shooting as high as 45° Celsius in the peak of summer and hovering mostly between 15° and 25° Celsius in winter. The hot and humid climate is responsible for trees with dense foliage, tall grass and shrubs that provide for wildlife habitats in the park. The aquatic habitats of the park include the three main river systems, including the Nayarani, Rapti and Reu, several other shallow rivers and streams, and lakes and marshes. The buffer zone also has a number of rivers, lakes, and ponds, including the famous Bis Hazari Tal (twenty thousand lakes), a major tourist attraction in the area (DNPWC 2002). CNP boasts more than 50 species of mammals, 526 species of birds, 4 species of turtle, 156 species of butterflies, 49 species of reptiles and amphibians and more than 120 species of fish (Mishra 1989 cited in DNPWC 2001). CNP is home to a number of endangered floral and faunal species, such as the one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), Asiatic elephant (Elephas maximus), Bengali tiger (Panthera tigris), Pangolin (Manis pentadactyla), gaur (Bos guarus), four-horned entelope (Tetracerus quadricornis), gharial crocodile (Gavialis gangeticus), Gangetic dolphins (Platanista gangetica), striped hyaena (Hyaena hyaena), sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) black stork (Ciconia nigra), white stork (Ciconia ciconia), sarus crane (Grus grus), Bengal florican (Houbaropsis bengalensis), tree fern (Cyathea spinosa), screw pine (Pandanus furcatus), and several orchids (Shrestha 1999). 46 3.3.3 Demographics Chitwan has remained a magnet for new immigrants from the hills and mountains since the eradication of malaria in the early 1950s. Availability of cheap and fertile agricultural land, abundance of forest resources, education and employment opportunities attract a large number of immigrants from the mountains and the mid-hills into the Chitwan Valley, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the country (Shrestha 1999). Many of the people displaced during the creation of the park chose to settle around the park and encouraged their friends, families and relatives elsewhere in the country to relocate in what now is the park buffer zone. In 2001, the total population of the buffer zone was 22,3260, with males comprising 49.8% of the population. The average household size was 6.16 with highest density in the Amaltari sector (DNPWC 2001). Immigrants dominate the ethnic composition, with Brahmans, Chhetris and Newars comprising 45% of the population, followed by native Tharus (27%), Tibeto-Burman groups (16%), and occupational groups such as the Damai, Kami and Sarki (9%) (Shrestha 1999). Tharu, Bote-Majhi, and Mushar are the main indigenous peoples who are being increasingly displaced and marginalized by hordes of tourism entrepreneurs and skilled workers from outside the region (Shrestha 1999). Subsistence agriculture and animal husbandry are the two major occupations, followed by over 95% of the people in the buffer zone (DNPWC 2001). CNP is a major tourist attraction. The park received an annual average of 80,000 tourists between 1999 and 2003 (DNPWC 2003). In 1977 there were only a couple of lodges in what now is Sauraha, the gateway to the park and the hub of tourism enterprises. There currently are seven luxury hotels, lodges and resorts within the park and over 100 hotels, lodges and restaurants and gift shops outside the park (DNPWC 2003). The Tiger Tops Jungle 47 Lodge was instrumental in popularizing the area as an ideal location for viewing endangered wild animals, such as the one-horned rhinoceros and royal Bengali tigers. Tourism is also growing in other areas, such as Amaltari, Kumrose, Meghauli, Jagatpur and Bhandara. The annual growth rate in tourist arrivals in the park has been estimated at 12.6% (DNPWC 2003). 3.3.4 Conservation history Like tourism, conservation action also started long before the creation of the park. Even though the Ranas, who ruled Nepal from 1846 until 1950, and their foreign guests hunted down countless numbers of wild animals, especially big game animals in the forests of Chitwan, the wildlife population continued to grow until the early 1950s. One of the reasons for this increase was that wildlife poaching was outlawed, with legal provisions for stringent punishments (Shrestha 1999). The collapse of the Rana regime in 1950 and the eradication of malaria soon after prompted a fresh wave of immigrants into the Chitwan Valley. The influx tripled the population of the Chitwan Valley and resulted in the loss of 49% of the area's green cover between 1927 and 1977 (Bolton 1975 cited in DNPWC 2001). Rhinos and tigers and their habitat were the first casualty of this rampant assault on Chitwan's pristine forests. In order to protect the declining population of rhinos, a rhino sanctuary was created in 1957, which was the first official step toward wildlife conservation in the area. Mahendra Mriga Kunj Mahendra (deer park) was established in an area of 175 km2 in 1959 by the late King Mahendra (Shrestha 1999). In 1963, the rhino sanctuary was to cover the area south of the Rapti River. 3.3.5 Management CNP has two separate management units, one for the core park area and the other for the buffer zone. The core park area is managed solely by DNPWC, a government 48 organization, while the buffer bone is managed by a group of representatives from DNPWC and local community institutions. A park warden is responsible for the overall management of both the core park area and the buffer zone (DNPWC 2001). For management purposes, the park has been divided into four sectors, namely Sauraha, Bagai, Amarawati and Kasara, and 37 posts. An assistant warden heads each of the sectors, which are further divided into sub-sectors administered by rangers. The chief warden coordinates with all of them as part of the day-to-day management activities. Due to a 30% shortage of management staff, most of the posts are manned by a 638-member contingent of the Royal Nepal Army (DNPWC 2001). Some of the park management responsibilities include, among others, habitat conservation and improvement, wildlife conservation, tourism management, conservation education and interpretation, resource sharing, Hattisar (camp for domesticated elephants and their handlers) management, infrastructure maintenance, and research and monitoring (DNPWC 2001). The management structure of the buffer zone is slightly different. The Buffer Zone Council, headed by the chief warden, is the apex body in the hierarchy, beneath which is the Buffer Zone Management Committee (BZMC) and user groups or user committees. The BZMC has an elected body of 42 members, including 37 representing users committees, 4 representing DDCs, and the chief warden as member secretary (DNPWC 2001). The Buffer Zone Support Unit is directly under the chief warden, who is responsible for providing administrative support to plans and programs in the buffer zone. Buffer zone management activities include wildlife habitat management, resource conservation and reforestation, pastureland management, cultural heritage conservation, tourism management, conservation education and awareness, alternative technology development, community development, local 49 economic development, support to special target groups, human resource development, capacity-building of local NGOs, relief against wild animals and river damage, and buffer zone revenue and its disbursement (DNPWC 2001). The buffer zone policy was formulated in 1993 but was implemented only in 1996. CNP launched an ambitious Park and People Project (PPP) in the buffer zone in 1994 with financial assistance from UNDP. The project implemented a wide range of community development and conservation programs aimed at reducing local dependence on forest resources. UNDP renewed its commitment to buffer zone development with a new Participatory Conservation Program (PCP) in 2001. In addition to the support from UNDP, CNP also reinvests 30 to 50 per cent of its revenue in socio-economic development and conservation programs in the buffer zone (DNPWC 2001). CNP is managed by the Nepalese government in a bureaucratic and authoritarian fashion. However, the park has made considerable progress over the years in improving its relationship with the local communities through livelihood support, resource sharing, income generation, education, and infrastructure development programs (DNPWC 2003). A number of community forests in the BZ provide local people with much-needed firewood, fodder, herbs, while bringing income from tourism activities. The park also allows local people to collect firewood and fodder for several days during the grass-cutting season every year (DNPWC 2001). In order to provide some relief to local communities affected by wild animals, in 2003 the park implemented a compensation program (DNPWC 2001). However, many victims of wild animals do not claim the compensation, because the amount is often too low and the claim process lengthy and complex. According to villagers and some park employees the 50 compensation program has been ineffective in providing any meaningful relief to people who lose their crops and livestock to wild animals from the park. CNP is making efforts to catch up with the global shift in conservation focus and management approaches, moving quickly from an initial species-level to an ecosystem, and more recently, to the landscape approach to biodiversity conservation (DNPWC 2003). The park is being considered as part of a proposed Terai Arc (TAL), extending from the Bagmati River (Nepal) in the east to the Yamuna River (India) in the west and encompassing 49,500 km of the Indian subcontinent (WWF 2004). The WWF Nepal Program has invited Resources Himalaya, an NGO based in Kathmandu, to explore and select a set of indicators for habitat monitoring. The WWF Nepal Program considers that the Terai Arc landscape has the potential to maintain connectivity among eleven protected areas, five in Nepal and six in India (WWF- Nepal 2004). However, some of these conservation opportunities in the park have been compromised by a string of challenges and threats. 3.3.6 Challenges The park has long been the subject of power struggles between and among a number of stakeholders. A workshop in 1998 found the park to be surrounded by a hundred and nine interest groups, including poachers, who still cause serious threats to the park (DNPWC 2001). Poaching, illegal logging, boundary encroachment, and illegal collection of firewood, plants and other resources from the park have not subsided despite the active presence of antipoaching units in different parts of the buffer zone and legal provision for harsh punishments for such activities (Shrestha 1999). Experts believe poaching in the park is one of the many extreme manifestations of local noncompliance with park policies, programs and wildlife conservation laws. The 51 majority of the people living in villages adjacent to the park still engage in extensive collection of timber, firewood, illegal livestock grazing, fishing, hunting and trapping of wild mammals and birds, and poisoning of rivers and streams (DNPWC 2004). Hundreds of people can be seen entering the park illegally for forest products every day. Park authorities attribute local defiance of park laws and involvement in illegal activities in the park to inadequate alternatives to forest products in the buffer zone, and high rates of crop raids and human fatalities by wild animals such as rhinos, elephants and tigers ((DNPWC 2004). Local pressure on the park has intensified even more over the last few years, mainly due to the growth in the local human population and a fresh influx of landless settlers who have occupied parts of the park. Apparently, boundary encroachment has turned from bad to worse over the last few years. The sheer volume and complexity of illegal activities in the park leave little time for the authority to attend to other important management issues. Park managers are busy prosecuting offenders, of whom there are over a hundred every day. Poorly managed tourism is another major contributor to the deterioration of natural integrity in the park. The tourism component of the park has been lacking an appropriate and timely management response. In fact, the park has no management plan for tourism, nor does it have any control over the flow of tourists visiting the parrk. CNP admits that tourism has many detrimental impacts on the ecological integrity of the park, but it has not been able to provide any assessment of the actual damage. The park generates plenty of money in tourist revenue, but none of it is spent on conservation activities inside the park (Nepal 2002, Shresthal999). In addition, the growth in tourism has caused many socio-economic problems, including social disparities and cultural decline in the buffer zone (Shrestha 1999). A study 52 conducted in 1996 indicated that tourism in and around the park had reached its limits, and that any further growth in tourism would cause severe damage to the park and its surroundings (KMTNC 1997). Even after ten years, tourism in and around the park continues to grow in the absence of appropriate management strategies and action. 53 Chapter IV Research methodology 4.1 Introduction Social science research is inherently challenging, because it involves the study of social and cultural phenomena, human behavior and their complex interrelationships. Unlike in a lab-based experiment where the researcher can control variables, it is almost impossible to control the influence of unwanted variables in most social science studies. However, the application of appropriate research methodologies can greatly improve the accuracy and reliability of results. A qualitative-quantitative method, also called as triangulation approach, is said to be the best option in social science research methodologies (Creswall 2002). Many researchers have applied the triangulation approach to study rural communities, their attitudes and perceptions (Nepal et et. 2002, Jim and Xu 2002, Nepal 2000, 1999, 1995, 1993, Mehta and Heinen 2001, Sarin et al. 1998, Mehta and Kellert 1998, Fiallo and Jacobson 1995). This research also employed the quantitative-qualitative approach to data collection through questionnaire survey, informal interviews, observation, and chats. This chapter describes the research design, methods, sources of error, data manipulation, interpretation and analysis. 4.2 Research design As the primary objective of the research was to conduct a comparative analysis of community participation between village categories and protected areas, caution was used to select comparable protected areas. Chitwan National Park (CNP) and Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) were ideal choices for protected areas because they both employ 54 participatory conservation strategies to mobilize local communities in development and conservation despite different management structures within which they operate. In each protected area, two categories of villages were identified: Non-tourist and Tourist villages (referred to as NT and TR respectively throughout this thesis). The purpose of this grouping was to detect differences in the level and scope of community participation between two different categories of villages within each protected area, and also between ACA and CNP. The categorization was based on three main factors: i) concentration of development infrastructure such as roads, schools, services, drinking water, etc., ii) distribution of conservation and community development programs and incentives for villagers, such as alternative energy and livelihood programs, income generating and skill development programs, tree plantation, etc., and iii) concentration of tourism enterprises such as hotels, lodges, restaurants, tea shops, and gift shops, etc. As not every village gets the same amount of developmental, economic and other benefits, a comparative study of NT and TR villages within and between the two protected areas was expected to produce noticeable differences in attitudes toward conservation and protected area authorities and their policies, perception of benefits from their respective protected areas, and local participation in community development and conservation programs (Brown 2003, Nepal et al. 2002, Mehta and Kellert 1998). In ACA, Tourist villages include Marpha, Lete, Ranipauwa, Jharkot, Kagbeni, Kinga and Tukuche, while Chhairo, Chhayo, Chhongur, Chimang, Jhipra Deurali, Kalopani, Kunjo, Lupra, Naurikot, Polche, Sauru, Taglung, Tiri Gaun, and Titi were categorized as Non-tourist villages (Table 2). These villages meet all the requirements for the NT category as they are far 55 off the main trekking trail and receive virtually no tourism benefits. These villages are also deprived of basic infrastructure such as roads, schools, drinking water, market and other amenities enjoyed by TR villages. The nearness of these villages to the forests renders them vulnerable to crop raids and livestock predation by protected wild animals more than the TR villages, which rarely experience such problems. On the other hand, the villages categorized as Tourist in ACA are right on the main trekking trail. Their location allows them to enjoy more benefits from tourism and other economic activities such as retail business, industry and services (Table 2). Similarly, in CNP Sauraha and Odhra are grouped as TR villages, while Beltandi, Janakpur, Manohara, and Naya Parsa have been categorized as NT villages (Table 2). Sauraha and Odhra clearly form the economic hub of the CNP buffer zone. These villages are located right at the park entrance and therefore are visited by more than 95% of the tourists coming to the park. The villages mainly consist of hotels, lodges, restaurants, gift shops, teashops, and tourism agencies catering mainly to foreign tourists and some Nepali visitors. Besides, as Sauraha and Odhara are located at the main entrance to the park, they enjoy better amenities and services, such as an all-weather road and medical, financial and educational opportunities compared with such NT villages as Beltandi, Janakpur, Manohara, and Naya Parsa, which lack both development infrastructure and tourism businesses, and are heavily dependent on the park's forest resources. Moreover, NT villages such as Beltandi, Manohara, Naya Parsad and Janakpur are located right on the park boundary and close to the community forests, and therefore experience high levels of crop damage and livestock depredation by wild animals. As the villages in ACA are smaller than in CNP, a higher number of villages had to be surveyed in ACA to match the number of households represented in CNP. 56 Table 2: Protected areas and village categories included in research design ACA CNP Multi-use conservation area National park Category NTNC - National NGO Government of Nepal Managed by Chhairo, Chhayo, Chhongur, Beltandi, Janakpur, Non-tourist (NT) village Chimang, Jhipra Deurali, Manohara, and Naya Kalopani, Kunjo, Lupra, Parsa Naurikot, Polche, Sauru, Taglung, Tiri Gaun, and Titi Marpha, Lete, Ranipauwa, Tourist (TR) villages Sauraha, Odhra Jharkot, Kagbeni, Kinga, Tukuche 4.3 Research teams Two research assistants, one male and one female, were hired in each protected area. The selection of the research assistants was based on their knowledge of and familiarity with local geographic, demographic and cultural aspects of the research. All but one research assistant were local residents of the study areas. Local residents were recruited to assist with the survey to minimize cross-cultural bias and non-sampling errors, and also to help communicate effectively with survey respondents in local languages. Hiring research assistants proved to be a challenge as potential candidates were expected to be well-versed in local dialects, Nepal's national language Nepali and English. The questionnaire survey was first prepared in English and then translated into Nepali. Efforts were made to make the questionnaires simple and easy for local people to understand by including local terminologies. Since the same questionnaire was to be used in two protected areas with different ethnicities and dialects, some of the words and phrases were changed again to match local use of the languages before starting the survey. Research assistants and principal investigators formed two research teams in each protected areas. Each team comprised one male and one female member to reduce possible 57 gender bias. The research assistants were trained to administer the survey and were instructed to avoid situations of potential bias, such as crowding, distraction, influencing, and intimidation of respondents by families, friends, and neighbors. The questionnaire was pretested with villagers and necessary modifications made before they were administered to households. Most demographic, attitude and opinion related questions were close-ended with some open-ended questions following them for explanation or clarity. The survey responses were later translated into English. The survey was conducted during the period of September 15 through December 15, 2004. 4.4 Research methods The nature and purpose of the study required the application of both quantitative and qualitative research techniques. Qualitative and quantitative research paradigms are markedly different in their ontological, epistemological, axiological, rhetorical and methodological assumptions (Creswell 2002, Babbie 2001). As quantitative or qualitative research methods each have their inherent inadequacies in addressing complex and often interrelated social and environmental phenomena, the research takes a qualitative-quantitative triangulation approach (Babbie 2001). A qualitative-quantitative approach to social research blends both the objective and subjective perspectives to get a more comprehensive assessment of the phenomena under study (Hessler 1992). The triangulation approach allows researchers to reconfirm the results of one method with the help of another, thereby minimizing possible inconsistencies and errors in data sources and methods. The research applied the following research techniques and tools. 58 4.4.1 Quantitative method Sampling is a standard research practice in any empirical research. As a census, the only alternative to sampling in which 100% of a population is surveyed, is unnecessary and difficult to conduct in many situations due to the time, money and effort it takes, sampling is preferred in most social science research (Hessler 1992). Sampling can be mainly divided into two broad categories: Probability and non-probability (Creswell 2002, Hessler 1992). The probability sample is considered to represent a large population better, and is likely to increase external validity in research (Babbie 2001). There are many different types of probability sampling. Simple random sampling is one of them. Simple random sampling was applied to survey the villages in both the protected areas. A random sampling procedure is one where every member of the whole population has an equal chance of being selected (Hessler 1992). This quality of random sampling makes it an effective tool in surveying large populations such as the ones included in the study. In order to ensure a balanced representation of the villages, every second household was sampled in sparsely populated villages, while every third household was included in densely populated villages. Only respondents over 18 years of age making a contribution to the household economy were included in the survey. As in many developing countries, women in rural Nepal are the primary users of natural resources. Their perspective on natural resource harvesting, biodiversity conservation and protected area policies and programs provide critical insights into conservation opportunities and constraints. However, getting rural women's views on conservation has remained a challenge in social science research (Gupte 2003). Social customs and traditions in these countries do not allow women to communicate freely with outsiders, let alone express their ideas and opinions. As a result, women are excluded from many social science research 59 projects in the developing world (Gupte 2003). Non-inclusion and poor representation of women in conservation research forfeits the opportunity to learn from a key stakeholder whose input is critical in the revision and formulation of biodiversity conservation policies and management strategies. With this in mind, conscious efforts were made to encourage women to participate in the questionnaire-based survey, and informal interviews and chats. Sample size Sample size is an important contributor to the quality of research and the reliability of results (Hessler 1992). The larger the sample size, the larger is the representation of the population and smaller the chance for error. Compared with many other social science studies in similar social settings, the total number of households surveyed is fairly large for sparsely inhabited rural communities of Nepal, where houses are few and far between. The sample size, especially for ACA, can be deemed large enough also in view of other factors, such as internal and external movements of people, uncertainties about the availability of people for sampling due to social, cultural, occupational, and political limitations (Babbie 2001, Mehta and Kellert 1998). The total sample sizes of NT and TR villages for both ACA and CNP are very close (Table 3). Even though the targeted sample size was the same for both the PAs, the number of total households actually sampled in CNP is slightly bigger (35%) than that in ACA (23%). The reasons for this difference can be attributed mainly to the fact that the survey coincided with local festivals and a busy harvesting season in ACA. Villagers in many parts of ACA were not available for survey. As people were busy harvesting, some of the interviews had to be done on farms. However, the sample sizes for both the protected areas are large enough to detect differences, if any, between the populations with adequate levels of confidence. 60 Table 3: Sample sizes in AC A and CNP . . Village Total p Category Households NT 511 ACA TR 306 Total 817 NT 311 TR 222 CNP Total 533 Households Interviewed 94 94 188 109 80 189 Sample size (%) 18% 30% 23% 35% 36% 35% Sampling frame A sampling frame is essentially a roster of units of analysis from which a sample is taken so the variability in it can be generalized to the population (Babbie 2001, Hessler 1992). Defining a sampling frame for social research in most Third World rural settings is challenging (Brown 2003, Heinen 1999, Mehta and Kellert 1998). The study area in Nepal is no exception to this rule. Most researchers depend on voters' lists for the convenience of getting a complete account of adult members above the age of 18, the age threshold targeted for typical social science research. However, voters' lists in Nepal are not updated regularly and therefore do not correctly reflect changes in demographics. It was found that protected area administrations and their development partners working in and around ACA and CNP maintained up-to-date village profiles with detailed demographic information. As protected areas and their development partners run various community programs together, they need to update demographic information regularly. Their village maps were used for the sampling frame. 4.4.2 Qualitative methods The qualitative approach applied in the study includes a broad suite of research techniques that have been employed by many social scientists in different research settings 61 around the world (Creswell 2002, Bulmer 1993). The research adopted the following qualitative techniques to complement the findings from the quantitative method, and to improve the accuracy and validity of the findings. Semi-structured and informal interviews The interview is widely used as a method in social science research. It is flexible, interesting, incisive and exploratory and can be used in a broad spectrum of research settings and situations (Creswell 2002, Bulmer 1993). There are different types of interviews for different purposes and situations. Structured interviews, semi-structured interviews, unstructured interviews and group interviews are some of them. Since a structured or formal interview is not practiced widely in Nepal, and there is a culture of corporate discomfort with this practice in information sharing, semi-structured interviews were used. The semi-structured interview is considered an effective social science research tool and is widely used to collect rich and useful data. This interview technique allows researchers to probe issues as they come up during the course of an interview with greater flexibility and in greater depth. Semi-structured interview is also described as truly versatile and useful where both textual and numeric data are required (Babbie 2001, Hessler 1992). A total of nineteen people were interviewed in their respective offices. The interviewees included conservation policy makers, scientists, protected area managers, and conservation project leaders representing the country's major conservation players, such as the Director of Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) under the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Country Representatives of IUCN and WWF, and heads of other government and non-government organizations, to name a few. 62 Informal chats and discussions Informal chats are an excellent interview technique useful in building rapport with people to make them freely speak their minds in places and conditions they are most comfortable with (Creswell 2002, Hessler 1992, Bulmer 1993). Informal interviews were also carried out with local village headmen, field-level conservation workers, community leaders and social workers on a wide range of issues related to community development, conservation, local participation, protected area authority, and management plans, programs and policies. Informal interviews proved to be particularly effective in probing contentious issues such as crop damage and livestock depredation by park wild animals, compensation and local community demand for more access to natural resources under protection. The majority of informal chats were conducted at teashops and in community gatherings and participants' homes. The total informal chats conducted were 54 in ACA and 67 in CNP respectively. These one-to-one chats do not include group discussions with members of local communities. Interviews and chats were recorded both on paper and on portable audio tape recorder with prior consent of the interviewees. The interviews were conducted in Nepali and were later transcribed and translated into English. Informal interviews and chats were conducted during the course of the survey between September 18, 2004 and December 9, 2004, while semi-structured interviews were conducted between December 15, 2004 and January 23, 2005. Qualitative data collected from the field including open-ended questions from the questionnaire, semi-structured interviews, informal chats and literature from the PAs have been used to explain the results from quantitative methods and analysis. Since it is not possible to validate all qualitative data, they were not coded for analysis, but were used to 63 complement quantitative data and to further clarify and support the results. For example, quantitative data analyses indicated a higher incidence of crop damage and livestock depredation by wildlife in villages closer to the protected areas than in the villages farther away from them. Information collected through interviews and chats with conservation authorities and members of local communities also suggest the same difference in the experience of wildlife related problems between the two villages categories. Some of the qualitative information has been used in quotes in the discussion sections of Chapter 5 and 6. 4.5 Potential sources of error Social science research by nature is fraught with challenges that may affect the validity and reliability of results and therefore demands caution and impartiality on the part of researchers. However, there are times, situation and contexts that create influences beyond researchers' ability to control. The research was conducted at a time when the Maoist insurgency was at its peak in Nepal. The insurgency had already claimed thousands of lives, including those of a large number of civilians, and created an atmosphere of fear, suspicion, despair and hardship for the people. The villages selected for the study in CNP were heavily affected by rebellion. Clashes between the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) and the Maoist rebels, shootings, bombings, strikes, road closures, and general pandemonium were a daily occurrence in most parts of the CNP buffer zone villages. The villages in ACA were said to be technically unaffected but were suspected of being infiltrated by Maoists guerilla disguised as pilgrims, tourists and traders who, together with the presence of armed counter-insurgency security forces and heavily fortified check posts, fanned a general sense of fear and insecurity in the area. 64 There were times when research teams were faced with serious security threats, at least in one so-called Maoist village named Janakpur in CNP buffer zone where regional Maoist leaders stopped one of the research teams and asked for identification papers and the purpose of the visit. The researchers were told that they were suspected of being government spies and were on the Maoist hit list. After the presentation of identification, the team was allowed to continue to conduct research but was put under surveillance. One of the principal researchers was repeatedly asked to visit the Maoist hideout, a standard trick used by Maoist field workers to kidnap people suspected to be government spies. No such encounter and threats were experienced in the ACA, but the researchers' presence generated curiosity and suspicion in the villages studied. The research teams clearly identified themselves and stated their purpose before administering surveys and interviews, but they were still looked upon with considerable suspicion, especially in the ACA, where villagers rarely see ousiders other than ACA field officers and tourists. The experience of the all-Nepali research team with their survey respondents was different from that of the other team, which included a Canadian citizen. Culturally, people in the mountains feel more comfortable speaking to foreigners than to Nepalis from other parts of the country. The composition of the research teams may have contributed to some non-sampling errors which could not have been avoided in any way. In view of the security situation in the country at the time of the research, some compromises had to be made in the selection of villages. The original list of villages selected for the study in both ACA and CNP had to be changed as some of the villages that would have been ideal for the study proved to be inaccessible and dangerous to researchers' personal security. 65 The survey also coincided with the busy harvesting season in ACA. As a result, some of the surveys had to be conducted on farms. The timing affected the representation of the research participants and their responses. There is a chance that responses could have been different were the surveys done in the comfort of their homes. Conducting a questionnairebased survey in remote villages of developing countries such as Nepal requires a lot of patience and understanding of the socio-cultural parameters, and must be backed by qualitative information. For example, there were times when female respondents in some villages were constantly distracted by household chores, children and bystanders during the interviews despite conscious efforts to avoid such situations. In addition to distractions, interview fatigue, misinterpretation and misunderstanding of questions and the linguistic and cultural differences between the survey administrators and subjects may have contributed to some variation in the responses. Parts of ACA and CNP buffer zone villages are some of Nepal's most researched areas. Some of the villagers in and around the protected areas even questioned the practical use of such research. They apparently had participated in many similar surveys before and were somewhat hesitant about being interviewed, because they believed their participation in research would not make any difference in how they live. The honesty of some of the respondents in their answers to survey questions can be doubted. 4.6 Data manipulation, analysis and interpretation Most quantitative analysis in the social sciences involves reducing people to numbers, while most qualitative analysis involves reducing people to words (Bernard 2000). Analysis mainly involves searching for patterns in data and for ideas that help explain trends in the population (Babbie 2001, Hessler 1992). Quantitative data was analyzed using the Statistical 66 Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS- Version 13). Data analysis was done at two levels: within each protected area to examine differences at the village level between the NT and TR village categories, and at the PA level between ACA and CNP. The questions were coded in the same direction to make the data manageable and to facilitate statistical analysis and interpretation. For example, ordinal categorical questions were assigned numerical values with higher scores corresponding to positive responses and lower scores corresponding to negative responses. Numerical codes of all negatively worded questions and statements were reversed so as to match with the rest of the questions. For attitude and opinion- related questions, 3, 4, and 5-point Likert-type scales were created. A Likert-type scale consists of a series of declarative statements. The subject is asked to indicate whether he or she agrees or disagrees with each statement. A five-option Likert-type scale is most common with "strongly agree", "agree", "undecided", "disagree", and "strongly disagree" response categories. However, other Likert-type scales with fewer options are also widely used. Questions which did not have "don't know" as an option in response categories were included in the missing values together with others without a valid recoded response. The missing values were coded with unique numerical codes so to neutralize their effect on other response categories. Such missing values were defined as user-defined missing values in SPSS and were excluded from analyses. The data were also tested for the normality of their distribution using a scatter plot. As they were found not to be normally distributed, non-parametric options such as chi-square test of independence was used in all comparative data to show the difference between two groups of populations, e.g. between village categories within each protected area and between protected areas. 67 Composite variables In order to measure respondents' attitudes and perceptions, it was necessary to combine multiple questions and statements on attitudes and perceptions to create composite scale variables (De Vaus 2002, 998; Babbie 2001). Standard statistical rules were followed while creating scales on multiple response categories. First, only statements with the same number of response categories were included in the creation of scale variables. Then negatively worded statements were recoded in the same direction to match with other positively worded statements. Statements in each group were also checked for their missing values. Missing values with 30% and higher per case were replaced with the group mean to minimize exclusion of important variables from the groups. In order to test the reliability and internal consistency of the statements included in the creation of composite variables, Cronbach' s alpha was used. Cronbach Alpha value ranges from 0 to 1, and a scale with alpha coefficient at 0.7 or higher is generally considered reliable (Babbie 2001). However, some social scientists have accepted lower alpha coefficients (Shah and Heinen 2001, Mehta and Kellert 1998). The Cronbach Alpha coefficient for the scale variables on perception was .67, and for attitudes the value was .72. After distinct sets of perception and attitude statements were selected for each new variable, the "compute" command in SPSS was used to calculate the new value. Scores for individual statements were summed for each case to calculate the value for the new composite variable. The new scale values were then used to create two and three-level Likert-type categorical variables for attitude and perception. For example, the perception and attitude statements had three original response categories, with "Don't Know", "Disagree", and "Agree" options assigned with numeric codes "0", "1", and "2", respectively. So, if a person correctly agreed to all four attitude statements, then his/her total score would be 8 (4X2=8). 68 By the same logic, another person with only two correct responses would score only 4 (2X2). Once the total aggregate score for each case was calculated, then the scores were graded to create new two and three-level Likert-scale variables on perception and attitude. For example, the new composite variable created this way on conservation awareness has three levels: Unaware, Aware, and Highly Aware represented by numeric codes "0", " 1 " , and "2", respectively. Similarly, the composite variables on attitude to PA policies, and attitudes to PA authority and officials were created with three-levels, with Negative (0), Neutral (1), and Positive (2) values. The mean scores on perception and attitude were calculated by dividing the aggregate scores by the total number of statements included in the composite variables. The variable "Are there any barriers to participation?" reported in smaller tables in Chapter 5 is not a composite variable. It is a two-level Likert-type variable with "No" and "Yes" represented by numeric codes "0" and " 1 " , respectively. The list of barriers reported in larger tables in the same chapter shows means calculated on the scores from the original fourpoint Likert scale with the options "Don't Know", "Not Significant", "Somewhat Significant", and "Most Significant" represented by numeric codes " 1 " , "2", "3", and "4", respectively. The x 2 coefficients in the tables were calculated on the mean scores, and not on the Likert-scale scores. The variable "Benefits from participation" is not a composite variable either. It is the original variable with only "No" (0) and "Yes" (1) response categories. Logistic regression Most of the demographic variables were initially coded as three or four-level categorical variables. The use of logistic regression required the transformation of these and other categorical variables into dichotomous dummy variables (De Vaus 2002). For some examples, the originally four-level variable "Age" was transformed into a two-level 69 dichotomous variable where respondents aged less than 45 were represented by "0", and those aged 45 and over were represented by "1". Similarly, caste and occupation variables were each collapsed into two-level dummy variables with "0" representing lower caste and nontourism occupation, and " 1 " representing upper-caste and tourism occupation respectively. Measuring people's income in rural Nepal is difficult as most of them live on multiple incomes from various farming and non-farming activities including employment and seasonal labor. Instead of using cash income, which many were hesitant to report, people's perceived ability to support their families around the year was used to determine their economic status. The dichotomous variable created for this purpose assigned "0" to those who were not able to meet their needs and " 1 " to those who were able to support themselves throughout the year. Since local participation is a social behavior and can be affected by more than one or two variables, it is important to find its contributors so that it can be correctly predicted. Logistic regression was used to predict and determine variation in local participation (dependent variable), and to rank the relative importance of demographic and attitudinal variables (independents) according to their interaction effects (De Vaus 2002). The following steps were taken in order to make the data suitable for logistic regression: First, a set of both demographic and attitudinal variables deemed as potential contributors to variations in community participation was selected for logistic regression. Variables with more than two categories had some of their low-response categories collapsed to create two-level dichotomous dummy variables, with "0" indicating negative and 1 indicating positive values. A high number of independent variables indicated the possibility of inter-item correlation or multicollinearity. High multicollinearity (R ) increases the standard error of the beta coefficients and makes the assessment of the unique role of each independent 70 difficult or impossible, leading to errors in the results of logistic regression (Du Vaous 2002). Factor analysis attempts to identify underlying variables, or factors, that explain the pattern of correlations within a set of observed variables. Factor analysis is often used in data reduction to identify a small number of factors that explain most of the variance observed in a much larger number of manifest variables. So, a principal component factor analysis was performed to identify collinearity in the factors, and their aggregate scores were saved as new variables for regression. Only the variables whose egienvalue was greater than 1 were included in the logistic regression model. Possible multicollinearity was further checked in regression analysis. The higher the inter-correlation of the independent variables, the more the tolerance value will approach zero. As a rule of thumb, variables with a tolerance value less than .1 indicate problems of multicollinearity. Covariates indicating problems of multicollinearity were removed from the regression results (Du Vaous 2002). Data have been organized, summarized and described using frequency tables, and cross-tables. 71 Chapter V Results: Demographics of community Participation 5.1 Introduction Demographic information provides important clues to the characteristics of the population being studied. This section presents analyses of demographic data on household size, gender, age, education, occupation, ethnicity, land holding, income and whether that income is enough to support the lives of the respondents. The chapter also examines local community participation in development and conservation initiatives through demographic variables. In order to understand the dynamics of local participation, especially its links with key variables such as attitude and perceptions, it is important to know who is participating and who is not. In addition to community participation, this chapter also reports the demographic characteristics of barriers preventing people from participating and those who do, and do not, perceive links between community participation and its social benefits. The results will help take the analysis a step further in the next chapter to explore how and what factors create variations in local participation. The results have been presented separately for ACA and CNP 5.2 Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) 5.2.1 Demographic characteristics The total number of households interviewed in Annapurna was 188, of which 94 were in NT villages and another 94 were in the TR villages. The household size ranged from 1 to 11, the minimum and maximum number of people in a family, respectively. The mean household size for NT was 5. 67, while it was 5.55 for TR (see Appendix 3). 72 Of those interviewed in ACA, 52.1% were male and the remaining 47.9% were female. There were more male respondents (56.4%) in NT than in TR villages (47.9%). For females, 43.6% were from NT and 52.1% from TR village categories (see Appendix 3). Adults between the ages of 25 and 45 were the most represented group in the survey, followed by 33.5% middle-aged (46-64), 11.7% youth (18-24), and 6.9% seniors (over 65) (see Appendix 3). Over 34% of the respondents, 39.4% from NT and 29.8% from TR villages respectively, did not have any formal education. Only 28.2% of those interviewed had some primary education, followed by 18.6% with secondary education, 12.8% with lower secondary and 5.9% with college or university-level education. Of those with higher education, 1.1% were from NT and 10.6% were from TR villages (see Appendix 3). Farmers (58.5%) were the most represented occupation category in ACA, followed by tourism business owners (26.1%). There were comparatively more farmers (78.7%) in NT than in TR villages, where they were just 38.3%. Conversely, the TR had 45.7 % business owners compared with only 6.4% in the NT category. The middle or trading caste had the greatest representation (68.1%) in the survey, followed by low caste (22.3%) and high caste (9.6%). There were more low caste respondents in the NT villages (33.0%) than in the TR villages (11.7%), where high caste respondents were almost twice (12.8%) as many than in the NT village (6.4%). The majority of the respondents (63.8%) followed Buddhism. Hindus were 27.1%, trailed by 6.9% people following both Buddhist and Hindu traditions. There were more Hindus in NT villages (38.3%) than in TR villages (16.0%), where Buddhists were in greater numbers (77.7%) (see appendix 3). 73 Respondents were categorized into three distinct income groups (low, medium and high) based on their ability to address their family needs around the year. Those who could never adequately meet their needs were grouped as low-income, while those who met their needs sometimes were grouped as middle-income. Likewise, families who were able to meet their needs around the year were grouped as high-income. More than 53% of the respondents reported to have a low income, while those belonging to medium and high-income groups were 26.6% and 20.2%, respectively. There were more low-income respondents in NT villages (60.6%) than in TR villages (45.7%). There was not much difference between NT and TR in the medium-income category, but those in the high-income category were in substantially greater number in TR villages (26.6%) than in the NT villages (13.8%). Asked whether the income is enough to support their family, 50.0% of the respondents said their income was always enough. Of this, the majority (64.9%) were from the TR villages while only 35.1% were from the NT villages. The household income was enough only sometimes for 38.3%, and was never enough for 11.7% of the people. The majority of the respondents who thought their income was only sometimes or never enough to support their families were from NT villages (see Appendix 3). 5.2.2 Community participation Local participation has been the driving force behind the creation and operation of Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) right from its inception. The conservation area has placed special emphasis on ways to elicit voluntary involvement of local people in community building and resource management including wildlife protection. In ACA, 54.8% of the respondents were found to be participating in community development and conservation 74 programs. The difference in participation between the two village categories was not statistically significant (Table 4). Table 4: Community participation in ACA NT% (n=94) TR% (n=94) Total % (n=188) No 33.0 45.7 43.8 Yes 67.0 54.3 54.8 Community participation Do you participate or are you a member of any group? x2 P 3.209 .073 Both genders were fairly represented in participation. Almost 51% of the participants were female, while 49.1% were male. Both NT and TR villages had almost equal representation of male and female participants. The NT villages had 47.6% female participants, while the TR villages had slightly more female (54.9%) participants (see Appendix 4). In terms of age, middle-aged respondents had the highest participation (49%). However, no significant difference was found between the village categories with regard to the age of those who participated in community programs. One-third (33.3%) of those who participated had no formal education. About 25% of the participants had primary education, followed by 20.2% with lower secondary, 14% with secondary, and 7.0% with university education. The chi-square test indicated no significant difference between the NT and TR villages in the education level of participants. Tourism and farming are two major occupations in ACA. Of those who participated in community programs, 60.5% were farmers and 24.6% were involved in tourism. However, the number of the participants engaged in agricultural activities was significantly higher (79.4%) in the NT villages than that in the TR villages (37.3%). On the other hand, only 49% of those involved in tourism in TR villages were participating in community programs. The difference was found to be statistically significant in the chi-square test (x2=33.993, p< .001) 75 (see Appendix 4). The differences between NT and TR villages in caste of the participants were also statistically signification (x2=10.932, p< .05). Of those who participated, 21.9% were low caste, 69.3% were middle or trading caste, and 8.8% were high caste in ACA. There were more (33.3%) low-caste participants in NT than in TR (7.8%) villages, while the majority of the participants (80.4%) in the TR villages were middle or trading caste compared with 60.3% in the NT villages. With respect to faith of the participants, 61.4% of those who participated were Buddhists, while only 28.1% were Hindus, and 8.8% followed both religions. However, the TR villages had more (80%) Buddhist participants than the NT villages, where there were fewer (46%) participants from the same faith. On the contrary, more Hindus participated in NT (41.3%) than in TR (11.8%). The chi-square test revealed a significant difference (x2=17.083, p<.05) between the NT and TR villages. Interestingly, more than half (51.8%) of the participants fell into the low-income bracket. The remaining medium-income (24.6%) and high-income (23.7%) groups made up the rest of the participants. There were slightly more low-income participants (57.1%) in the NT villages than in TR villages (45.1%). In contrast, the TR category of villages had more (35.3%) high-income participants than did the NT category of villages, in which the percentage was just 14.3% (see Appendix 4). Total household income does not always provide a reliable assessment of living standards in the rural areas of Nepal. Family size and patterns of expenditure are some important factors that affect people's living standard. In order to substantiate quantitative information on household income, the respondents were asked whether their income was never, sometimes, or always enough to support their family. In the Non-tourist villages, only about 25.5% of those who participated in community 76 programs were able to meet their family needs with their income, while the percentage of the same group of respondents was 52% in the Tourist villages (see Appendix 4). 5.2.3 Barriers to participation The question "are there any barriers limiting your participation?" was asked irrespective of the respondents' answer to "do you participate in community programs?" question. Approximately 70% of all participants reported barriers preventing them from participating. The chi-square test did not show any difference between the two village categories within ACA. In total, a large majority (71.2%) of the respondents in ACA said there were barriers limiting their participation in community programs (Table 5). Table 5: Barriers to participation in ACA TR% (n=94) 27.3 Total % (n=188) 28.8 x2 P No NT% (n=94) 30.3 Yes 69.7 72.7 71.2 .203 .653 Barriers Barriers to participation A Mann-Whitney U test of barriers revealed significant differences between TR and NT villages (Table 6). For example, respondents in Non-tourist villages rated farm and livestock-related barriers much higher than those in Tourist villages, probably because a higher proportion of people are engaged in farming activities in NT villages than in TR villages. NT respondents also rated schedule conflict with supplementary employment higher than their TR counterparts, which indicates that the people living in Non-tourist villages are engaged in multiple income-generating activities to support themselves. In general, barriers that prevent villagers from participating in community programs are directly related to their occupations. Asked what would make them participate or participate more often, over 95% of the respondents said the availability of free time would make them participate more (Table 6). 77 Table 6: Respondents' ratings of barriers to participation in AC A Village Category Barriers to community participation NT TR N Mean SD N Mean SD df P Demands from household chores 77 3.74 .594 76 3.51 .683 151 .003 Schedule conflicts with agricultural activities 77 3.70 .630 76 3.12 .832 151 .001 Schedule conflicts with livestock grazing 76 3.74 .856 76 2.22 .624 150 .000 Schedule conflicts with other employment 74 3.70 .618 76 2.32 .752 148 .011 Conflicts with other livelihood activities 77 3.74 .872 76 2.87 .822 151 .475 Demands of family childcare responsibilities 76 2.12 .920 75 2.55 .843 149 .166 Park / conservation area policies 76 2.77 .665 75 2.01 .557 149 .075 The meeting place is too far from my home 77 2.92 .656 75 2.04 .505 150 .003 I am not invited to participate When I participated in the past, I was made to feel unwelcome I did not know I could participate 76 2.11 .795 75 2.12 .614 149 .032 76 2.21 .499 75 2.01 .479 149 .393 76 2.18 .552 75 1.99 .385 149 .074 I do not know how to become involved 76 1.93 .802 75 2.15 .672 149 .089 I have no free time No one will listen to me, so why should I participate I am not interested in participating 77 2.04 .891 75 3.11 .924 150 .993 76 2.25 .687 74 1.96 .420 148 .004 76 3.25 .704 74 2.08 .568 148 .011 Note: Means calculated on the scores from the original four-point Likert scale (Don't Know=l, Not Significant=2, Somewhat Significant—3, and Most Significant=4). The p value is based on the means. 5.2.4 Benefits from participation Surprisingly, a large majority of the respondents in ACA said their participation did not benefit their family. There was no difference in the results between TR and NT villages (Table 7). Table 7: Local perception of benefits from Total % (n=188) 80.4 x2 P No participation[ in ACA TR% NT % , _... (n=94) (n=94) 71.7 60.8 Yes 28.3 32.7 1.469 .203 n f. Benefits Benefits from participation 39.2 78 5.3 Chitwan National Park (CNP) 5.3.1 Demographic characteristics As residents of CNP buffer zone villages have higher levels of education and awareness and are also exposed more to family planning campaigns than their counterparts in ACA, their family size is expected to be smaller. However, the household size in CNP is much larger (1 to 18 members) than in ACA. Several factors may explain this discrepancy. Geography and climate may be a factor in family size. Household size in the temperate and sub-alpine mountains is invariably smaller than in the hot sub-tropical flatlands in Nepal. Culture could be another contributor. Society rooted in Hindu tradition such as the one around CNP follows the custom of living in extensive joint families. The average household size for NT and TR villages was 5.84 and 5.58, respectively. Male and female respondents were in almost equal numbers in CNP. However, there was a marked disparity between NT and TR village categories with respect to gender representation. While there were more females in NT villages (59.6%) than in TR villages, there were more male respondents in TR villages (63.8%) than in the NT villages (40.4%). The difference in gender representation between the NT and TR village categories could be attributed to their distinct occupational roles. Tourist villages are predominantly driven by tourism businesses with mostly men owning and operating the businesses, while Non-tourist villages are primarily agrarian where women usually work around the house and therefore are more likely to be available for survey (see Appendix 3). As in ACA, the majority of the respondents (57.1%) were in the active adult age group, followed by middle-aged (22.8%), youth (16.4%) and seniors (3.7%). There was no noticeable difference between the NT and TR village categories in terms of the respondents' age group. However, the two village categories indicated substantial differences in education. 79 Nearly one-third (36.5%) of the respondents in CNP had received no education at all. There were twice as many (49.9%) uneducated respondents in NT as in TR (23.8%) villages. The same pattern was found through all levels of school education. A little over 13% of the respondents had college or university education; but in the Tourist villages the proportion was 28.8% compared with only 2.8 in the Non-tourist villages (see Appendix 3). The majority (67.2%) of those interviewed cited agriculture as their primary occupation, while 27% were engaged in tourism businesses. The overwhelming majority (91.7%) of the respondents in the NT villages were farmers, compared with only 33.8% in the TR villages. Conversely, 61.3% of the people surveyed in the Tourist villages were involved in tourism compared with only 1.8% in the Non-tourist villages (see Appendix 3). CNP was not very different from ACA as far as the middle, trading or working caste is concerned, who comprised 53.2% of all people surveyed. However, it was in stark contrast with ACA in that it had comparatively much higher proportions of high caste (34.6%) and low caste (12.2%) respondents. There was not statistical difference based on caste between TR and NT villages. CNP was different from ACA in cultural tradition and faith. Given its Indo-Aryan tradition, it was no surprise that 86.8% of the respondents in CNP subscribed to Hinduism, followed by 6.3% Buddhism, and 1.6% Christianity, respectively. About 5.3% of the respondents were either atheist or chose not to disclose their faith (see Appendix 3). Over 44% of the respondents fell in the low-income category, while about 34% and 21.7% belonged to medium and high-income categories. The proportion of respondents in both low and medium-income brackets was substantially greater in the NT villages (51.4% and 39.4% 80 respectively) than in the TR villages (35.0% and 26.3% respectively) where high-income respondents were in greater proportion (38.8%) than in the NT villages (9.2%). Interestingly, only 17.5% of the respondents said that their income was enough to support their family round the year. While the majority (71.4%) was able to meet their family needs partially with their income, 11.1% had income so low they could never meet their needs. Over 82% of the respondents who said they were unable to meet their needs were from the NT villages, while only 56.3% were from the TR villages. In the TR villages, 35% of the people could always meet their needs with their income. The people who were able to do that in NT villages were only 4.6%. This shows the disparity in income between Non-tourist and Tourist villages in CNP (see Appendix 3). 5.3.2 Community participation In CNP, respondents were split almost in half over the participation question. Asked whether they participated in community programs or were a member of any community group, only 45.2% reported positively. The difference in participation between NT and TR respondents was not statistically significant (Table 8). Table 8: Community participation in CNP NT % (n=80) TR % (n=109) No 46.8 55.0 56.2 Yes 53.2 45.0 45.2 Community participation Do you participate or are you a member of any group? Total % (n=189) x2 1.222 .265 There was a significant difference (x =6.483, p<.05) between the village categories in gender representation of the participants. A higher percentage of women (over 60 %) participated in NT villages than in the TR villages (33.3%). In contrast, more men (66.7%) participated in TR villages than in NT villages where male participants were only 39.7% (see 81 Appendix 4). Almost 60% of those participating in community programs were adults between 25 and 45 years of age, however, there was no significant difference between the village categories in the age of the participants (see Appendix 4). There was a significant difference (x2=48.034, p<.001) between the village categories with regard to the level of education of those who were participating. Almost one-third of the participants in CNP had no formal education, but the rest followed a pattern in which higher level of education coincided with increased level of participation. Over 41% of the participants in NT did not go to school as opposed to only 11.1% in the TR villages, where 50% of the respondents had university education. Hence there were more educated participants in the Tourist villages than in the Non-tourist villages. A similar difference was observed between the two village categories with regard to occupation and participation. Of those who participated in community programs, the majority (66.6%) were farmers, followed by tourism business owners (24.4%), and others (10.7%). An overwhelming majority (87.9%) of the participants in NT were farmers, while only 1.7% owned tourism businesses. Conversely, only 30.6 % of the participants were farmers in die TR villages, where the majority of the participants (61.1%) were engaged in tourism businesses. Unlike in ACA, ethnic composition in CNP was more hierarchical, with upper caste Brahmins and Chhetris forming a majority of the participants (50%) in the Tourist villages, about 10% more than in the Non-tourist villages. The low, middle and high caste participants for CNP were 8.5%, 47.9%, and 43.6%, respectively. Statistically, there were no significant differences between NT and TR villages in ethnicities of the participants. Hindus had the highest participation in CNP (90.8%) followed by Buddhist (5.3%) and Christian (2.15%). 82 However, a significant difference in income tf=l 1.190, p<.05) was observed between them. Of those who participated in community programs, 40.4% were in the medium-income bracket, while 38.3% were in the low, and 21.3% were in the high-income brackets, respectively. In TR villages dominated by tourism businesses, 39% of the participants were from the high-income group, followed by 33% from low-income and 27.8% medium-income categories. In NT villages, only 10.3% of those involved in community programs were from the high-income bracket. The difference between NT and TR villages was also substantiated using another variable which divided the participating respondents into three groups on the basis of their ability to feed their family with their income. Overall, only 17.5% of those who were involved in the park's community programs said they could support their family around the year, while the majority 71.4% could feed their family only sometimes, and 11.1% were never able to meet their expenses. Over 41% of the participants in the Tourist villages always met their expenses compared with only 8.6% in the farming communities of NT villages. There were twice as many participants in NT as in TR villages who never met their family needs with their income. 4.3.3 Barriers to participation Interestingly, almost the same proportion of respondents in both NT and TR villages reported barriers preventing them from participating in community programs (Table 9) Table 9: Barriers to participation in CNP NT% (n=80) TR% (n=109) Total % (n=189) No 61.5 61.3 69.5 Yes 38.5 38.8 36.7 Barriers Barriers to participation 7 p~ .001 .976 83 Unlike ACA, there is no significant difference between the village categories in agriculturerelated barriers to participation in CNP. However, there seems to be some differences between the village categories in barriers related to livestock grazing, schedule conflict with alternative employments, location of meeting place, and respondents' experience of being ignored when they participated in the past (Table 10). The difference observed in barriers to participation between NT and TR villages is primarily due to the difference in occupation and the time it demands. Given the fact that more people participate in the Non-tourist villages, it can be said that if all the barriers were removed, there would be even people participating in NT than in the TR villages (Table 10). Table 10: Respondents' ratings of barriers to participation in CNP Vi lage Category Barriers to community participation NT TR N Mean SD N Mean SD df P 135 .879 135 .359 Demands from household chores 78 3.53 .697 59 3.39 .670 Schedule conflicts with agricultural activities Schedule conflicts with livestock grazing 78 3.49 .698 59 2.76 .773 78 2.65 .699 59 2.24 .567 135 .000 Schedule conflicts with other employment 78 2.17 .520 59 2.56 .815 135 .000 Conflicts with other livelihood activities 78 2.37 .667 59 2.53 .626 135 .642 Demands of family childcare responsibilities 78 2.72 .836 59 2.78 .832 135 .955 Park / conservation area policies 78 2.26 .746 59 2.14 .655 135 .367 The meeting place is too far from my home 78 2.38 .688 57 2.19 .581 133 .043 I am not invited to participate 78 2.91 .840 59 2.69 .793 135 .437 When I have participated in the past, I was made to feel unwelcome I did not know I could participate 78 2.26 .612 59 2.10 .480 135 .023 78 2.90 .891 59 2.68 .899 135 .935 I do not know how to become involved 78 2.96 .889 59 2.86 .899 135 .818 I have no free time 78 3.00 .721 59 3.49 .796 135 .087 No one will listen to me, so why should I participate I am not interested in participating 78 2.26 .633 59 2.12 .590 135 .186 78 2.24 .607 59 2.07 .583 135 .138 Note: Means calculated on the scores from the original four-point Likert scale (Don't Know=l, Not Significant=2, Somewhat Significant=3, and Most Signifwant=4). The p value is based on the means. 84 5.3.4 Benefits from participation The majority of the respondents in CNP (79.3% in NT and 83.3% in TR villages, respectively) said they benefited from their participation in community programs (Table 11). A chi-square test, however, did not indicate a significant difference between the village categories. Table 11: Local perception of benefits from participation in CNP NT% TR% Benefits (n=80) (n=109) Benefits from participation No 20.7 16.7 Yes 79.3 83.3 Total % (n=189) 19.6 x' 67.3 .232 .630 5.4 Comparison between ACA and CNP 5.4.1 Community participation A comparative analysis revealed important differences between ACA and CNP in local participation. ACA has greater participation (54.8%) in community programs than CNP (45.2%), even though the samples in ACA were taken in remote parts of the conservation area where the community programs were introduced relatively recently in 1992. Had the samples been taken in southern parts of ACA where the community programs were launched in 1986, this difference would probably have been even bigger. The difference in the two population samples participating in ACA and CNP was statistically significant (x2= 5.430, p <05) (Table 12). Table 12: Community participation between ACA and CNP ACA % CNP % Participation (n=188) (n=189) Do you participate or are you a No 43.8 56.2 member of any group Yes 45.2 54.8 Total % (n=377) 44.8 55.2 5.430 .033 85 Both genders have been well represented in community participation in both ACA and CNP. Likewise, there was no noticeable difference in the participants' age groups between the two PAs. The majority (53.8%) of those who participated were between the ages of 25 and 45, followed by middle-aged (31.3%), youth aged between 18 and 24 (11.5%, and seniors over 65 (3.4%) (see Appendix 5). One-third (31.7%) of the participants had no formal school education, while those with primary, lower secondary, secondary, and university education made up 20.2%, 14.9%, 19.2%, and 13.9% of the participating population respectively. Complete lack of access to higher education in ACA, but easy access to the same in CNP contributed to the difference in the education level of the participants between the PAs. Roughly 22.3% participants in CNP had university education as opposed to only 7% in ACA (x2=12.563, p<.05). Overall, 63% of those who were involved in community programs were farmers, 60.5% in ACA and 66.0% in CNP. About 24.5% of the rest of the participants (24.6% in ACA and 24.5% in CNP) were tourism business owners (see Appendix 5). Of the participants, almost 60% belonged to the middle or working class, while low and high-caste participants represented 24.5% and 15.9%, respectively. A statistically significant difference (x2=35.327, p<.001) was found between the PAs in the social status of those who participated in community programs. ACA had slightly higher (21.9%) low-caste participants than CNP (8.5%). On the contrary, CNP had a substantially higher proportion of high-caste participants (43.6%) than ACA (8.8%). The variation is largely due to the difference in social hierarchy between ACA and CNP, and is closely linked to different faiths followed in the two PAs. ACA is culturally mostly Tibeto-Burman, with the majority of the people following Buddhism (71.3% including 8.8% following both Buddhism and Hinduism), 86 while CNP is predominantly Hindu, with 90.4% of the participants subscribing to this faith and only 5.3% following Buddhism (see Appendix 5). As the caste system is rooted more in Hinduism, it is more prominent in predominantly Hindu CNP than in largely Buddhist ACA. In terms of income levels, 45.7% of the participants represented the low-income bracket of the villages, while 31.7% and 22.6% belonged to the medium and high-income groups respectively. Over half (51.8%) of the participants in ACA could be classified as lowincome, compared with only 38.3% in CNP. Income disparity between the two PAs (x?=6.261, p<.05) is also reflected in the participants' perception of their income (see Appendix 5). 5.4.2 Barriers to participation The two protected areas showed important differences in reporting barriers preventing local people from participating in community programs. ACA had a substantially higher proportion (63.3%) of respondents facing barriers in community participation than CNP where only 36.7% of the respondents reported barriers. The difference was statistically significant (x2=39.064, p<.001) (Table 13). Table 13: Barriers to participation between ACA and CNP ACA % CNP % merS (n=188) (n=189) Barriers to participation Total % (n=377) No 30.5 69.5 45.6 Yes 63.3 36.7 54.4 x2 p 39.064 .000 The major barriers preventing people from participating in community development and conservation programs of ACA and CNP in order of importance are as follows: household chores, agricultural activities, lack of free time, livestock grazing, alternative livelihood and income-generating activities, child care issues, lack of information about 87 participation processes, and the relationship between people and PAs (Table 14). Even though the major barriers were the same for both ACA and CNP, there were some differences in the way ACA and CNP respondents rated these barriers (Table 14). For example, ACA respondents rated household chores, agriculture, and alternative livelihood activities higher than their CNP counterparts, who rated barriers related to PA policies, lack of information about the participatory process, PA-local community relationship higher than did the former. This difference also indicates a disparity in respondents' attitudes toward the policies of their respective PAs. Apparently, CNP respondents find PA policies and attitudes inhibiting to local participation more than their ACA counterparts (Table 14). Table 14: Respondents' ratings of barriers to participation between ACA and CNP Protected Areas Barriers to community participation ACA CNP N 153 Mean 3.63 SD .648 N 137 Mean 3.47 SD .687 df P 288 .036 153 3.41 .791 137 3.18 .813 288 .684 152 2.38 .762 137 2.47 .676 287 .645 Schedule conflicts with other employment 150 2.22 .694 137 2.34 .689 285 .243 Conflicts with other livelihood activities 153 2.82 .846 137 2.44 .651 288 .001 Demands of family childcare responsibilities 151 2.74 .900 137 2.74 .832 286 .117 Park / conservation area policies 151 2.06 .614 137 2.20 .709 286 .003 The meeting place is too far from my home 152 2.13 .590 135 2.30 .650 285 .006 I am not invited to participate When I have participated in the past, I was made to feel unwelcome I did not know I could participate 151 2.15 .709 137 2.82 .824 286 .000 151 1.97 .489 137 2.19 .563 286 .001 151 2.01 .476 137 2.80 .898 286 .000 I do not know how to become involved 151 2.20 .740 137 2.92 .672 286 .001 I have no free time No one will listen to me, so why should I participate I am not interested in participating 152 3.18 .907 137 3.21 .924 288 .036 150 2.05 .577 137 2.20 .420 288 .684 150 2.15 .642 137 2.17 .568 287 .645 Demands from household chores Schedule conflicts with agricultural activities Schedule conflicts with livestock grazing Note: Means calculated on the scores from the original four-point Likert scale (Don't Know=l, Not Significant=2, Somewhat Significant=3, and Most Significant=4). j. The p value is based on the means. 88 5.4.3 Benefits from participation A significant difference was found between ACA and CNP with regard to the perception of benefits from participation (x2=46.457, p<.001). In ACA, 84.4% of the respondents said their participation did not benefit their families, while the respondents in the same category in CNP were only 19.6%. Conversely, a great majority (67.3%) of the respondents in CNP perceived that they have benefited from their participation, as opposed to only one-third (32.7%) in ACA (Table 15). Table 15: Local perception of benefits from participation between ACA and CNP „ ACA% CNP% Total % x2 R e S (n=188) (n=189) (n=377) No 80.4 19.6 44.9 Benefits from participation Yes 32.7 67.3 55.1 46.457 p .000 Both ACA and CNP use a range of incentives such as concessions on collection of forest resources, community services (education, drinking water, electricity, incomegenerating training programs, etc), and financial help through collateral-free loans as trade-off for voluntary local involvement in community programs and activities. These incentives can be loosely defined as "benefits" associated with community participation. However, it is surprising to see substantial divergence in the response to the benefit question between ACA and CNP. There are at least two possible explanations for this discrepancy: perception of benefit, and inadequate compensation for time and labor committed to community programs by the respondents. ACA and CNP represent two completely different cultural settings. It was found that respondents in ACA perceive "benefits" as something tangible, such as cash. They do not usually consider community support services as benefits. Another possibility is that they might have that thought they did not receive the benefits they had hoped for. The latter seems to be the case, as many respondents were candidly bitter about ACAP, the project that 89 administers the conservation area, which they thought made them work hard on "empty promises". On the contrary, the majority of the respondents in CNP could list the benefits they receive from the park in return for their participation in community programs. 5.5 Discussion The discourse on community participation in the villages surveyed in ACA needs to take account of the fact that participatory conservation was introduced in the area only in 1992, much later than in southern parts of the conservation area. So, given its short history, overall participation for ACA can be interpreted as a positive indication of community support (KMTNC 2002). However, as NT villages were found to have slightly greater participation than TR villages, ACAP needs to evaluate their participatory programs and motivation strategies. Though there could be a number of factors contributing to variations in participation, which will be discussed in the subsequent chapter, lack of time and schedule conflict with works, income-generating programs, and household chores seem to be some of the barriers preventing the majority of the people from volunteering time and labor in participatory programs. Similarly, a relatively lower participation on the part of TR villages could be the seasonal factor of tourism, which is the main occupation of the people in these villages. TR residents are busy in their businesses in the summer time, which is the tourist season in the area. They have more free time in winter, but this is also the time when not much community development and conservation activities take place due to cold weather. CNP also experienced the same difference between villages, with NT villages participating more than TR villages. Despite better accessibility to amenities, exposure to education opportunities and more interactions with park authorities, local participation in CNP remains low. Some of the 90 reasons for the difference in participation between ACA and CNP can be ascribed to geographic and cultural settings in which these protected areas operate. Villages surveyed in ACA are characterized by remoteness and isolation from other economic centers in the region. As the major occupations such as farming, trading and tourism businesses are mainly seasonal, life in these villages is generally relaxed which gives the people some time to engage in community activities. On the other hand, the villages in CNP are culturally and economically more diverse, vibrant, and dynamic, with the majority of the people growing cereal or cash crops round the year. Unlike CNP, where the idea of involving local people in resource management has yet to win widespread local support, ACA is already enjoying exemplary success in forging partnership with local communities in the southern districts. This success may have been an important motivational factor for communities in the northern parts of the conservation area. The institution involved could be another reason for this difference. The majority of the respondents both in ACA and CNP indicated that they prefer to work with NGOs, INGOs and foreigners for community development and conservation. Their bias against government organizations is based on two factors: a) government agencies like park authorities are associated with strict rules and regulations, and b) international and national NGOs gain local acceptance by providing cash and other incentives. Surprisingly, the majority (95%) of the respondents in ACA inaccurately perceived ACA as a foreign NGO in the survey. That was not the case in CNP, where almost every respondent knew who was operating the park. People with higher levels of education had higher levels of participation than those with lower levels of education for both ACA and CNP. This fact indicates a possible link between education and community participation. Educated people in any given society are 91 more likely to be aware of opportunities available, just as they have better access to resources to capitalize on those opportunities than do those without education. Since participatory conservation has its own rewards or opportunities, it is not surprising that more educated members of communities strive to acquire them through voluntary involvement. The difference in participation between genders in CNP could be due to separate occupational roles for men and women. The majority of the respondents in TR villages were men operating their own businesses. As they were taking care of their businesses, they were the ones most likely to be available for survey. On the other hand, women participating in community programs were in higher proportions than men in NT villages. As women in NT villages mostly work around their homes and farms, they are more likely to be available for survey than their men who usually work away from home. AC A and CNP also differed in terms of villages identifying their major barriers to participation. A greater proportion of respondents in CNP seem to have barriers related to park policies, programs and the education component of the participatory process than those in ACA. Such barriers may explain a comparatively lower level of community participation in CNP. Surprisingly, an overwhelming majority of ACA residents think they do not benefit from their contribution to ACA's participatory conservation processes. The result stands in sharp contrast with the findings from CNP, where the majority of the participants acknowledge their involvement in community programs. The whole idea behind the participatory conservation strategy is to give local communities a sense of achievement from their role in development and conservation initiatives. However, the results suggest what people receive from ACA for their role in participatory conservation may not appropriately 92 match their felt needs. Such incongruity between local needs and incentives from the conservation area may erode local trust in the participatory process over time. 93 Chapter VI Results: Community participation and local attitudes 6.1 Introduction Building partnerships with communities in a participatory conservation certainly opens many opportunities, but it also brings many challenges. Motivating rural communities in conservation require a good understanding of their social and cultural functions and processes, and their relationships with protected lands (Mark 1999, Little 1994). An objective and accurate knowledge of how resource-dependent communities respond to the participatory management approaches implemented by protected areas is certainly the first necessary step toward social integration of protected areas. This study attempts to add to that critical knowledge by exploring the relationships between local conservation awareness, attitudes, perceptions and protected area authorities, their policies, and programs. This chapter examines local community attitudes toward wildlife conservation, protected area policies, and local perception of benefits from protected areas. Since ACA and CNP use the same social support component of their management plan as a trade-off for local participation in wildlife conservation, it is important to know what factors shape local perceptions, attitudes and decisions, and how these variables contribute to community participation. Measuring attitudes and perceptions of rural communities is challenging, and therefore demands meticulous application of appropriate research methodologies. Some previous studies have linked local involvement in biodiversity conservation with protected area management policies (Gupte 2003, Mehta and Heinen 2001, Mehta and Kellert 1998). 94 However, local decisions to participate in conservation and development may not depend on PA policies in every social, cultural and political context. For example, how members of protected area management team communicate with local communities at a personal level and how local people perceive their behaviors and attitudes toward their communities may have a greater influence in shaping local attitudes than conservation rules and regulations, especially in and around the protected areas covered in the study. Awareness and attitude are composite categorical variables created from a set of statements on local attitudes toward wildlife conservation, protected area authorities and their policies and programs. These and other demographic variables were recoded into dummy variables for logistic regression (see Appendix 6). As the purpose of the analysis was to explore differences within and between the two protected areas, descriptive statistics such as cross-tabulations were used. The chi-square test of independence was performed to evaluate differences in samples at both the village and protected area levels. 6.2 Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) 6.2.1 Conservation awareness Respondents were graded on a three-point Likert scale on the basis of their total scores from a set of awareness statements. A large majority of respondents in ACA (92%) were found to be highly aware of the importance of the conservation area for the protection of wildlife. The highly aware and somewhat aware people were, however, not distributed equally between NT and TR villages (Table 16). Comparatively, NT villages had fewer highly aware respondents (87.2%) than the TR villages (96.8%). The chi-square test indicated a significant difference between the village categories (x2=6.040, p< .05). A large majority of respondents both in Non-tourist and Tourist villages were found to be conservation-oriented, with one 95 important distinction in attitude toward protecting and hunting wildlife species within the conservation area. All (100%) respondents in NT and TR villages thought it important to protect plant species in the conservation area. However, protection of wild animals did not receive the same kind of response (refer to section 1, Appendix 6). Table 16: Conservation awareness in AC A , „ .. NT% T Level of conservation awareness (n=94) Less aware 1.1 Somewhat aware 11-7 TR% Total (n=94) % (n=188) .0 3.2 .5 7.4 x2 F Highly aware 87.2 96.8 92.0 6.040 .049 Note: Table shows a combined total of five items with three original response categories (Don't know=0, Disagree=l, Disagree=l, Agree-2) Agree (see section 1, Appendix 6). The x coefficient is based on the new three-level composite Likert-scale score. A greater majority (94.7%) of the people in TR villages responded positively to the question on the importance of protecting wild animals than did the people in NT villages (80%). The fact that wild animal protection did not receive the same level of priority as plants in ACA is also evident from the response to the question on wildlife hunting. Over 30% of the respondents in NT villages preferred wildlife hunting to be allowed in the conservation area as opposed to only 21.5% in TR villages. The chi-square test revealed a significant difference between NT and TR villages in attitudes toward wild animal protection (x2=8.570, p<.05) (see section 1, Appendix 6). The difference in attitude toward wildlife protection between NT and TR villages in Annapurna might be explained by other key variables, including respondents' perceived problems from protected wild animal species. The majority of the respondents in NT villages said damage caused by ACA's protected wild animals was their number one problem, much higher than in the same response category in TR villages. The fact that NT faced comparatively more wildlife-related problems than the TR villages can also be illustrated by a 96 higher incidence of crop damage and livestock depredation in NT than in TR villages, in which crop damage and livestock depredation were much lower. 6.2.2 Attitudes toward PA policies The measurement of attitudes toward protected area policies revealed a substantial difference between NT and TR villages in ACA (Table 17). Over 73% of the respondents in the Tourist villages were positive about ACA policies compared with only 54.3% in the Nontourist villages (x2=9.763, p<.05). About 4.3% of NT respondents held negative attitude toward ACA policies compared with none for their counterparts in TR villages. Similarly, 41.5% of Non-tourist respondents were neutral in their rating of ACA policies as against only 26.6% in TR villages (Table 17). The difference in attitudes toward PA policies seems linked to the problems associated with wild animals. This difference between the village categories also corresponds with a comparatively higher proportion of NT respondents reporting as negatively affected by the conservation area than for TR residents, where those negatively affected were fewer. Table 17: Local attitudes toward PA policies in ACA „. . . 7T7 Z~- A t Attitude toward PA policies NT% TR% Total Negative . „.. (n=94) 4.3 , „,, (n=94) .0 „ , 1om % (n=188) 2.1 Neutral 41.5 26.6 34.0 Positive 54.3 73.4 63.8 P r ~ 9.763 .008 Note: Table shows a combined total of four items with three original response categories (Don't know-0, Disagree-1, Agree—2) (see section 2, Appendix 6). The x coefficient is based on the new three-level composite Disagreed, Agree Likert-scale score. 6.2.3 Attitudes toward PA authority and officials Respondents' attitudes toward Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP) and its employees followed the same pattern as attitudes toward policies, indicating a significant 97 difference between NT and TR villages (x =8.176, p<.05). Over 82% of those interviewed in TR villages had a favorable attitude toward ACA management. On the contrary, there were only 63% people in the same response category in NT villages (Table 18). Table 18: Local attitudes toward PA authority and officials as in ACA Attitude toward PA authority NT% (n=94) TR% (n=94) Total % (n=188) Negative 16.7 6.0 16.1 Neutral 20.2 11.9 11.3 Positive 63.1 82.1 72.6 x2 P 8.176 .017 Note: Table shows a combined total of five items with three original response categories (Don't know=0, Disagree=l, Agree=2) (see section 3, Appendix 6). The x coefficient is based on the new three-level composite Likert-scale score. The attitude toward ACAP officials in the Tourist villages was generally positive, except in some pockets of tourist villages where business owners openly expressed their discontent with ACAP staff. Their complaint was brought up in interviews with ACAP officials, who said the relationship between ACAP and local communities in some villages was somewhat strained due to a clash of interests. 6.2.4 Perception of benefits from PA The majority of the respondents, especially in the Non-tourist villages, considered benefits to be material, such as cash. So the researchers had to explain that the word "benefit" does not only mean cash, but anything tangible or intangible that enhanced their well-being. The difference between NT and TR villages with respect to the ability of ACA to deliver benefits was not statistically significant. The majority (58.5%) of NT respondents thought ACA's ability to deliver benefits personally was poor (Table 19). The analysis of filter questions on perception of benefits from the conservation area also indicated similar differences between Tourist and Non-tourist villages 98 Table 19: Local perception of benefits from PA in ACA „ „ . . „ „ . NT % TR % Benefits from PA , A ., , nA. (n=94) (n=94) 8.5 8.5 Don't know x2 Total „ , 100s % (n=188) 8.5 Poor 58.5 45.7 52.1 Good 25.5 38.3 31.9 Excellent 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 3.869 .276 Asked how much the respondent and his or her household benefit from the PA's wildlife conservation programs, 30.9% of the respondents in NT villages said they benefited the least. There were only 23.7% respondents in the same response category in TR villages. The majority of the respondents in both the village categories acknowledged some benefits, but with significant differences in response, i.e., 64.5% in TR and 41.5% in NT. The chisquare test confirmed the difference to be significant (x2=16.265, p<.05) (see section 4, Appendix 6). However, despite a higher number of respondents (58.1%) in the villages acknowledging benefits from community development programs than their counterparts (44.7%) in NT villages, the test indicated no significant difference between the village categories in their perception of benefits. Of those who thought their households did not benefit at all from ACA's community development programs, 27.7% were from NT and 15.1% from TR villages (see section 5, Appendix 6). 6.2.5 Links between perception, attitudes and participation A logistic regression was conducted by using local participation as the dependent variable, and attitude, perception and demographic variables as predictors. The analysis indicated a mix of demographic and attitude variables contributing significantly to community participation (Table 20). 99 In ACA, local attitudes to ACAP, its management and staff were found to have an important relationship with local participation both as a variable and also as a parameter (Positive attitude). The odds of a person participating in community programs is 3.12 times higher for someone with a positive attitude toward the conservation area and officials than someone who has a negative attitude (the reference category in the model), all other factors being equal (Table 20). Likewise, people with higher education are 6.41 times more likely to participate than those with little or no education. The result shows that male members of households in ACA are less likely to participate than their female counterparts. Interestingly, other variables measuring attitude to PA policies, conservation awareness, local perception of benefits and negative impact from protected areas did not contribute to community participation in ACA Table 20: Results of logistic regression between participation, and demographic and attitude variables in ACA Variables entered in step one Village category (NT, TR) Gender (Female, Male) Age (45 and below, Over 45) Education (None, School, Higher) Caste (Low, Middle, High) Income (Low, Medium, High) Occupation (Non-tourism, Tourism) Crop damage by wildlife (No, Yes) Livestock depredation by wildlife (No, Yes) Barriers to participation (No, Yes) Benefit from PA (No, Yes) Conservation awareness (Unaware, Aware, Highly Aware) Attitude toward PA policies (Negative, Neutral, Positive) Attitude toward PA authority (Negative, Neutral, Positive) Variables in final step B SE Attitude toward PA authority & staff Wald P 8.003 .018 Exp(B) Attitude toward PA authority & staff (2) (Positive) 1.167 .413 7.997 .005 3.212 Education (2) (Higher) 1.859 .900 4.265 .039 6.417 Gender (1) (Male) -.743 .346 4.616 .032 .476 Cox & Snell R Square . 165 Nagelkerke R Square .223 N 187 Missing cases 1 Overall fit of predicted cases 67 % B =Regression coefficient, SE = Standard error, Wald = Wald statistics, P= Significance, Exp(B) = Odds ratio. 6.2.6 Discussion Annapurna Conservation Area enjoys the distinction of being the most popular protected area in Nepal. It is also frequently cited in conservation literature around the world as a successful model of participatory conservation (Stevens 1997, Wells and Brandon 1992). The conservation area is also considered a mecca for trekkers and hikers. ACA was extended to include remote parts of the upper Mustang and Manang districts in 1992, thereby adding more to its wealth of natural, social cultural diversity. The northern and southern portions of the conservation area are totally different in every respect, which must be taken into consideration before making assumptions about or generalizing the results of this research. The survey carried out in parts of Mustang and Manang districts of the Upper Mustang extension of ACA found a high level of conservation awareness among the majority of the respondents. Other researchers have made similar findings in the area in the past (Mehta and Kellert 1998, Stevens 1997, Western and Wright 1994). However, the respondents in the Tourist villages were found to be relatively more aware than their counterparts in the Non- 101 tourist villages. The difference could be attributed mainly to disparity in location, education, income, occupation and accessibility between the two village categories. The Tourist villages are all located right on Nepal's most popular and busy trekking trail and enjoy the benefit of cross-cultural education with people from around the world. These villages have higher education and income levels than the Non-tourist villages far off the trekking route, and are much more likely to recognize the importance of protecting wildlife than those in the Nontourist villages, where opportunities for education and awareness are severely limited. The overall high level of conservation awareness may be credited to, among other things, the conservation education component of ACAP, which uses field trips and other interaction programs to impart conservation education to target beneficiaries (KMTNC 2003, 2000). A simple majority (two-thirds) of the respondents were found to have a favorable attitude toward the conservation area policies. However, the respondents' attitudes toward ACAP policies were different as between the village categories, with Tourist villages scoring higher than Non-tourist villages on the attitude scale. TR villages are characterized by comparatively higher level of education, income, wealth, exposure to the outside world, and alternative livelihood opportunities. More importantly, as almost all of the residents of Tourist villages own and operate their own tourism businesses they have an occupational interest in supporting ACAP policies, since the project supports low-impact eco-tourism with many incentives and concessions. Issues related to wildlife might also have influenced the respondents' attitudes toward the conservation area policies. The study found that respondents in the sparsely populated NT villages had more incidents of crop damage and livestock depredation by wild animals protected by ACA than did Tourist villages. They also reported being adversely affected by 102 the conservation area more than did their counterparts in Tourist villages. Many residents in Annapurna were bitter about ACA's ban on wildlife hunting, a traditional custom they highly valued. People in the area had to give up their guns and ammunition in compliance with a new security measure against the Maoist insurgency. A senior resident of Taglung, one of the Nontourist villages surveyed, complained, " Our traditional rights to hunt blue sheep and other wild animals were taken away, our guns were taken away, our fellow villagers have been jailed for reporting the sightings of wild animal carcasses. ACAP knows that there are poachers coming from other districts, as far as Dhading, to hunt and trap blue sheep, musk deer and other animals in our forests. They spend weeks, even months in the forests and get away with their precious catch. And we are the ones who pay for their actions." ACAP officials also confirmed that there were incidents in which some local residents were wrongly suspected and accused of either poaching protected species or collaborating with organized poachers from outside the area. However, many villagers were fined and some were even jailed for collecting herbs illegally. Irrespective of the legality of such action, it seems to have eroded trust in ACAP and its policies in some NT villages. NT respondents rated ACAP wildlife policies much lower than did TR residents. They also reported a higher incidence of crop damage and livestock depredation by wild animals than their Tourist counterparts. Not surprisingly, a higher percentage of Non-tourist residents said ACAP cares for wild animals more than it cares for people. The majority of those affected by wild animals were critical of ACAP policy for not providing any compensation for heir losses. Many studies in and around similar protected areas have also found a positive correlation between problems with wild animals and unfavorable attitude toward protected 103 areas and their policies (Mahanty and Russell 2002, Kuriyan 2002, Gillingham and Lee 1999, Heinen 1998, Fiallo and Jacobson 1995, Nepal and Weber 1995). Except for some pockets in some villages such as Marpha, where business owners openly expressed their disappointment with ACAP over tourism related issues, the majority of ACA respondents had a positive attitude toward ACAP and its officials. However, the Tourist villages were found to be comparatively more receptive of the conservation area authority and its officials than the Non-tourist villages. The overall positive attitude toward PA authority with comparative differences between communities was also observed by Weladji and Tchamba (2003) in Benoue Wildlife Conservation Area, North Cameroon, De Boer and Baquete (1998) in Mozambique and Fiallo and Jacobson (1995) in Ecuador. With the ACAP local administrative unit based in Jomsom, the district headquarters of Mustang, the conservation area officials have easier access to and more frequent interaction with communities in the Tourist villages than in the Non-tourist villages, where, as an informal interviewee put it, "the sight of an ACAP officer in villages is rare and when that happens, it generates a lot of suspicion. They come to these villages either to collect project progress reports, or to investigate a complaint of poaching or illegal herb collection." A similar finding was made by Weladji and Tchamba (2003) in Benoue Wildlife Conservation Area, North Cameroon, where a large majority of people said the PA officials visited them only during patrolling and to make arrests of poaching suspects. The villagers' suspicion in ACA was also detected by the research teams, who had a hard time convincing survey respondents that they were not ACAP officials and that they could speak freely. As found in other protected areas elsewhere in the world, lack of interaction between the NT villagers and ACAP may have been a factor in local attitudes toward the management authority (Mahanty 104 and Russell 2002, Gillingham and Lee 1999, Fiallo and Jacobson 1995). The idea of participatory conservation hinges on partnership between local communities and protected areas in management and benefit sharing. Some studies have found that local people support conservation only so long as benefits keep flowing (McNeely, 1995). But as benefits can be highly subjective or group or situation-specific, it is also important to understand what constitutes a benefit and whether or not the target beneficiaries acknowledge it as such. Over half of those surveyed in ACA rated the conservation area's ability to deliver benefits as "poor". TR residents acknowledged benefits from ACA slightly more often than the NT residents, but the overall proportion was still fairly low. Responses to related filter questions on benefits (such as, who benefits most from development and conservation programs in your villages?) also indicated a substantial difference between the village categories in perception of benefits from conservation and development programs, with the TR respondents acknowledging benefits receipt more often than the TR respondents. The overall poor perception of receipt of benefits by local people in ACA could be due partly to the use of the term "benefit" to denote money or cash. Irrespective of the use of the term, the respondents in the NT villages had difficulties providing examples of benefits receipt from the conservation area. In contrast, many respondents in the Tourist villages were able to provide a long list of projects completed or under way with ACAP support. Almost every hotel or lodge boasted of the newly installed improved stove with an attached back boiler. Theoretically, ACAP does not discriminate between villages in benefit distribution. How much a village or a group of people benefits from the project's conservation and community development programs depends on how proactive they are. Evidently, the people in the Tourist villages are comparatively better at social mobilization and initiatives than their Non-tourist counterparts. 105 The former also possess more administrative, financial, and technical resources necessary to plan and implement conservation and development programs than do the latter. Like other similar protected areas around the world, ACA has not been able to distribute tourism benefits across different strata of society (Nepal 2002, Goodwin and Roe 2001, Wells and Brandon 1992). Tourism is limited to the main trekking route, with much of the benefits captured by trekking agencies based in the capital city, airlines and big and wellestablished hotels, lodges and restaurants mostly run by former salt traders (Nepal 2002). The villages off the trekking route (categorized as NT villages) are completely untouched by the flow of tourist revenue in the area. Over 84% of these NT residents said they have not received any benefit from tourism in the area. On the other hand, a substantially higher percentage of respondents in the Tourist villages acknowledged having received tourism benefits. The Tourist villages have a better attitude toward ACA policies and perceive that they have more benefits than do the Non-tourist villages. The results correspond with similar findings linking benefits with local attitudes toward conservation policies (Jim and Xu. 2002, Marcus 2002, Sah and Heinen 2001, Gillingham and Lee 1999, Parry and Campbell 1992). Local participation has been in the heart of both planning and operation of the Annapurna Conservation Area (KMTNC 2003). Without the active and continuous support and involvement of local populations, the conservation area would not be what it is today. But then participation may not always be an end in itself. Rather, it can be a means, a process that needs growth and continuity to achieve the ultimate objective of protecting the natural and cultural diversity of the region. Full and meaningful participation is especially important in ACA, because the conservation area will eventually be handed over to its residents who will be responsible for its management and operation in the future. Local participation in the 106 villages surveyed in AC A was encouraging, as the majority of the respondents were found to be involved in community conservation and development programs through locally formed and managed user groups. However, the participation rate was different for the TR and NT village categories. Despite a higher level of education, wealth, and benefit from the conservation area, the Tourist villages had much lower participation than the Non-tourist villages. Results of logistic regression indicated no link between local participation and the perception of benefits received. However, logistic regression results indicated that other variables such as education, gender and local attitude toward the conservation area authority and officials were found to be affecting community participation. People with higher levels of education are found to be more likely to cultivate a favorable attitude toward ACAP, which may, in turn, lead to higher levels of participation. These findings are similar to the conclusions drawn by other researchers in ACA (Mehta and Kellert 1998). At the same time, results also contradicted findings from studies of protected areas that women usually have lower rates of participation than men in community conservation and development initiatives (Gupte 2003, Kellert et al. 2000, Agrawal and Gibson 1999, Kothari et al. 1998, Mehta and Kellert 1998, Sarin et al. 1998, Kothari et al. 1996). In ACA, women were found to be more likely to participate than men. An unexpectedly higher female participation in ACA owes to the area's predominantly Tibeto-Burman culture and matriarchal social structure, which—unlike the patriarchal Aryan tradition at lower elevations—allows women to make important decisions. Women running hotels, lodges and restaurants and their men taking care of farm and household chores are common practices in ACA. However, a lower low-caste participation in the conservation area is a matter of concern. A low-caste respondent in Marpha, a Tourist village on the main trail, 107 narrated her story: "There are very few low-caste people here in this part of ACA. We like to participate, but we need first to be member of a community group. The Thakalis keep a distance from us and wouldn't let us join any group." Being able to participate is one thing, and benefiting from it is quite another. The result also showed that over 95% of the low-caste people who participated in community development and conservation programs have not benefited from their participation. The findings made from the research suggests that the gap between low-caste participation and perception of the receipt of benefits has actually led to a gradual withdrawal of the low-caste people from the participatory conservation process, as many of them who once were happy participants are not involved in community programs any more. Nevertheless, inequity in benefit sharing among social groups is not limited to ACA. It is common in most protected area systems around the world (Gupte 2003, Kellert et al. 2000, Nepal 2000, Agrawal and Gibson 1999, Kothari et al. 1998, Mehta and Kellert 1998, Sarin et al. 1998, Kothari et al. 1996). Unfair distribution of benefits from protected areas and their programs are in fact a reflection of the broader social injustice prevalent in traditional feudal societies like those of the villages in Annapurna in which richer, better educated and more influential people are best positioned to capture benefits intended for all groups of people (Gupte 2003, Kellert et al. 2000, Nepal 2000, Kothari et al. 1998, Mehta and Kellert 1998, Agrawal 1997, Kothari et al. 1996). ACAP has tried to educate and motivate the weaker sections of the society to come forward with group-specific projects to get around this problem, but the response from the intended beneficiaries has remained poor. Community participation and capturing benefits from it are not easy for such groups of people, mainly because doing so entails commitment of time, effort and cash which are in short supply for 108 people in labor-intensive occupations like farming and livestock raising. The poor sections of the society in ACA and elsewhere in the country are already overburdened with farm work, household chores, and family responsibilities that leave them with little or no time to engage in community participation. Lack of time and schedule conflicts with work and other incomegenerating activities were the two most important barriers to participation cited by the majority of respondents in ACA. Project schedules conflicting with popular festivals and busy seeding and harvesting seasons were found to be common in most of the NT villages. Therefore, people's use of time and major stages and events of agricultural practices must be taken into consideration in planning, funding and initiating community development and conservation programs (Colfer 1999). Being able to participate means being able to be part of an interest group, identify needs, and design strategies to address those needs. But ironically, the majority of the respondents from the so-called weaker sections were completely at a loss when asked to identify their important needs. This finding clearly indicates a need for programs aimed at educating people and building their capacity to participate. 6.3 Chitwan National Park (CNP) 6.3.1 Conservation awareness An overwhelming majority of the respondents were found to be highly aware of wildlife conservation in Chitwan National Park (CNP). All of those surveyed in the Nontourist (NT) and 98.8% of those interviewed in the Tourist villages acknowledged the importance of protecting plant and wild animals in the park (Table 21). The chi-square test found no significant differences between the village categories in terms of general attitudes toward wildlife conservation. 109 Table 21: Conservation awareness in CNP TR% (n=80) .0 1.3 Total % (n=189) .0 .5 x2 P Less aware Somewhat aware NT% (n=109) .0 .0 Highly aware 100 98.8 99.9 1.370 .242 Level of conservation awareness Note: Table shows a combined total of five items with three original response categories (Don't know=0, (see section 1, Appendix 6). The x2 coefficient is based on the new three-level composite Disagree=l, Agree=2) Agree Likert-scale score. However, considerable differences were detected between NT and TR villages in their response to a filter question on whether or not protecting wild animals was a waste of money (x =19.705, p<.001). Only 67% of Non-tourist respondents agreed it was not a waste of money, much lower than 92.5% in Tourist villages (see section 1, Appendix 6). The filter question helped understand the variation in attitudes toward wild animals between the village categories in the park. The result confirmed the belief that people living in Non-tourist parts of CNP's buffer zones do not assign wild animals the same kind of importance they give to plant species. A less favorable attitude toward wild animal protection in Non-tourist villages may be partly attributed to greater problems caused by wild animals in the villages. NT villages faced a greater incidence of crop damage and livestock predation from the protected wild animals than TR villages. Damage caused by wild animals was the number one problem cited by respondents in NT villages in CNP. 6.3.2 Attitudes toward PA policies Respondents in the government-managed Chitwan National Park (CNP) were not very content with the park policies. Despite being adversely affected by the park more than their TR counterparts, the predominantly farming communities in NT villages rated the park policies higher (55%) than their counterparts in the Tourist villages (37.5%). A chi-square test indicated significant differences between the villages (x2=13.970, p<.001). Interestingly, a 110 higher proportion of respondents in TR villages had either negative or neutral attitudes toward the park policies than those in NT villages (Table 22). This shows that problems from park wildlife do not always lead to negative attitudes toward park authorities. Table 22: Local attitudes toward PA policies in CNP NT% TR% Attitude toward PA policies (n=109) (n=80) Negative .9 12.5 Total % (n=189) 5.8 Neutral 44.0 50.0 46.6 Positive 55.0 37.5 47.6 x2 13.970 .001 Note: Table shows a combined total of four items with three original response categories (Don't know=0, Disagree=l, Agree=2) (see section 2, Appendix 6). The x2 coefficient is based on the new three-level composite Agree Likert-scale score. 6.3.3 Attitudes toward PA authority and officials The majority of the respondents in CNP held a favorable attitude toward the park authority and officials. There were no statistical differences between the village categories with respect to ratings of the park authority and officials (Table 23). The respondents who disliked the park officials were less than 5% in both categories of villages. Table 23: Local attitude toward PA authority and officials in CNP NT% TR% Total Attitude toward PA authority (n=109) (n=80) % (n=189) 4.6 5.0 4.8 Negative Neutral Positive 32.1 27.5 30.2 63.3 67.5 65.1 .467 .792 Note: Table shows a combined total of five items with three original response categories (Don 7 know=0, 2 Disagree=l, Agree=2) (see section 3, Appendix 6). The x coefficient is based on the new three-level composite Likert-scale score. Only about 50% of the respondents thought that the PA authority and officials understand and are interested in their needs and concerns. A slightly larger percentage (58%) of the respondents believed PA officials respect and value their inputs. However, over 80% 111 of them said the park authority and officials encouraged them to participate in conservation and community development (see section 3, Appendix 6). Understanding and addressing local problems and concerns are often considered to be a precursor to local involvement in community conservation and development programs in participatory management frameworks. Analysis of the data reveals a weak connection between PA efforts in solving social problems and eliciting community participation in CNP. 6.3.4 Perception of benefits from PA A slightly higher percentage of respondents in Tourist villages of CNP perceive the benefits from the park as either "good" (60%) or " excellent" (8.8%) than those in the Nontourist villages, where the scores in the same response categories were 53.2% and 2.8% respectively (Table 24). However, the difference between the villages was not statistically significant. Table 24: Local perception of benefits from PA in CNP „.. , NT% TR% Total D DA Benefits from PA (n=1Q9) (n=8Q) % (n=189) Don't know 6.4 7.5 6.9 Poor 37.6 23.8 31.7 Good 53.2 60.0 56.1 Excellent 2.8 8.8 5.3 x2 p F 6.388 _ .-094 The responses to different questions related to benefits from the park were consistent with the village categories in CNP. While 83.8% of those surveyed in TR villages perceived themselves as having benefited "somewhat" from the park's conservation of wildlife, only 64.2% said so in NT villages (x2=13.155, p<.05) (see section, Appendix 6)). Similarly there was a significant difference (x =27.835, p<.001) in their perception of receiving some 112 benefits from the park's community development programs, with 77.5% for TR and only 41.3% for NT residents, respectively (see section 5, Appendix 6). 6.3.5 Links between perception, attitudes and participation Unlike in ACA, caste was an important factor in local participation in the buffer zone villages of CNP. A high-caste resident in CNP is 3.7 times more likely to be involved in conservation and community development programs than a low-caste resident (Table 25). The results also explain how CNP differs from ACA in social hierarchy of participation. Caste is not the only contributor to this hierarchy in CNP. In a logistic regression of a limited set of variables, factors such as education, occupation and attitude toward park policies also contributed significantly to community participation in CNP. The likelihood of a person with a positive view of the park policies participating in community programs increased at an odds ratio of 6.13. Education as a variable and its parameter (higher) were also important contributors to participation. The likelihood ratio for higher education was 7.14 (p<.02) However, tourism as an occupation was found to have a negative effect on participation, implying those in tourism business are less likely to participate in community conservation and development. Based on the regression results, it can be said that a typical participant in the CNP buffer zone is more likely to be an educated, high-caste farmer who holds a favorable attitude toward park policies than someone who does not have these attributes (Table 25). Table 25: Results of logistic regression between participation, and demographic and attitude variables in CNP Variables entered in step one Village category (NT, TR) Gender (Female, Male) 113 Age (45 and below, Over 45) Education (None, School, Higher) Caste (Low, Middle, High) Income (Low, Medium, High) Occupation (Non-tourism, Tourism) Crop damage by wildlife (No, Yes) Livestock depredation by wildlife (No, Yes) Barriers to participation (No, Yes) Benefit from PA (No, Yes) Conservation awareness (Unaware, Aware, Highly Aware) Attitude toward PA policies (Negative, Neutral, Positive) Attitude toward PA authority (Negative, Neutral, Positive) Variables B SE Education Wald P 9.820 .007 Exp(B) Education (2) (Higher) 1.966 .637 9.518 .002 7.140 Occupation (1) (Tourism) -1.031 .476 4.694 .030 .357 6.524 .038 Caste Caste (2) (Higher) 1.307 .578 5.119 .024 3.697 Attitude toward PA policies (2) (Positive) 1.813 .926 3.834 .050 6.127 Cox & Snell R Square .161 Nagelkerke R Square .215 N 188 Missing cases 1 Overall fit of predicted cases 69.1% B ^Regression coefficient, SE = Standard error, Wald = Wald statistics, p = Significance, Exp(B) = Odds ratio. 6.3.6 Discussion Chitwan National Park (CNP) is Nepal's first protected area, which now is known the world over as home to some of the last surviving populations of the charismatic royal Bengali tiger and one-horned rhinoceros. The park has created a buffer zone to neutralize local 114 pressure on the park which it manages in partnership with local communities. The participatory approach taken to manage the buffer zone mainly centers on generating local participation in identifying developmental and conservation needs and planning to address them with financial and logistic help from the park and its supporting NGOs and INGOs. However, achieving full participation of local communities is not easy, especially in situations where conservation mandates and values are in direct conflict with social needs and priorities, as is the case with CNP. In this light, it is important to examine variations in local participation and the factors that produce these variations. The results of the study reported here indicate a high level of conservation awareness among the respondents around the park. Despite problems with protected wild animals from the park, an overwhelming majority of the respondents were found to be positive about the importance of protecting wildlife in the park. One plausible explanation for this is the role of wildlife tourism as a source of education and awareness. CNP Buffer Zone (BZ) residents see thousands of tourists come to the area from far-away places to view wild animals in the park. A number of conservation-oriented INGOs and NGOs that work in the BZ have also helped local people raise their conservation awareness through radio programs, newsletters, flyers and educational tours. Even public schools in the area teach conservation courses at elementary and secondary levels (DNPWC 2003). However, an important difference was found between the NT and TR villages in their attitude toward the protection of plant and wild animals in the park. The NT villages clearly placed a higher priority on the protection of plants (flora) than on the protection of wild animals (fauna). Since over 90% of the residents in the NT villages lose 60% of their crops and many livestock to wild animals from the park every year, it is difficult for them to feel the 115 same kind of concern for wild animals as they have for plants. Forests within and outside the park boundary help them by supplying firewood, fodder, and timber, while wild animals eat or damage their crops, kill their livestock and even take human lives. As most of the Nontourist villages are right on the park boundary and are also close to important wildlife habitats in the park and in community forests, their villages are often the first affected by wild animals. The park has a basic compensation program to help victims of crop raids and livestock depredation, but as the process is so lengthy and cumbersome and the actual compensation so low, hardly anybody claims it. The NT villagers also barely receive any spin-offs from tourism in the park. Yet they consistently rated the park policies on wildlife, community development and community forestry higher than the respondents in the Tourist villages. The TR residents for their part have their own justification for having a less favorable attitude toward park policies. Interviews and informal talks with the park officials and local residents found most of those in tourism businesses in the gateway villages of Sauraha and Odhra to be highly critical of the park's policies and programs. Their collective sentiment could be summed up in the words of a hotel owner at Sauraha: "Many things have changed here in this park, but the park's attitudes and policies are still discriminatory as they were twenty years ago. They don't allow us to keep our elephants. So every time we need an elephant for safari in the park, we have to depend on government elephants that are not usually available when we need them. Tourists pay so much money for a permit to enter the park, but once they exit the park they can't go back again. They have to buy a new permit. This way we are losing our business, but look at the hotels inside the park. They keep more than 30 elephants. Just imagine how much damage these elephants cause to the park every 116 day. As if that is not enough, these hotels and lodges owned by the rich and powerful empty tons of sewage and garbage into the rivers inside the park. If they [park authority] really care for conservation, they should first remove these hotels from inside the park." One other possible reason for the Tourist villages to be less favorable to park policies might be politics, something beyond the scope of this research, but nonetheless a critical factor in shaping the attitudes of respondents in the area. Chitwan, which includes the park, is politically highly aware and is considered a leftist stronghold with some support for prodemocracy parties. Because of their political awareness, education, and experience of decades of conflict with the park authority, they possibly see the park as a local extension of the state authority repressing their social, cultural and economic freedoms (Lane and Chase 1996). As other findings suggest, residents of local communities in and around protected areas usually harbor unfavorable attitudes toward conservation authorities and their polices (Dearden 2002, Mahanty and Russell 2002, Kuriyan 2002, Maikhuri et al. 2000, Gillingham and Lee 1999, Heinen 1998, Fiallo and Jacobson 1995, Nepal and Weber 1995). The timing of the research in the park coincided with an upsurge in the Maoist operation. Bomb explosions and scares, shootings, deaths, and kidnapping were almost a daily occurrence in the area, which temporarily disrupted the survey in some of the villages. It was certainly not the best time to measure local attitudes toward park policies and authorities, especially because the Maoists had already taken control of most of the Non-tourist villages. Any park officials venturing into Maoist territory would have been either kidnapped or shot, as happened in the adjacent Parsa Wildlife Reserve and other parks in the western parts of the country. One of the research teams was stopped and asked to explain the purpose of the visit. 117 They were apparently suspected of being either park officials or government spies and were under watch for the duration of the survey. Despite the atmosphere of fear and suspicion, the majority of the respondents were found to be positive in their attitude toward the park authority, including the Buffer Zone Management Committee (BZMC) and its officials who are elected by the people but are paid by the park and its supporting agencies. BZMC representatives work as links between the park and the local people and play an important role in facilitating project planning, implementation and monitoring. The role played by BZCM could have been a factor in improving local attitudes to park management, which were found to be unfavorable by earlier researchers (Nepal and Weber 1995). The change in attitude could be due to other factors, such as the perception of benefits from the park. In addition to a more favorable attitude to the park officials, the TR respondents also scored higher in recognizing the park's ability to deliver benefits than did the NT residents. This fact indicates a relationship between positive attitude and a higher perception of benefits in the TR villages, as was the case in other protected areas (Jim and Xu, 2002, Gillingham and Lee 1999, Mehta and Kellert 1998). Compared with the TR villages, where most of the PA officials live and work, the NT villages are less frequently visited by park staff. As suggested by earlier studies, lack of visits by the park staff may have negatively influenced local attitudes toward the park authority in the NT villages (Colfer 1999). Villages in the CNP buffer zone show inequity in sharing tourism benefits. The TR residents receive three times more benefits from tourism than the NT residents (Spiteri 2006). Besides a few villages that generate some tourist revenue from their community forests, NT villages do not receive any direct tourism benefits from the park, since tourism is largely 118 limited to the Tourist villages of Sauraha and Odhara, the gateway to the park. Part of the reason for this disparity is that tourism in and around the park is not planned and properly managed. Some NT residents believe the park and some hotel and lodge operators in Sauraha do not want to develop and promote tourism in the Non-tourist part of the BZ for fear of competition. One other reason for the disparity is that unlike wildlife tourism, cultural tourism remains unexplored in the area. Most of the NT villages have what Goodwin and Roe (2001) call the "enclave and bypass" syndrome of protected area tourism. As soon as tourists get off at the airport or bus depots, they are quickly whisked away to their hotels. Since the industry owners determine where tourists go, eat, live and make purchases, local people wishing to sell goods and services lack access to tourists, and are usually forced to hawk at the enclave entry and exit points (Nepal 2002, Wells and Brandon 1992, Goodwin and Roe 2001). As is the case with many other protected areas, tourism in CNP fails to provide employment opportunities to local people. The few local people who are employed at the hotels, lodges and restaurants work as cleaners, elephant tenders, and dishwashers (Nepal et al. 2002). Tourism in Chitwan is mainly controlled by affluent, influential, and upper-cast emmigrants from the hills and cities (Nepal et al. 2002, Goodwin and Roe 2001). As they do not reinvest the earnings from their businesses locally, much of the revenue leaks out of the area. The largely poor and uneducated ethnic tribes of the area have failed to cash in on the tourism boom in the area, mainly because of lack of skills, capital and motivation (Goodwin and Roe 2001). Inspired by successful implementation of community forestry programs and ACA's participatory approach to biodiversity conservation in the mid-west mountains of Nepal, Chitwan National Park made a major policy shift in favor of a more people-friendly 119 participatory approach to park management in 1992 (DNPWC 2001). To begin with, the park, with technical and financial support from the UNDP, introduced the Park and People Project (PPP) to ameliorate the relationships between the park and local communities (DNPWC 2001). Since then many INGOS and NGOs have come to support the initiative. The participatory strategy employed to involve local communities in social development and BZ resource management has not yet been received well by the people in the area. More than 50% of the people in the buffer zone villages do not participate in the park's development and conservation programs. A logistic regression between local attitude, perceptions, participation, and demographic characteristics found local attitudes toward park policies, education, and caste positively affecting community participation in the CNP buffer zone. Benefits provided by protected areas and tourism have been found to influence local attitudes toward conservation and institutions involved in protected area management in many other protected areas (Jim and Xu. 2002, Marcus 2002, Sah and Heinen 2001, Gillingham and Lee 1999, Parry and Campbell 1992). However, such is not the case in CNP, where the TR residents benefit most from both the park programs and tourism but participated least in the park's development and conservation initiatives. On the contrary, the NT residents, who perceived higher negative effects from the park and fewer benefits, participated more. Possibly, the perception of problems itself is a motivating factor for participation, in anticipation of solutions. For example, the NT villagers who lose crops and livestock to wild animals from the park clearly have a greater need to collaborate with the park and BZ authorities to work out solutions for problems than the tourism operators who are not affected by wild animals. 120 A positive attitude toward park policies was found more likely to lead to community participation than a negative attitude. This fact explains a comparatively higher participation in the NT villages, where the people are more favorable to park policies, than in the TR villages. However, since the overall local participation remains low for both NT and TR villages, the park needs to review wildlife, community development and community forest policies so as to make them more compatible with local needs and concerns. The majority of the people in the NT villages want the park to bring in practical and effective measures to prevent or reduce crop damage and livestock depredation by wild animals. While fencing the park, as suggested by some, may not be a pragmatic proposition, better habitat management in the park and community forests might prevent wild animals from leaving their habitats for food in the villages. In the Tourist villages, the park has opportunities to work with the tourism association to make park rules and regulation fairer and more compatible with the changing dynamics of the tourism market. The park has successfully relocated the Padmapur village outside park boundaries. However, there still are about nine hotels and lodges inside the park, which have become a constant source of tension between the tourism community and the park. The removal of these hotels from the park will not only enhance the park's image among the business community but also create more room for habitat extension in the park. Many factors shape local attitudes toward the park authority and its policies. The majority of respondents around CNP believe that the park's rules and regulations are restricting their access to the park. While such restrictions may not be a mater of concern for the high-income people in the Tourist villages, they certainly impact the daily life of the majority of the NT dwellers. An estimated minimum of 900 people from the villages of 121 Janakpur and Kathar enter the eastern section of the park every day for firewood, fodder, timber and even berries (according to a chat with the leader of a forest user group in Janakpur). The researchers also witnessed swarms of people entering the park without the slightest fear of the armed military personnel guarding the park boundary. The group leader explains: "This is what they have been doing for decades. Nothing is going to stop them. The firewood and fodder they get from their community forests is not enough to meet their needs. Besides, many of these people are so poor they cannot even afford to pay the basic entry fee charged by the community forests. There were cases when some villagers were shot and killed by the military. But even that did not deter them from entering the park. Now with the Maoist control in Chitwan and rather lax security, the people have many more reasons to enter the park." The study found that an overwhelming majority of the people in the BZ (over 80% in the TR and over 50% in the NT villages) depend on the park for their supply of firewood and fodder and are severely affected by the park regulations restricting their access to the park. If bullets could not stop them, park regulations will not stop them. Besides community forests, one other pragmatic approach to reduce local dependency on the park is to find alternative sources of energy. But the biogas technology being actively promoted in the area is costly and unaffordable for the poor even after the subsidy from the park. The respondents' participation in using firewood substitutes such as biogas, kerosene, and LPS gas is minimum in the NT villages. In order to deal with the high cost of the biogas option, some supporting agencies are exploring the possibility of building community biogas facilities. The results also indicate that high-caste people with higher education are more likely to participate in community programs than lower-caste people with little or no education. The BZ villages around the park truly represent the typical social hierarchy in the country, which 122 is mainly based on caste and ethnicities. Historically, the upper-caste people in the country have monopolized access to education and knowledge. In a traditional agrarian society like Nepal, education and knowledge bring wealth, which in turn bring power and control over the less educated and less wealthy sections of the society (Gupte 2003, Agrawal and Gibson 1999, Sarin et al. 1998, Mehta and Kellert 1998). The villages in the park's buffer zone are not immune to this kind of social hierarchy and its perils. Given the structure of the society, it is not surprising that the educated and high-caste social elites participate more in community programs. Leaders of local institutions such as user groups and management committees, the cogs in the participatory wheel, happen to come from educated and upper-caste families. Therefore, social elites and feudal lords do not only participate more than the less privileged, they also lead and control the park's participatory program through these grassroots institutions. Hence, in line with findings by other researchers in Nepal and elsewhere in the region, social elites in the buffer zone of CNP are better positioned to exercise a new form of control and influence over natural resource management and community development (Kellert et al. 2000, Gillingham 1998, Sarin et al. 1998, Kothari et al. 1998, Mehta and Kellert 1998, Kothari et al. 1996). The so-called social elites use this control and influence to capture a larger share of the benefits associated with participation at the cost of the weaker sections (Gupte 2003, Agrawal and Gibson 1999, Mehta and Kellert 1998, Heinen 1999). A low-caste woman in Manohara (a NT village close to the Barandabar corridor forest) expressed her feelings of isolation: "We are about 11 low-caste families in this area. We have no land of our own. We work on other people's land to feed ourselves for about six months. But the wild animals damage most of the crops, and we get nothing. We are always short of food, so we have no other way but to enter the park and collect wild vegetables and berries, bird eggs and 123 other edibles to feed ourselves. We heard there are user groups, but nobody tells us anything. We do not know how to get involved. We are low-caste people and are shunned by others, particularly those from higher classes." Social stereotypes make it hard for the less privileged sections of the society to get involved in participatory conservation, let alone assume leadership roles, because doing so means challenging the class system and caste hierarchy, something the poor, less educated and low-caste residents of the BZ villages cannot even think of doing. The cost of disparity in participation between social classes in CNP goes beyond widening the gap between the privileged and the deprived. More importantly, it sets back conservation efforts. This research also found that those isolated from the social mainstream in the NT villages comprise the majority of those engaged in activities detrimental to the park's goals and objectives, such as encroaching on the park boundary, clearing protected forests for settlement and farming, entering the park illegally for purposes of poaching and collecting forest resources (as determined by interview with park officials). During the survey the researchers stumbled into an illegal settlement of over 800 individuals hidden in a patch of forest within the park boundaries. Park officials admitted there are other communities of illegal settlers who took advantage of the political conflict and resultant laxity in security to encroach on the park. They say the issue is part of a bigger political problem, one beyond the park's ability to resolve. The park seems to be already overburdened with issues related to social problems and criminal activities. Park officials, including the chief warden, assistant wardens and even conservation officers spend most of their time dealing with people arrested on charges of poaching or illegal collection of timber and their relatives who come to the park headquarters from far-away places to advocate their 124 innocence. Park wardens say dealing with local complaints and arrests takes over 70% of their working hours, leaving them with very little time to address other management issues. Park officials singled out lack of education and poverty as the two major contributors to all kinds of "evils" happening in and around the park, which provides further justification to the participatory development and conservation approach. The park has induced many formerly convicted poachers and timber smugglers to work as informers in anti-poaching units. Similarly, the grass-cutting (khar khadai) program inside the park is another example of the participatory conservation program intended to benefit both the park and the people. Under this program, the park allows BZ residents to collect grass and other forest resources for three days every year (DNPWC 2000). Grass cutting is an important event for people living in the buffer zone and attracts tens of thousands of people who enter the park. Though this kind of mass participation is rare in other programs in the BZ, people generally prefer to participate in activities that directly benefit them, such as community development programs in which results are immediate and tangible, than in conservation programs. The park seems to have appropriately responded to local demand for social development and a more equitable distribution of highly localized tourism benefits. Royal Chitwan diverts 50% of its revenue from tourism to local communities. A large part of this fund is used to finance community development projects such as roads, water, education, skill development training, etc., to name a few. But how much of this revenue a village gets largely depends on how active and creative user groups in that village are in terms of planning, designing and implementing projects. With political instability, rising population, and the widening gap between the rich and poor in the buffer zone, the existing inequity in local participation and benefit sharing 125 between communities is only likely to exacerbate unless the park, its conservation partners and the other sectors of the government work together to address the larger regional problems of economic stagnation and poverty, which are the real enemies of the park. 6.4 Comparison between ACA and CNP 6.4.1 Conservation awareness Most respondents (95.8%) of respondents in both ACA and CNP were found to be highly aware of the importance of wildlife conservation. Comparatively, CNP had a higher percentage of the highly aware respondents (99.5%) than ACA (92%) (Table 26). A chisquare test revealed a substantial difference in the respondents' conservation awareness as between the two protected areas (x2=12.887, p<.05). The two protected areas did not differ much in their attitude toward plant species, but they differed significantly in their attitude toward wild animals (see section 1, Appendix 6). While 98.4% of the respondents in CNP agreed with the need to protect wild animals in the park, ACA had fewer (87.8%) respondents answering the same question affirmatively (see section 1, Appendix 6). The same statistical difference was found in their response to the question on wildlife hunting, with 96.3% respondents against wildlife hunting in CNP compared with only 69% in ACA. Table 26: Conservation awareness between ACA and CNP .. awareness ACA% CNP% T Level. of„conservation , 1fto. ,(n=l»9) ,Total -__,% 1on. (n=188) (n=377) Less aware .5 .0 .3 Somewhat aware 7.4 .5 4.0 Highly aware 92.0 99.5 95.8 x2 p 12.887 .002 Note: Table shows a combined total of five items with three original response categories (Don't know-0, Disagree=l, Agree=2) (see section 1, Appendix 6). The x coefficient is based on the new three-level composite Likert-scale score. 6.4.2 Attitudes toward PA policies The two protected areas stand in sharp contrast in their attitudes toward the protected area policies. While 63.8% of respondents surveyed in AC A were found to be positive toward the conservation area policies, only 47.6% approved of park policies in CNP (Table 27). Chitwan National Park also had a higher percentage of negative and neutral responses than ACA, indicating important differences in the populations. CNP received consistently lower scores in overall management policies (x2= 21.389, p<.001), and also in policies regarding community forestry (x2=l 1.515, p<.05), wildlife, and community development (see section 2, Appendix 6) Table 27: Local attitudes toward PA policies between ACA and CNP A*** ^ *toward .inA i- • ACA% CNP% Total% Attitude PA *policies , ^ 00 s , 1(Mlv , -„— _ (n=188) (n=189) (n=377) Negative 2.1 5.8 4.0 Neutral 34.0 46.6 40.3 Positive 63.8 47.6 55.7 x2 p ll.339 .003 Note: Table shows a combined total of four items with three original response categories (Don't know=0, Disagree=l, Agree=2) (see section 2, Appendix 6). The x coefficient is based on the new three-level composite Likert-scale score. Attitudes to PA policies may be related to local resentment with crop damage, livestock depredation, and human mortality by wild animals, all of which is much higher in CNP than in ACA. In CNP, 90.1% of the respondents were affected by crop damage by wild animals, while those in the same response group in ACA was only 54.7%. 6.4.3 Attitudes toward PA authority and officials A large majority of the respondents (68.6%) were positive in their assessment of the protected area authority and its officials (Table 28). Comparatively, respondents in ACA (72.6%) were also found to be much more favorable to the conservation area authority and its 127 officials than their counterparts in CNP, where only 65.1% of those interviewed were found to have a positive attitude toward the park management and officials (x =26.862, p<.001). ACA respondents consistently scored higher than CNP respondents on all statements measuring attitudes toward PA authority and its employees (see section 3, Appendix 6). Table 28: Local attitudes toward PA authority between ACA and CNP ACA% CNP% Total % Attitude toward PA authority (n=188) (n=189) (n=377) 16.1 4.8 10.1 Negative Neutral 11.3 30.2 21.3 Positive 72.6 65.1 68.6 xT 26.862 .000 Note: Table shows a combined total of five items with three original response categories (Don't know=0, Disagree=l, Agree=2) (see section 3, Appendix 6). The x2 coefficient is based on the new three-level composite Likert-scale score 6AA Perception of benefits from PA Residents in both ACA and CNP were also different in their perceptions of benefits from their respective protected areas. Only 6.4% of the respondents thought that the ability of their PA to deliver benefits was excellent, with 44% giving "good", and close to 42% giving "poor" ratings. Despite the problems regarding attitude to the park authority, park wildlife, management and officials, a higher proportion of CNP respondents (56.1%) acknowledged benefits from the park than those in ACA (31.9%) (Table 29). Table 29: Local perception of benefits from PA between ACA and CNP ACA% CNP% Total % Benefits from PA (n=188) (n=189) (n=377) Don't know 8.5 6.9 7.7 Poor 52.1 31.7 41.9 Good 31.9 56.1 44.0 Excellent 7.4 5.3 6.4 x2 p 22.861 .000 Conversely, a larger percentage of ACA respondents (52.1) thought that the PA's ability to deliver benefits to them personally was poor than was the case for those in CNP (31.7%). The chi-square test indicated a significant difference between the protected areas in this respect (x2=22.861, p<.001). Asked "how much do you and your household benefit from the park's conservation of wildlife?", 72.5% of CNP respondents said they benefit somewhat. Respondents in the same response category were only 52.9% in ACA (x2=27.649, p<.001) (see section 4, Appendix 6). Those who thought that their households benefited somewhat from the PA's community development were also proportionately many more in CNP than in ACA 6.4.5 Discussion Conservation awareness is found to be generally high for respondents in both ACA and CNP. However, CNP respondents were slightly more aware of the importance of protecting wildlife than were their ACA counterparts. Education, exposure, and interactions between park and people seem to be the factors making the difference. CNP villages are easily accessible by road. A number of national and international NGOs have implemented social and environmental education and development projects in the BZ villages. They also have easy access to education and transportation. Such is not the case in ACA, where occasional visits by ACA field workers seem to be the only source of education. The two protected areas present significant differences in attitudes toward wildlife conservation. CNP respondents hold more positive attitudes toward protecting wild animals than do those in ACA. A higher percentage of survey participants in ACA favored wildlife hunting in the protected area than was the case in CNP. In the light of CNP residents being 129 negatively affected more by the park, since they suffer a substantial amount of crop damage, livestock depredation and human mortality by wild animals from the park, one would expect CNP residents to be more negative in their attitudes toward wildlife than the residents of ACA, but the case is quite opposite. ACA residents are not necessarily negative about wildlife conservation. Hunting wildlife is part of their tradition, which now is incompatible with the conservation objectives of ACA. CNP residents have long been used to the idea of protecting wild animals in the park and that hunting is illegal. A substantially higher proportion of people are affected by wild animals in CNP than in ACA. Likewise, more people surveyed in CNP think the park administration cares for wild animals more than it cares for people. Therefore, this fact could have affected their rating of PA policies. The majority of CNP respondents have been found unhappy with the park policies on wildlife, community forestry, and community development. Much of their displeasure with the park policies seems to have resulted from the problems caused by wild animals from the park. A community group leader in Janakpur said, "We are very unhappy with the park because they don't care about us. We cannot grow anything on these lands. Wild animals such as rhinos, deer, porcupines, wild boars and others damage our crops. Tigers kill our fellow villagers. The park does not provide any security, neither any quick and adequate compensation. There are lot of people and organizations including the park protecting wild animals. But who protects us from these animals?" CNP residents also rated park officials lower than did ACA residents. Some respondents complained that they do not see park officials very often, but only when there is a problem involving park resources including wild animals. As the park warden and other officials are usually busy addressing legal issues they do not have time to personally visit 130 villagers to win their trust and support. The security situation in the area also prevents park officials from visiting buffer zone villages on a regular basis. Despite the problems with wild animals and weak park-people relations, local communities in CNP are more inclined to acknowledge benefits from the park better than their AC A counterparts. Before making any comparison between the Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) and the Chitwan National park (CNP), it is important to have a clear understanding of the distinctions between the protected areas in light of their roots in conservation philosophy, history, and the natural and demographic contexts in which they were created and operate. CNP was created by displacing hundreds of indigenous, forest-dependent ethnic tribes of the central Terai district of Chitwan. Their displacement resulted in loss of livelihood for many people, and led to what is often described as a legacy of protracted conflicts between the park and local communities over access to forest resources. ACA, on the other hand, was created in consultations with local communities, who were involved in the planning, design and implementation of conservation plans and polices right from the outset. ACA is managed by a national NGO and is located in the sparsely populated, predominantly Tibeto-Burman midwestern mountains of Nepal, whereas CNP is managed by the government and is located in the densely populated, predominantly Aryan central Terai district of Chitwan. People in ACA were found to be comparatively more positive toward the protected area authority, its policies and officials than those in the buffer zone of CNP. The difference could be due to the different management approaches and institutions involved in the protected areas involved. A large majority of the respondents in both ACA and CNP preferred to work with local, national and international NGOs in development and biodiversity conservation. The majority of the respondents in both ACA and CNP least preferred the 131 government, which operates CNP, to manage protected areas. Survey findings were the same as for rural communities in many other developing countries, who have been found to respond to non-government partners better and, for the same reason, are less likely to be receptive of state intervention in conservation programs (Machlis and Tichnell 1985). CNP respondents have comparatively better perceptions of benefits from the park than do residents of ACA. The results probably would have been different if the survey had been done in the southern parts of ACA, where ACA has done a lot of community works (KMTNC 2000). ACA respondents' perception of fewer benefits from conservation than those perceived by CNP BZ respondents may be attributed to a limited use of the term 'benefit' in ACA. In contrast, people around CNP are aware of various NGOS and INGOs working in their villages and the benefits they get from them, including forest resources from community forests and the park. Comparatively, CNP has many more development and conservation projects than ACA (DNPWC 2002, KMTNC 2000). Despite perception of fewer benefits from PA, ACA respondents displayed higher levels of participation in conservation and development programs than did their counterparts in the CNP buffer zone. The difference in participation indicates that benefit may be a factor in shaping local attitudes, but not much in generating local involvement. People in ACA with a higher level of education and a more favorable attitude toward ACAP and its officials, are more likely to be involved in community participation than those with little or no education and a negative attitude toward ACAP and its officials. Caste was not a factor in participation in ACA, but people from higher castes were more likely to be engaged in participatory programs in CNP. However, there was one similarity in factors affecting participation in both. Higher education was an important factor affecting 132 participation positively in both ACA and CNP. Perception of benefits seems to influence local attitudes but not residents' decision to participate in community programs. Non-tourist residents in both ACA and CNP had a lower perception of benefits from PAs, but a higher participation in community programs than their counterparts in the Tourist villages. The two protected areas face different sets of natural and social dynamics that produce different limitations, threats and opportunities in involving communities in the sustainable and successful management of natural and cultural wealth in their respective jurisdictions. For example, as ACA does not experience the same levels of crop damage and livestock depredation by wild animals as CNP does, the participatory aspect of wildlife management will have different priorities. People in CNP are considered external forces whose role in conservation is limited to the buffer zone, as they have no say on the management of the core park area. On the contrary, people in ACA are internal players in the natural and cultural features of the protected landscape. They have decision-making power and will ultimately be responsible for the management of the conservation area when it will be handed over to local communities in 2012. Community participation has been used in both ACA and CNP as a mechanism to build local capacity to manage natural and cultural resources sustainably. However when or whether local communities will ever attain full management capacity to balance the use and preservation of the natural resources appropriately and effectively, and at the same time protect the biological diversity in their respective areas is questionable. As indicated by the findings from the study, both ACA and CNP authorities admit that poor and deprived sections of the local society have not been able to enter the participatory process for a variety of reasons, such as lack of time, economic disparity, and social stratification and the problems it creates for people with lower social status in participation. 133 Work and household chores were cited as two most important barriers preventing the majority of the people from participating in community programs in both ACA and CNP. Sadly, the abstention of the lower sections of the society makes it easy for the social elites, with their higher education, income and ethnic status, to control the participatory process (Gupte 2003, Agrawal and Gibson 1999, Meht and Kellert 1998, Sarin et al. 1998, Leach et al. 1997). The exclusion of the people who are most dependent on park resources and in dire need of social supports, such as the ones provided by the protected areas will only worsen the division and inequity that exist in the villages of ACA and CNP. Such inequities will undermine the principles and purpose of the participatory process and threaten the survival of the protected areas. Park authorities say they are trying but are convinced that their efforts will not change centuries-old social structures and functions. "Unfortunately only the upper class and educated people have the leadership qualities and are always eager to participate. So they naturally monopolize the participatory process and its benefits. The unprivileged sections of the society have low self-esteem and do not mix up well with members from other communities. Which is why only 10% of our BZ programs are actually targeted at the socalled weaker sections of society", said PCP project manager Top Bahadur Khatri. ACA is not very different from CNP in this regard. Bringing large-scale economic changes to eradicate poverty in ACA and in the CNP buffer zone is beyond the mandate and capacity of ACA and CNP. It is the responsibility of the central and local governments, such as DDCs and VDCs. For example, CNP uses a substantial portion of its tourism revenue in social projects, such as building dams, roads, and schools, leaving little for conservation activities. Policy-makers agree that micro-projects like the ones carried out by ACA and CNP with support from external donors are not the answers 134 to Nepal's socio-economic and developmental challenges. While they may be appropriate in some pockets of remote villages with abject poverty and helplessness, they are not the best agents of sustainable economic changes, as such donor-driven micro-measures tend to create a dependency syndrome in the minds of the people, reducing them to passive recipients of development aid (Little 1994). For example, some respondents in ACA were unhappy with ACAP mainly because they think ACAP did not give them as much as they received from Care Nepal, an INGO that ran projects in parts of Mustang in the past. As indicated by the findings of this study, education and awareness play a critical role in generating community participation. The participatory conservation approach itself applied in ACA and CNP does not seem to have a very strong education and awareness component. People expect benefits and may even make efforts to involve themselves in community mobilization to qualify for those benefits, but many of them do not know where the benefits come from, or why. They need to be educated and trained so that they can explore opportunities in identifying and developing their natural and cultural resources to improve their living condition. For example there is an intense focus on tourism and forestry in both ACA and CNP, but at the same time agriculture and other sectors of the economy remain largely ignored and underdeveloped. Tourism in and around the protected areas is completely disconnected from the context of local skills, occupations and the marketplace. Most of the hotels, lodges and restaurants in ACA bring the bulk of their supplies from Pokhara, a major urban center about 200 km south of Jomsom. They would rather pay three times the actual cost of the supplies in transportation than buy much cheaper locally produced substitutes, such as grains, vegetables, meat and even dairy products, largely because local producers of these commodities cannot ensure a consistent supply to meet the demands. 135 Chapter VII Community participation in biodiversity conservation in Nepal 7.1 Summary of results This research has provided a comparative in-depth analysis of community participation in biodiversity conservation between Nepal's two most popular protected areas, ACA and CNP. Despite their differences in overall policies and approaches to conservation, institutional arrangements and management structures, these protected areas share one common goal: to protect biodiversity within their boundary in collaboration with local communities. In order to attain this goal, they have implemented the new participatory conservation strategy with mixed results. The purpose of this comparative study is not to declare one PA or its management approach as better than the other, but to identify their unique set of opportunities and challenges so that the application of the participatory conservation strategy can be improved to better address existing social, economic and ecological challenges in their respective jurisdictions and elsewhere in the country in future. The results indicate that both PAs have spread a high level of conservation awareness and education among the people and are making efforts to address community needs and values to reduce their dependency on protected areas for a living. However, the results also identify differences in the levels of community mobilization for collaboration in protected area management, and the barriers preventing them from realizing the promises of participatory conservation. 136 In ACA, residents' awareness of the importance of conservation was statistically different between TR and NT villages, with TR residents scoring higher in the awareness scale. The TR villages also showed more favorable attitudes toward ACA management, its policies and officials than their NT counterparts. Likewise, the TR villages with over 80% of the residents involved in tourism businesses, also perceived themselves of receiving more benefits from the conservation area than did those in the mainly farming NT villages. Interestingly, however, the NT residents had greater participation in community development and conservation than the TR residents. The majority of the respondents (60%) were participating in ACA. Community participation has been found to be not so much dependent on attitude toward ACAP polices and benefits from the conservation area as was the case in and around many other protected areas (Jim and Xu 2002, Gillingham and Lee 1999, Fiallo and Jacobson 1995). On the contrary, local participation has been found to be influenced more by education, gender, and local attitudes toward ACAP and its officials. Typically, participants in ACA are likely to be women engaged in agricultural activities with favorable attitudes toward ACAP and its officials than others without these attributes. In CNP, an overwhelming majority of the respondents were highly aware of the importance of protecting wildlife in the park. No difference was observed in awareness between the village categories. But unlike in ACA, people in Non-tourist CNP villages were found to be more favorable toward park policies than those in the Tourist villages. The TR residents, for their part, gave a higher rating of the park's ability to deliver benefits to the people than did those in the NT villages. However, a higher perception of greater benefits from the park's conservation and development programs did not result in higher community 137 participation in TR villages. On the contrary, the Non-tourist villages exhibited comparatively greater participation. As in ACA, education and attitude also affected local participation in CNP, with participation increasing in correspondence with the increase in the level of education and favorable attitudes toward the park authority and officials. However, unlike in ACA, where social stratification in general, or caste in particular, was not a factor in participation, people from higher castes were found to be more likely to volunteer in community programs. In the analysis at the protected area level, respondents in CNP were found to have a higher level of conservation awareness and a more positive attitude toward wildlife than their counterparts in ACA. The result was somewhat surprising, because residents in the CNP buffer zone reported much greater incidence of crop damage, livestock depredation and human mortality from wild animals than did ACA residents and therefore were expected to harbor less favorable attitudes toward wildlife protection. ACA residents were found to have more positive attitudes toward the protected area management, its policies and officials than the respondents in CNP. However, ACA respondents were also comparatively less unfavorable to the conservation area's wildlife, development and community forest policies. On the contrary, a greater proportion of respondents in CNP perceived the park's ability to deliver benefits to the people to be either good or excellent. As found by other researchers in the past, demographic elements such as education and caste weighed in heavily in community participation with more educated, influential and upper-caste people controlling the participatory process in both ACA and CNP, more so in the latter (Gupte 2003, Mehta and Heinen 2001, Mehta and Kellert 1998). 138 Results of logistic regression and analysis between community participation and some key demographic and attitudinal variables revealed some important differences between the two protected areas. In AC A, people with higher levels of education and a favorable attitude toward the conservation area authority and its officials are more likely to participate in community programs. In CNP, those who participate are more likely to come from higher caste, higher education groups, and with a more positive attitude toward the park policies and programs. Demographic and attitudinal factors affecting local participation in ACA and CNP have been summarized in Figure 2. Figure 2: Factors affecting local participation in ACA and CNP ACA CNP Strong link Weak link 139 7. 2 Research contribution and its wider applicability The evolution of approaches to biodiversity conservation in general and protected area management in particular has clearly indicated a global shift toward a more holistic approach to biodiversity conservation. Participatory conservation is the latest and most promising model of this holistic approach, as it can be applied in and around a wide variety of protected areas in different socio-economic and political contexts. Since returning to strict protection as advocated by some authors as Terborgh (1999) is no longer a practical option for protected areas, at least in the developing world, improving the applicability and effectiveness of participatory conservation is the only way of expanding partnerships with local communities to achieve long-term protection of biodiversity. Understanding society and the plurality of its elements is a precursor to improving the implementation of participatory conservation. The study has made important contributions to advance the understanding of resourcebased rural communities and their beliefs and value systems that determine their voluntary contributions to biodiversity conservation. The findings can be applied to improve protected area management approaches, policies, plans and programs in ACA, CNP and other protected areas in similar socio-economic and cultural settings in Nepal, and may be in and around similar protected areas in developing countries with comparable socio-economic and political parameters, and similar dynamics of the park-people conflict. However, caution must be exercised in applying the experience from ACA and CNP in the implementation of the participatory conservation approach in other protected areas. The study is particularly important in the context of Nepal, because the country is moving toward handing over protected area management responsibility to national and international conservation organizations. 140 7.3 Limitations of participatory conservation in Nepal The idea of providing socio-economic support to communities living in and around protected areas to win their trust and support to park management has given a new direction to biodiversity conservation in Nepal. Illustrious success of ACA in transforming the otherwise naturally fragile and economically impoverished mid-hills of western Nepal into examples of self-sustainable communities has inspired other protected areas in the country to adopt ACAstyle management approach. Even strictly protected national parks and wildlife reserves have now applied this approach to improve their relationships with surrounding local communities. While it is too early to know the extent to which the new strategy has helped ease decades of park-people conflicts, park authorities and local communities in many part of Nepal have moved significantly closer in working together to protect wildlife, and to produce a better socio-economic support system (DNPWC 2004). The results clearly indicate a high level of conservation awareness among local people most of whom are also supportive of protected area authorities and their collaborative management strategies. However, participatory conservation as implemented in rural Nepal also has some limitations in generating wider community participation. 7.3.1 Ecological indicators The study focuses mainly on the social indicators of local participation in ACA and CNP, and does not include ecological indicators. The social development component of participatory conservation is expected to address pressing needs of communities and reduce their dependence on traditional forest resources for subsistence, contributing to the protection of wildlife. However, empirical evidence of strong links between social, economic and ecological components of participatory conservation are hard to find. Aggressive resource extraction from the park by local communities in violation of park regulations in CNP shows that the socio-economic support provided to the communities for their participation in conservation does not necessarily change their behavior. Despite all the money and efforts poured into development programs, education, training and development of alternative sources of energy, the majority of CNP boundary communities still routinely and illegally enter the park for timber, firewood, fodder and wild vegetables. As the ecological side of local participation is beyond the scope of this study, it is hard to say whether the strategy is contributing to the ultimate goal of biodiversity conservation in the protected areas studied. 7.3.2 Incentives for participation Various socio-economic benefits and access to forest resources provided to local communities as a trade-off for their involvement in community development and conservation programs—such as skill development training, adult education, loan for alternative energy, livestock and agricultural development, firewood, fodder and other forest products, market promotion for local handicrafts, etc., to name a few—are inextricably linked to local participation. Besides making occasional passing reference, the study does not explore the "incentive" part of the participatory conservation approach, as this is explored in detail by research partner Arian Spiteri in her thesis "Evaluating Community Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation In Protected Areas In Nepal" (Spiteri 2006). 7.3.3 Political influence The timing of the field research coincided with Nepal's worst political conflict in which Maoist guerillas waged a bloody so-called "people's war" that cost thousands of lives and fanned a widespread sense of terror in the people. Some of the villages surveyed were in 142 total Maoist control, while others were caught in the battles between the military and the rebels. According to wildlife researcher Prahlad Yonzon, parts of ACA and CNP were used as hideouts by the rebels and government troops who left landmines and booby traps as they moved on. In a fluid situation like this, what people think and say in response to research questions has a fairly high chance of being politically biased. Even the park authorities and its conservation and development partners who provide social support in the villages have problems staying immune to the political influence. According to a UNDP Nepal employee in CNP responsible for motivating local communities for participation, political ideology and affiliation is a real barrier in bringing community members together to work for a common goal such as conservation. He said even park employees are treated according to their political leanings. Survey responses may have been different had the research been done in peaceful times when people feel much more comfortable in expressing their opinion freely and honestly. 7.3.4 Social inequity Much like politics, social hierarchy based on traditional caste system also creates problems in the effective implementation of the participatory conservation approach implemented in the villages. PAs have little choice but to rely on the people with some education and leadership skills to lead development and conservation programs and to motivate villagers to participate. As people with such qualities usually come from the socalled social elites comprising upper caste and more affluent sections of the society, the leadership roles in participatory programs equip them with additional power, influence and privilege to further entrench their control on the weaker sections of the society and to monopolize benefits associated with community development and conservation programs 143 (Gupte 2003, Mehta and Heinen 2001, Mehta and Kellert 1998). Not surprisingly, the results show that participation of the poor, uneducated and low-caste sections of the society remains low in CNP and parts of ACA despite years of efforts by PAs and their partners. 7.3.5 Sustainability The issue of social, economic and ecological sustainability of participatory conservation has long been under debate. Participatory conservation comes at a cost. Most of the development works in boundary villages are implemented as projects and financed by either park authorities or their international conservation partners, such as IUCN, UNDP and WWF. These projects run for a limited period of time after which local communities are expected to take over and give them continuity. However, local communities and institutions usually lack necessary financial and administrative capacity to sustain community development activities without external support. For example, management of ACA was supposed to be handed over to local communities in 2006 but has now been postponed until 2012 because the local communities lacked the capacity required to manage such a large conservation area (KMTNC 2003). Since social development is a critical part of participatory conservation, failure to produce social and economic benefits can easily lead to a decline in community interest in participation in biodiversity conservation, impacting ecological sustainability. 7.3.6 Tourism impact ACA and CNP are the top two most popular tourist destinations in Nepal, each attracting thousands of visitors and earning substantial revenue from it every year. Tourism does and will continue to impact participatory conservation in these protected areas in Nepal in both positive and negative ways, depending on how it is managed. As an important contributor to local economy, tourism has tremendous potential as a motivation factor for local community participation in both AC A and CNP. However, local participation in tourism remains highly localized with only powerful and richer sections of the people mainly in gateway communities monopolizing its benefits at the cost of the less privileged majority of the people in the villages away from the main trails (Nepal et al. 2002, Goodwin and Roe 2001). Nonetheless, tourism in both ACA and CNP is mostly unregulated and has been blamed for a host of social and ecological problems, including social and economic disparity, inflation, cultural decay, environmental pollution, and wildlife habitat destruction and degradation, to name a few (Nepal et al. 2002, Goodwin and Roe 2001). 7.4 Issues for further research The results covered in this thesis mainly pertain to local community participation in ACA and CNP and are only parts of the data collected in the field research. Local participation in protected area management is only one piece of the larger conservation puzzle in Nepal which must be examined in light of the existing social, cultural, economic, political, environmental and ecological dimensions. While the research looks into a broad gamut of demographic and attitudinal variables to explore participatory conservation as practiced in ACA and CNP, the information collected in the field provides opportunities for further exploration of the issues identified in the thesis. For example, participatory conservation uses social and economic incentives such as infrastructure development, employment and training programs to members of local communities to motivate them to participate in social development and conservation programs. Such incentives, also referred to as benefits in some 145 literature, are seen as potential contributors to changes in local attitude toward wildlife conservation and protected area authorities (Mehta and Heinen 2001, Gilingham and Lee 1999, Fiallo and Jacobson 1995). In order to better understand participatory conservation, it is important to explore the links between local attitudes, social and ecological incentives and community participation. A protected area may be successful in producing and delivering socio-economic benefits to the people and win their trust and involvement in participatory programs, but still may not achieve important conservation goals. Incentives and wider local participation are indicators of socially successful conservation strategies, which are sometimes falsely used to interpret ecological successes of participatory conservation. Without research in the ecological indicators of biodiversity conservation with local participation, it is hard to conclude that social successes of participatory conservation lead to ecological successes. Participatory conservation also needs to be examined in the new light of changing global, regional, national and local politics. The majority of studies on biodiversity conservation, especially in developing countries, deliberately or unwittingly exclude the political variable from the context, raising questions about their validity. As wider political and policy issues in most of the Third World countries dictate the type, location, management approach and institutional matrix of protected areas, political and legal issues must be included in the analyses of how participatory conservation is planned and implemented within the larger conservation policy framework. Forces such as political instability, civil war and general breakdown of law and order, which still afflict the majority of the developing countries, do not only change conservation dynamics of a country but also alter public opinion and attitudes. For example, the civil war in Nepal seems to have encouraged some sections of 146 the people to debate how wildlife should be protected, and for whom. As there may be situations in which political awareness, affiliation and activities of local people can play a critical role in determining the success and failures of conservation programs, understanding the influence of these important demographic attributes on local opinion and actions provides a critical perspective in participatory conservation strategies. Conservation history of politically volatile countries like Nepal shows that nature becomes the first casualty of conflicts and social unrest. Situations of such political and social unrest also provide opportunities for further research on its cumulative impacts on wildlife. The implementation of participatory conservation programs in and around protected areas in most developing countries involves multiple stakeholders including international conservation organizations that usually provide necessary management expertise and financial and logistic support. Most of the participatory conservation initiatives are implemented as pilot projects aimed at building local capacity so that communities can build their institutions to sustain conservation programs after they are handed over to them. However, initial financial and logistic support provided to communities has been found to have done more harm than good in some cases. Development handouts from external sources may kill local initiative and creativity, inducing a dependency syndrome in the people rather than producing continuity to such programs and projects. The issue of the sustainability of social support and conservation success calls for a more in-depth investigation. 7.5 Recommendations for successful participatory conservation The results indicate that participatory conservation implemented by ACA and CNP, each with a different institutional set-up and management framework, has been able to mobilize local communities to produce some socio-economic supports and to preserve their 147 unique flora and fauna within their respective jurisdictions. However, the bottom-up conservation strategy applied by these PAs also faces a fair share of challenges and threats. Participatory conservation is ambitious and revolutionary because it seeks to replace over a century of management structures and processes and, therefore, takes time to be fully successful. It is a dynamic process that can be improved a little at a time on the basis of lesions learned from its implementation in diverse social, economic and political contexts. The following recommendations have emerged out of the findings of the research. 7.5.1 Education and awareness The study indicated a strong link between education and community participation, with participation increasing in correspondence with the rise in the level of education of the people. Even though formal school education is beyond the jurisdiction of the protected areas, they can explore opportunities for partnership with local education institutions to make education accessible to a wider section of the people, especially women and low-caste groups. It was surprising to find that the majority of ACA residents did not even know they were living in a conservation area and that some of their actions were ecologically harmful, indicating the need to impart more education in order to raise local conservation awareness. 7.5.2 Political commitment Political commitment is a precondition for effective biodiversity conservation, which is often reflected in conservation laws, rules and regulations (Blaikie and Jeanrenaud 1997, Pimbert and Pretty 1997). In Nepal's case, however, the Local Governance Act is in direct conflict with the country's National Park and Conservation Act. Mustang, which constitutes ACA, is a case in point where the local government (known as DDC) initiated an ambitious road construction project without any EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment), and despite opposition from ACAP. In this case, the Local Governance Act—which allows regional and local units of the government to carry out development works, including extraction of natural resource—clearly takes precedence over the National Parks and Conservation Act. Though the road, once completed, will bring many positive changes to the impoverished communities of the upper Mustang part of ACA, it will also negatively impact tourism and the environment in the fragile mountain ecosystem. Political commitment with appropriate legislation is also required in the area for the collection, processing and distribution of natural resources. Many people in ACA have been fined and jailed for illegal collection and sale of such highly valued herbs as Lodsalla {Taxus taxus), Yarchagumba (Cordicep sinensis) and others. Most of the perpetrators are known to have committed such offences largely out of their ignorance of conservation laws. Therefore, protected areas, and local and national governments have to work together to explore the possibility of involving local communities in the collection, processing and sale of commercially viable herbs. Such community involvement in local resource management will not only benefit the villages financially, but will provide the muchneeded motivation for community participation in conservation. 7.5.3 Wildlife management Crop damage, livestock depredation and human mortality by wild animals are some of the most contentious issues facing protected area management in Nepal (Nepal and Weberl995, 1993). These problems have deepened mistrust and animosity between local communities and protected area authorities for years. In CNP, more rhinos and tigers could mean both good news and bad news, depending on whom you ask. So, a rise in the population of certain wild animal species should not be mistaken as always being an indicator of conservation success, especially in CNP where more wild animals means more problems for 149 the farmers. Protected areas need to achieve a balance between wildlife conservation and social well-being by initiating innovative and effective measures to reduce social and livelihood problems associated with wild animals. Now, with wildlife habitat in CNP extending to community forests and even closer to villages, local residents anticipate more problems from wild animals. The park needs to have a sound policy to deal with these rather new changes in the wildlife dynamics, and their implications on the livelihoods of the surrounding human population. While a compensation program agreeable to all may well be almost impossible to design, implement and sustain, both ACA and CNP should search for preventive rather than curative approaches to solving problems from wild animals. 7.5.4 Equity in benefit sharing There are indications in both ACA and CNP that the much-touted participatory conservation strategy might actually end up as another tool for the social elites to further entrench their position and control in society at the cost of the less privileged and oppressed groups of people (Gupte 2003, Agrawal and Gibson 1999, Sarin et al.1998, Mehta and Kellert 1998). As the widening of the divide between the elites and those they control is likely to exacerbate the threats to protected areas in many ways, efforts should be made to achieve parity and justice in benefit sharing. Park authorities admit that they have not been able to adequately address the needs of the weaker sections of society and to motivate them for community participation. Though changing centuries of social stereotypes takes time and efforts, PAs can make a difference and set an example by targeting people with special needs and integrating their livelihoods with other aspects of society and economy. 150 7.6 Conclusion Different variants of participatory conservation have been implemented in and around many protected areas to make biodiversity conservation socially just, economically viable and ecologically sound. Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) and Chitwan National Park (CNP) in Nepal are two examples of protected areas that have implemented participatory conservation to achieve a sustainable balance between biodiversity conservation an social survival. In adopting a participatory strategy to reconcile the seemingly conflicting goals of nature protection and social development, these protected areas have set examples in how the approach can be implemented in both top-down and bottom-up management frameworks and different institutional set-ups as reflected in the structures and functions of ACA and CNP. While the history, local contexts and the scope of the approach are different for these protected areas, the purpose of applying the participatory strategy is the same: to build local capacity to produce social goods and services as a trade-off for local participation in biodiversity conservation. Being different in every way, these protected areas present different scopes for local implementation of the participatory approach. Apparently, the same approach offers different constraints and opportunities for these two protected areas. ACA being a conservation area has a much wider scope for local involvement in conservation and development than does CNP, where local participation is limited to resource management and community building in the buffer zone. It is because of these differences that ACA and CNP will have different sets of experiences with the strategy. For example, the institutions involved in management and their policy environments seem to have encountered some constraints in generating wider local participation in CNP. On the other hand, lack of 151 interactions and understanding between conservation authorities and local communities seems to have created barriers to wider local involvement in ACA. Nonetheless, there are some similarities between these protected areas with respect to the opportunities and constraints experienced in implementing participatory conservation. Social stratification and the resultant power dynamics in the society have created a disparity in the ability of various social groups to use the participatory process to address their needs, values and concerns. In this context, participatory conservation is in danger of ending up as a vehicle for social elites to entrench their social status, power and influence and to oppress the less privileged classes (Gupte 2003, Mehta and Heinen 2001, Mehta and Kellert 1998). Sometimes participatory conservation needs to be seen not in terms of the volume but the profile of the participants (Brechin 1999, Little 1994, Marks 1991). For instance, who participates may be more important than how many people participate in community program. A huge percentage of the targeted beneficiaries in both ACA and CNP are not participating in community development and conservation programs. Grassroots institutional development and community participation in both ACA and CNP are mainly driven by educated, wealthier high-caste interest groups who are better positioned to controlling resource management and distribution of benefits in and around these protected areas (Mahanty and Russell 2002, Mehta and Kellert 1998). Poverty, rising population and conflicts over access to natural resources within the protected boundaries are common threats to biodiversity conservation in ACA and CNP. The structural and procedural flexibility of participatory conservation provides the protected area authorities with the opportunity to customize the social component of their conservation strategy to address these concerns. Community participation provides a framework for local 152 initiation and ownership of a process of social change, something that does not happen overnight. Above all, it provides excellent learning opportunities for adaptive management of social and ecological issues in and around protected areas. The knowledge gained through these experiences goes a long way toward improving participatory conservation as a pragmatic approach to biodiversity conservation. The findings of this study are particularly important in the context of Nepal as the country is charting out a new direction for its conservation movement. Recent policy revision to bring in national and international nongovernment organizations to manage its protected areas is one earnest step in that direction. 153 References Abel, N., and Blaikie, P. 1986. Elephants, People, Parks and Development: The Case of the Luangwa Valley, Zambia. Environmental Management 10(6): 735-751. Abbot, J., D. Thomas, A. Gardner, S. Neba and M. Khen. 2001. Understanding the Links Between Conservation and Development in the Bamenda Highlands, Cameroon. World Development 29(7): 1115-1136. Admas, W., and Hulme, D.1998. Conservation and Communities: Changing Narratives, Policies and Practices in African Conservation. In D. Hulme, and M. Murphree, eds., African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, 9-23. Oxford: James Currey. Adams, W., and M. Infield. 2003. Who is on the Gorilla's Payroll? Claims on Tourist Revenue From a Ugandan National Park. World Development 31(1):177-190. Adams, W., and Thomas, D. 1993. Mainstream Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Putting Theory into Practice. Journal of International Development 5 (6): 591-604. Agrawal, A. 2001. State Formation in Community Spaces?: Decentralization of Control over Forests in the Kumaon Himalaya, India. Journal of Asian Studies 6 0 ( 1 ) : 9 - 4 1 . Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C. 1999. Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation. World Development 27(4):629-649. Alcorn, J. 1993. Indigenous Peoples and Conservation. Conservation Biology 7(2):424-426. Alpert, P. 1996. Integrated Conservation and Development Projects: Examples from Africa. BioScience 46(ll):845-855. Alvard, M. 1993. Testing the "Ecologically Noble Savage" Hypothesis: Interspecific Prey Choice by Piro Hunters of Amazonian Peru. Human Ecology 21(4):355-387. Anderson, D. and Grove, R. 1987. The Scramble for Eden: Past, Present and Future in African Conservation. In D. Anderson and R. Grove, ed., Conservation in Africa: People, Policies and Practice, 1-12. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Archabald, K. and Naughton-Treves, L. 2001. Tourism Revenue-sharing Around National Parks in Western Uganda: Early Efforts to Identify and Reward Local Communities. Environmental Conservation 28(2): 135-149. Arnstein, S. R. 1969. A ladder of Citizen Participation. In Journal of the America Institute of Planners 35 (4): 216-224 Asian Development Bank (ABD). 2001. Summary Environmental Impact Assessment and Summary Initial Environmental Examination: Ecotourism Project in the Kingdom of Nepal. Kathmandu: Asian Development Bank. Babbie, E. 2001. The Practice of Social Research. Ninth Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. Bajracharya, S., Furley, P., and Newton, A. 2005. Effectiveness of Community Involvement in Delivering Conservation Benefits to the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Environmental Conservation 32(3): 1-9. Balmford, A. and Whitten, T. 2003. Who Should Pay for Tropical Conservation, and How Should the Costs Be Bet? Oryx 37(2):238-250. Barborak, J. 1995. Institutional Options for Managing Protected Areas. In J. McNeely, ed., Expanding Partnerships in Conservation, 30-38. Washington, DC: Island Press. Barrett, C. and Arcese, P. 1995. Are Integrated Conservation-Development Projects (ICDPs) Sustainable? On the Conservation of Large Mammals in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development 23(7): 1073-1084. Barrett, C , Brandon, K., Gibson, C. and Gjertsen, H. 2001. Conserving Tropical Biodiversity amid Weak Institutions. BioScience 51(6):497-502. Bauer, H. 2003. Local Perceptions of Waza National Park, northern Cameroon. Environmental Conservation 30(2): 175-181. Becker, H. 1999. Problems of Inference and Proof in Participant Observation. In A. Bryman and R. Burgess, eds., Qualitative Research, 55-67. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Belsky, M. J. 2002. Beyond the Natural Resource and Environmental Sociology Divide: Insights from a Trans-disciplinary Perspective. Society and Natural Resources, 15 (3): 269-280. Belsky, M. J. 1999. Misrepresenting Communities: The Politics of Community-based Rural Ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize. Rural Sociology, 64 (4): 641 - 666. Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Management Systems. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia and London, UK. Biodiversity Conservation Network (BCN).1999. Evaluating Linkages Between Business, the Environment and Local Communities. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, D.C. Bista, D. 1967. People of Nepal. Kathmandu: Ratna Pustak Bhandar. Blaikie, P. and Jeanrenaud, S. 1997. Biodvierstiy and Human Welfare. In K. Ghimire and M. Pimbert, eds., Social Change and Conservation, 46-70. London, UK: Earthscan Publications Limited. Blaikie, P. 1999. A Review of Political Ecology: Issues, Epistemology and Analytical Narratives. Zeitschrift fiir Wirtschaftsgeographie 43 (3 - 4): 131 - 147. Blaikie, P. 1985. The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. Essex, England: Longman Scientific and Technical. Brandon, K., Redford, K. and Sanderson, S.1998. Parks in Peril: People, Politics, and Protected Areas. Washington, DC: Island Press. Brandon, K. 1998. Comparing Cases: A Review of Findings. In K. Brandon, K. Redford and S. Sanderson, eds., Parks in Peril: People, Politics, and Protected Areas, 375-414. Washington, DC: Island Press. Brandon, K. 2002. Putting the Right Parks in the Right Places. In J. Terborgh, C. Van Schaik, L. Davenport and M. Rao, eds., Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature, 443-467. Washington, DC: Island Press. Brandon, K. 1997. Policy and Practical Considerations in Land-use Strategies for Biodiversity Conservation. In R. A. Kramer, C. P. Van Schaik, and J. Johnson, eds., Last stand: Protected Areas and the Defense of Tropical Biodiversity, 90-114. New York: Oxford University Press. Brandon, K. and Wells, M. 1992. Planning for People and Parks: Design Dilemmas. World Development 20(4):557-570. Brechin, S., Wilshusen, P., Fortwangler, C. and West, P.C. 2002. Beyond the Square Wheel: Toward a More Comprehensive Understanding of Biodiversity Conservation as Social and Political Process. Society and Natural Resources 15:41-64. Brechin, S.R., West, P.C. Harmon, D. and Kutay, K.1991. Resident Peoples and Protected Areas: A Framework for Inquiry. In P.C. West and S. R. Brechin, eds., Resident Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilemmas and strategies in International Conservation. 5-28. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, USA. Bromley, D. W. 1994. Economic Dimensions of Community-based Conservation. In D. Western, R. M. Wright and S.C. Strum, eds., Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation, 1-14. Washington, DC: Island Press. Brown, K. 2003. Three Challenges for a Real People-Centered Conservation. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 12(2): 89-92. 156 Brown, K. 1998. The Political Ecology of Biodiversity, Conservation and Development in Nepal's Terai: Confused Meanings, Means and Ends. Ecological Economics 24:73-87. Brown, K. 2002. Innovations for conservation and development. The Geographical Journal 168(1):6-17. Brown, K., R. Turner, H. Hameed and I. Bateman. 1997. Environmental carrying capacity and tourism development in the Maldives and Nepal. Environmental Conservation 24(4):316-325. Bruner, A., R. Gullison, R. Rice and G. da Fonseca. 2001. Effectiveness of Parks in Protecting Tropical Biodiversity. Science 291:125-128. Bryant, R. L.1998. Power, Knowledge and Political Ecology in the Third World: A Review. Progress in Physical Geography, 22 (1) 79-94. Bulmer, M. 1993. General Introduction. In M. Bulmer and D. Warwick, eds., Social Research in Developing Countries: Surveys and Censuses in the Third World, 3-24. London: UCL Press Limited. Bunting, B.W., Sherpa, M. N., and Wright, M. 1991. Annapurna Conservation Area: Nepal's New Approach to Protected Area Management. In P. C. West, and S. R. Brechin, eds., Resident Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation, 162-172. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon. Calhoun, J. B. 1991. Plight of the Ik. In P. C. West and S. R. Brechin, eds., Resident Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation, 68 - 86. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Campbell, L. M., and Mattila, V. A. 2003. Participatory Development and Community-based Conservation: Opportunities Missed or Lessons Learned? Human Ecology, 31(3): 417436. CBD. 1994. Convention on Biological Diversity. In A. F. Krattiger, J. A. McNeely, W. H. Lesser, K. R. Miller. Y. S. Hill, and Senanake, eds., Widening Perspective on Biodiversity. 435-453. Gland and Geneva: IUCN and International Academy of the Environment. CBS. 2002. Statistical Year Book of Nepal. Central Bureau of Statistics. Kathmandu. Nepal Child, B. 1996. The Practice and Principles of Community-based Wildlife Management in Zimbabwe: The CAMPFIRE Programme. Biodiversity Conservation 5 (3): 369 - 398. CIITES Nepal. 2007. DarkDays for Rhinos, 1(1): 1-6. Wildlife Watch Group (WWG). CITES Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal, www.citesnepal.com. 157 Cohen, J. M., Uphoff, N. 1977. Rural Development Participation: Concepts and Measures for Project Design, Implementation and Evaluation. Ithaca, N. Y. Rural Development Committee, Cornell University. Colchester, M. 1997. Salvaging Nature: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas. In K. Ghimire and M. Pimbert, eds., Social Change and Conservation, 97-130. London, UK: Earthscan Publications Limited. Colfer, C , Wadley, R. and Venkateswarlu, P. 1999. Understanding local people's use of time: a pre-condition for good co-management. Environmental Conservation 26(l):41-52. Conley, A. and Moote, M. 2003. Evaluating Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources 16:371-386. Cracraft, J. and Grifo, T. F. 1999. Regional and Global Patterns of Biodiversity Loss and Conservation Capacity: Predicting Future Trends and Identifying Needs In J. Cracraft and T. F. Grifo, eds., The Living Planet in Crisis: Biodiversity, Science and Policy, 139-172. Columbia University Press, Chichester, West Sussex, New York. Creswell, J. W. 2002. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousands Oak, CA: Sage Publications. Cronon, W. 1995. The Trouble with Wilderness : Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature. In W.Cronon, ed., Uncommon Ground: Reinventing Nature, 69-90. W. W. Norton New York. de Boer, W. and Baquete, D. 1998. Natural Resource Use, Crop Damage and Attitudes of Rural People in the Vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Environmental Conservation 25(3):208-218. Dearden, P. 2002. "Dern Sai Klang": Walking the Middle Path to Biodiversity Conservation in Thailand. In P. Dearden, ed., Environmental Protection and Rural Development in Thailand: Challenges and Opportunities, 377-400. Bangkok. White Lotus Press. De Vaus, D. 2002. Surveys in Social Research. London: Routledge. DeVellis, R. 1991. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Newbury, CA: Sage. Dey, C. 1997. Women, Forest Products and Protected Areas: a Case Study of Jaldapara Wildlife Sancturary, West Bengal, India. In K. Ghimire and M. Pimbert, eds., Social Change and Conservation, 131-157. London, UK: Earthscan Publications Limited. Dickens, P. 1996. Reconstructing Nature. Routledge, London, Britain. DNPWC. 2004. Annual Report 2003 - 2004. Kathmandu: HMG/DNPWC. DNPWC. 2003. Participatory Conservation Programme Annual Report 2003. Kathmandu: DNPWC. DNPWC. 2002. Annual Report 2001 - 2002. Kathmandu: HMG/DNPWC. DNPWC. 2001. Annual Report 2000 - 2002. Kathmandu: HMG/DNPWC. Dudley, N., Gujja, B., Jackson, W., Jeanrenaud, J-P., Oviedo, G., Phillips, A., Rosabel, P., Stolton, S., and Wells, S. 1999. Challenges for Protected Areas in the 21st Century. In S. Stolton, and N. Dudle, eds., Partnerships for Protection: New Challenges for Planning and Management for Protected Areas, 3-12. WWF and IUCN. Earthscan. Escobar, A. 1998. Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature? Biodiversity, Conservation and the Political Ecology of Social Movements. Journal of Political Ecology 5: 53-82 Escobar, A. 1996. Constructing Nature: Elements for a Post-structural Political Ecology. In R. Peet and M. Watts, eds., Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements, 46 - 68. London: Routledge. Ferraro, P. 2001. Global Habitat Protection: Limitations of Development Internventions and a Role for Conservation Performance Payments. Conservation Biology 15(4):990-1000. Fiallo, E. and Jacobson, S.1995. Local Communities and Protected Areas: Attitudes of Rural Residents Towards Conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environmental Conservation 22(3):241-249. Fortwangler, C. 2003. The Winding Road: Incorporating Social Justice and Human Rights into Protected Area Policies. In S. Brechin, P. Wilshusen, C. Fortwangler and P. West, eds., Contested Nature: Promoting International Biodiversity with Social Justice in the Twenty-first Century, 25-40. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Freemuth, J. C. 1991. The Emergence of External Threats as a Policy and Management Issue. In J.C. Freemuth, ed., Island Under Seize: National Parks and the Politics of External Threats, 9-27'. University Press of Kansas. Gadd, M. 2005. Conservation outside of parks: Attitudes of Local People in Laikipia, Kenya. Environmental Conservation 32(l):50-63. Gbadegesin, A. and Ayileka, O. 2000. Avoiding the Mistakes of the Past: Towards a Community Oriented Management Strategy for the Proposed National Park in AbujaNigeria. Land Use Policy 17:89-100. Gezon, L. 2003. The Regional Approach in Northern Madagascar: Moving Beyond Integrated Conservation and Development. In S. Brechin, P. Wilshusen, C. Fortwangler and P. West, eds., Contested Nature: Promoting International Biodiversity with Social 159 Justice in the Twenty-first Century, 183-194. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Gibson, C. C. 1999. Politicians and Poachers: The Political Economy of Wildlife Policy in Africa. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Gibson, C.C. and Marks, S.A. 1995. Transforming Rural Hunters into Conservationists: an Assessment of Community-based Wildlife Management Programs in Africa. World Development, 23 (6): 941-57. Gillingham, S. 2001. Social Organization and Participatory Resource Management in Brazilian Ribeirinho Communities: A Case Study of the Mamiraua Sustainable Development Reserve, Amazonoas. Society and Natural Resources, 14:803-814 Gillingham, S. and Lee, P. 1999. The impact of Wildlife-related Benefits on the Conservation Attitudes of Local People Around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environmental Conservation 26(3):218-228. Goodwin, H. and Roe, D. 2001. Tourism, Livelihoods and Protected Areas: Opportunities for Fair-trade Tourism in and Around National Parks. International Journal of Tourism Research 3:377-391. Green, M. J. B. and Paine, J. 1999. State of the World's Protected Areas at the End of the 20 th Century. In S. Stolton, and N. Dudley, eds., Partnership for Protection, 18-28. Earthscan. London, UK Grifo, T. F. and Chivian, E. 1999. The Implications of Biodiversity Loss for Human Health. In J. Cracraft and T.F. Grifo, eds., The Living Planet in Crisis: Biodiversity, Science and Policy, 197 - 208. Columbia University Press, Chichester, West Sussex, New York. Gujit, I., and Shah, M. K. 1998. The Myth of Community: Gender Issues in Participatory Development. London: Intermediate Technology. Gupte, M. 2003. Reexamining Participatory Environmental Policy: Social Stratification and the Gender Dimension. Society and Natural Resources 16:327-334. Hackel, J. D. 1998. Community Conservation and the Future of Africa's Wildlife. Conservation Biology 13(4):726-734. Hackel, J. D. 1993. Rural Change and Nature Conservation in Africa: A Case Study from Swaziland. Human Ecology 21 (3): 295 -312. Hall, P. A. 1993. Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policy-making in Britain. Comparative Politics 25:275 - 296. Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162:1243-1248. Hart, T. 2002. Conservation in Anarchy: Key Conditions for Successful Conservation of the Okapi Faunal Reserve. In J. Terborgh, C. Van Schaik, L. Davenport and M. Rao, eds., Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature, 86-96. Washington, DC: Island Press. Hessler, R.M. 1992. Social ResearchMethods. St. Paul: West Pub. Co. Heinen, J. T. and Mehta, J. N. 2000. Emerging Issues in Legal and Procedural Aspects of Buffer Zone Management with Case Studies from Nepal. The Journal of Environment and Development 9(1): 4 5 - 67. Heinen, J. T. and Mehta, J. N. 1999. Conceptual and Legal Issues in the Designation and Management of Conservation Areas in Nepal. Environmental Conservation 26(1):2129. Heinen, J. T. 1993. Park-people Relations in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal: A Socioeconomic Analysis. Environmental Conservation 20 (1): 25-34. HMG and Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation. 2003. Nepal Tourism Statistics 2003. Kathmandu: HMGN/Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation. HMGN/CBS. 2003. Population Monograph of Nepal. Kathmandu. National Planning Commission. HMGN/MFSC. 2002. Nepal Biodiversity Strategy. Kathmandu. HMGN. HMGN. l996.Buffer Zone Management Regulation, 1996. Kathmandu: MFSC. HMGN. 1994. Nepal Tourism Statistics. Kathmandu: Ministry of Tourism, HMG, Nepal. HMGN. 1993. Forest Act 1993. Kathmandu: HMGN/MFSC. HMGN. 1973. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973. Kathmandu: HMGN. Hough, J. L. and Sherpa, M.N. 1989. Bottom-up vs. Vasic Needs: Integrating Conservation and Development in the Annapurna and Michiru Mountain Conservation Areas of Nepal and Malawi. Ambio 18 (8): 434-41. IUCN. 2003. United Nations List of Protected Areas. The World Conservation Union. Gland. Switzerland. IUCN. 2002. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. The World Conservation Union. Gland. Switzerland, www.redlist.org. 161 James, F. R. and Blarney, K. R. 1999. Public Participation in Environmental DecisionMaking - Rhetoric to Reality? Paper presented at the 1999 International Symposium on Society and Resource Management 7 - 10 July 1999. Brisbane, Australia. Jeanrenaud, S. 2002. People-oriented Approaches to Global Conservation: is the Leopard Changing its Spots? IEED, London. University Press. Jim, C. and Xu, S. 2002. Stifled Stakeholders and Subdued Participation: Interpreting Local Responses Toward Shimentai Nature Reserve in South China. Environmental Management 30(3):327-341. Kellert, S.R., Mehta, J. N., Ebbin, S.A., and Lichtenfeld, L.L. 2000. Community Natural Resource Management: Promise, Rhetoric, and Reality. Society and Natural Resources, 13: 705 - 715. Kiss, A. 2004. Is community-based Ecotourism a Good use of Biodiversity Conservation Funds? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19(5):232-237. KMTNC. 2004. Annual Report 2003. Kathmandu: KMTNC. KMTNC. 2003. Annual Report 2002. Kathmandu: KMTNC KMTNC. 2002. Annual Report 2002. A. Rijal and S. Rana, eds. Lalitpur: KMTNC. KMTNC and ACAP. 2000. Two Years Retrospective Report: July 1998 - July 2000. Kathmandu: KMTNC/ACAP. KMTNC. 1997. Annapurna Conservation Area Management Plan. Kathmandu: KMTNC. KMTNC. 1996. Royal Chitwan National Park After Twenty Years: An Assessment of Values, Threats and Opportunities. Kathmandu: KMTNC. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kothari, A., Pathak, N., Anuradha, R. V., and Taneja, B. (eds.). 1998. Communities and Conservation: Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia. New Delhi. Sage. Kothari, S. A., Singh, N. and Suri, N. S. (eds.). 1996. People and Protected Areas: Towards Participatory Conservation in India. Sage. New Delhi. Kuriyan, R. 2002. Linking Local Perceptions of Elephants and Conservation: Samburu Pastoralists in Northern Kenya. Society and Natural Resources 15 (10): 949-957. Lane, B. M. 2001. Affirming New Directions in Planning Theory: Comanagement of Protected Areas. Society and Natural Resources 14 (8): 657-671. Lane, M. B. and Chase, A. 1996. Resource Development on Cape York Peninsula: Marginalisation and Denial of Indigenous Perspectives. In R. Howitt, J. Connell and P. Hirsch, eds., Resources, Nations and Indigenous Peoples: Case Studies from Australasia, Melanesia and Southeast Asia, 172-183. Melbourne. Oxford University Press. Leach, M., Mearns, R. and Scoones, I. 1999. Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics and Institutions in Community-Based Natural Resource Management. World Development 27(2):225-247. Leach, M., Mearns, R. and Scoones, I. 1997. Challenges to Community-based Sustainable Development: Dynamics, Entitlements, Institutions. IDS J. Bulletin 28:4-14. Little, P. D. 1994. The Link Between local Participation and Improved Conservation: A Review of Issues and Experiences. In D. Western, R. M. Wright, and S. Strum, eds., Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation, 347 - 72. Washington, DC: Island Press Loibooki, M., Hofer, H., Campbell, K., and East, L. M. 2002. Bushmeat Hunting by Communities Adjacent to the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania: the Importance of Livestock Ownership and Alternative Sources of Protein and Income. Environmental Conservation 29 (3): 391 - 398. Lusigi, W. 1995. How to Build Local Support for Protected Areas. In J. McNeely, ed., Expanding Partnerships in Conservation, 19-24. Washington, DC: Island Press. Machlis, G. E. and Tichnell, D. L. 1985. The State of the World's Parks: An International Assessment for Resource Management, Policy, and Research. Westview Press, Boulder, Colarado. Mahanty, S. and Russell, D. 2002. High Stakes: Lessons from Stakeholder Groups in the Biodiversity Conservation Network. Society and Natural Resources 15:179-188. Maikhuri, R.K., Nautiyal, S., Rao, K.S., Chandrasekhar, K., Gavali, R. and Saxena K.G. 2000. Analysis and Resolution of Protected Area-people Conflicts in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Environmental Conservation 27(l):43-53. Marcus, R. R. 2002. Seeing the Forest for the Trees: Integrated Conservation and Development Projects and Local Perceptions of Conservation in Madagaskar. Human Ecology 29 (4): 181-197. 163 Marks, S. A. 1991. Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation. In P.C. West and S. R. Brechin, eds., Resident Peoples and National Parks, 5-28. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Marks, S. A. 1984. The Imperial Lion: Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in Central Africa. Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press. McNamee, K. 1993. From Wild Places to Endangered Spaces: A History of Canada's National Parks in P. Dearden and R. Rollins, eds., Parks and Protected Areas in Canada, 1718. Oxford University Press McNeely, J. A. 1995. Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press. McNeely, J. A. 1990. The future of National Parks. Environment 32 (1): 16 -20 McNeely, J. A. 1984. Introduction: Protected Areas are Adapting to New realities. In J. A. McNeely and K. R. Miller, eds., National Parks, Conservation and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society,.1-7'. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Mehta, J. N. and Heinen, J. T. 2001. Does Community-Based Conservation Shape Favourable Attitudes Among Locals? An Empirical Study from Nepal. Environmental Management 28(2): 165-177. Mehta, J. N. and Kellert, S. R. 1998. Local Attitudes Toward Community-based Conservation Policy and Programmes in Nepal: a Case Study in the Makalu-Barun Conservation Area. Environmental Conservation 25(4): 320-333. Murphree, M. 1994. The Role of Institutions in Community-based Conservation. In D. Western, R. M. Wright and S. Strum, eds., Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation, 403-427'. Washington, DC: Island Press. Nepal, S. K., Kohler, T. and Banzhaf, B. 2002. Great Himalaya: Tourism and the dynamics of change in Nepal. Berne: Swiss Foundation for Alpine Research, and Centre for Development and Environment. Nepal, S. K. 2002. Linking Parks and People: Nepal's Experience in Resolving Conflicts in Parks and Protected Areas. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 9:15-9Q. Nepal, S. K. 2000. Tourism in Protected Areas: The Nepalese Himalaya. Annals of Tourism Research 27(3):661-681. Nepal, S. K. and Weber, K. 1995. Prospects for Coexistence: Wildlife and Local People. Ambio 24(4):238-245. 164 Nepal, S. K. and 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. Nepal, S. K. and Weber, K. 1993. Struggle for Existence: Park-People Conflict in the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology. Parry, D. and Campbell, B. 1992. Attitude of Rural Communities to Animal Wildlife and its Utilization in Chobe Enclave and Mobabe Depression, Botswana. Environmental Conservation 19(3): 245-252 Pimbert, M. P. and Pretty, J. N. 1997. Parks, People and Professionals. Putting 'Participation' in Protected-Area Management. In K. Ghimire and M.P. Pimbert, eds., Social Change and Conservation 297-330. Earthscan Publication limited. UK. Raval, S. R. 1992. The Gir National Park and the Maldharis: Beyond "Setting Sside." In P. C. West and S. R. Brechin, eds., Resident Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation, 68 - 86. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Raven, H. P. and Cracraft C. J. 1999. Seeing the World as it Really is: Global Stability and Environmental Change. In C. J. Cracraft and T. F. Grifo, eds., The Living Planet in Crisis: Biodiversity, Science and Policy, 287 - 297. Columbia University Press, Chichester, West Sussex, New York. Raven, H. P. and McNeely, A. J. 1998. Biological Extinction: Its Scope and Meaning for us. In L. D. Guruswamy and J. A. McNeely, eds., Protection of Global Biodiversity: Converging Strategies, 13: 32. Duke University Press Durham, North Carolina, USA. Shah, J. and Heinen, J. T. 2001. Wetland Resource Use and Conservation Attitudes Among Indigenous and Migrant People in Ghodaghodi Lake Area, Nepal. Environmental Conservation 28(4):345-356. Salafsky, N. 1994. Ecological Limits and Opportunities for Community-based Conservation. In D. Western, R. M. Wright and S. Strum, eds., Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation, 448-471. Washington, DC: Island Press. Salafsky, N., Cauley, H., Balachander, G., Cordes, B., Parks, J., Margoluis, C , Bhatt, S., Encarnacion, C , Russell, D. and Margoluis, R. 2001. A Systematic Test of an Enterprise Strategy for Community-Based Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology 15(6): 1585-1595. Salafsky, N., Dugelby, B. and Terborgh, J. 1993. Can Extractive Reserves Save the Rain Forest? An Ecological and Socioeconomic Comparison of Nontimber Forest Product 165 Extraction Systems in Peten, Guatemala, and West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Conservation Biology 7(l):39-52. Salafsky, N. and Wollenberg, E. 2000. Linking Livelihoods and Conservation: A Conceptual Framework and Scale for Assessing the Integration of Human Needs and Biodiversity. World Development 28(8):1421-1438. Sarin, M. R., Raju, M., Chatterjee, N., Banerjee, M. and Hiremath, S. 1998. Gender and Equity Concerns in Joint Forest Management. In A. Kothari, N. Pathak, R.V. Anuradha, and B. Taneja, eds., Communities and Conservation: Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia, 323-348. New Delhi: Sage. Schucking, H. and Anderson, P. 1991. Voices Unheard and Unheeded. In B. Shiva, ed., Biodiversity: Social and Ecological Perspectives, 13-42. London and New York. Zed Books Sherpa, M.N., Coburn, B. and Gurung, C.P. 1986. Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal: Operational Plan. Kathmandu: KMTNC. Shrestha, T. 1999. Nepal Country Report on Biological Diversity. Kathmandu: IUCN Nepal. Shultis, J. 1995. Improving the Wilderness: Common Factors in Creating National Parks and Equivalent Reserves During the Nineteenth Century. Forest and Conservation History 39(3):121-129. Song, S. J. and Gonigle, R.M. 2001. Science, Power and System Dynamics: the Political Economy of Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology 15 (4): 980-989. Songorwa, A. 1999. Community-Based Wildlife (CWM) in Tanzania: Are the Communities Interested? World Development 27(12):2061-2079. Soule, M. E.and Wilcox, B. A. Eds. 1980. Conservation Biology: an Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunder- land, Massachusetts. Spence, M. D. 1999. Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks. New York: Oxford University Press. Spergel, B. 2002. Financing Protected Areas. In J. Terborgh, C. Van Schaik, L. Davenport and M. Rao, eds., Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature, 364-382. Washington, DC: Island Press. Spiteri, A. 2006. Evaluating Community Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation In Protected Areas In Nepal. Master's dissertation. UNBC, Canada. Stevens, S. 1997. Annapurna Conservation Area: Empowerment, Conservation, and Development in Nepal. In S. Stevens, ed., Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas, 237-261. Washington, DC: Island Press. Terborgh, J. 1999. Requiem for Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press. Terborgh, J. 2000. The Fate of Tropical Forests: a Matter of Stewardship. Conservation Biology 14(5): 1358-1361. Terborgh, J. and Peres, C. 2002. The Problem of People in Parks. In J. Terborgh, C. Van Schaik, L. Davenport and M. Rao, eds., Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature, 307-319. Washington, DC: Island Press. Thapa, D. (ed.). 2003. Understanding the Maoist Movement of Nepal. Centre for Social Research and Development. Kathmandu, Nepal. Turnbull, C. 1972. The Mountain People. New York: Simon and Schuster. UNDP. 2002. Nepal Human Development Report 200: Poverty Eradication and Governance. Kathmandu: UNDP. Virtanen, P. 2003. Local Management of Global Values: Community-based Wildlife Management in Zimbabwe and Zambia. Society and Natural Resources 16(3): 179190. Waladji, R. B. and Tchamba, M. N. 2003. Conflicts Between People and Protected Areas within the Benoue Wildlife Conservation Area, North Cameroon. Oryx 37 (1): 72-79 Wells, M. and Brandon, K. 1992. People and Parks: L inking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. World Bank, Washington, DC. West, P. and Brechin, S.R. 1991. National Parks, Protected Areas, and Resident Peoples: A Comparative Assessment and Integration. In P. West and S. Brechin, eds., Resident Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation, 363-400. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Western, D. and Wright, R. M. 1994. The Background to Community-based Conservation. In D. Western, R. M. Wright and S. Strum, eds., Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation, 1-12. Washington, DC: Island Press. Wilshusen, P., Brechin, S. R., Fortwangler, C. and West, P. 2002. Reinventing a Square Wheel: Critique of a Resurgent "Protection Paradigm" in International Biodiversity Conservation. Society and Natural Resources 15:17-40. WWF-Nepal Program. 2004. Annual Report 2003-2004. Kathmandu: WWF-Nepal Program Office. Zimmerman, B., Peres, C , Malcolm, J. and Turner, T. 2001. Conservation and Development Alliances with the Kayapo of South-eastern Amazonia, a Tropical Forest Indigenous People. Environmental Conservation 28(1): 10-22. 168 Appendix 1 Study area: Biodiversity conservation in Nepal Introduction Nepal is a small country situated on the south-central shadow of the Great Himalaya, with tremendous biological and cultural diversity rarely found elsewhere in the world. The country has created an extensive network of protected areas, covering more than 18% of the country's total land surface. However, unbridled population growth, rising poverty, political instability, deforestation, and a host of other social and environmental problems have posed serous threats to the long-term sustainability of this protected area network. Most of Nepal's parks and reserves have long been the subject of conflict between parks and people over access to forest resources. In order to reduce local pressure on protected areas and to make conservation socially just the country has adopted participatory strategy in its management approach. The presence of multiple constraints and opportunities in biodiversity conservation makes Nepal an ideal place for conservation studies. This chapter outlines the country's physiography, biological diversity, conservation history and protected area management strategies, and application of the participatory conservaiton strategy in protected area management. Physiography Nepal is located between latitude 26° 22' North and longitudes 80° 40' and 88° 12' East. The country is situated at the intersection of the Indo-Malayan and Palaeartic biogeographical realms. It has a total land area of 1,47,181 Sq. km, and is wedged between India in the south and China in the north. The rectangle shape of the country runs parallel to the Great Himalayas in the north. The country has an average length of 885 km east-west, while the width varies anywhere between 145 km and 280 km north-south. This narrow strip of land supports a tremendous variety of vegetation. Nepal occupies the central part of the Himalayas and is home to 17 of the 24 mountain peaks on Earth above eight thousand meters. The rise in elevation from the southern flatland called the Terai—which is only few meters above sea 169 level—to Mount Everest, the highest mountain in the world at 8,848 meters, is sometime likened to a giant natural ladder. For administrative purposes, the country has been divided into 14 regions (called Anchals in Nepali), 75 districts, 3,912 village Development Committees (VDCs), 58 municipalities, one metropolis, and three sub-metropolitan areas (Shrestha 1999). Each VDC and municipality is further divided into smaller units called wards, which represent the smallest administrative units. Population in Nepal has been growing rapidly. The estimated growth rate for the period between 1991 and 2001 census was 2.24% per year (HMGN/CBS, 2003). Growth is much higher in the densely populated Terai and hills than in the mountains. According to 2001 census, Nepal's population was 23,151,423, but the actual figure is believed to be much higher as the census does not take into account immigrants from India. There are over fifty different ethnic groups belonging mainly to two broad cultural categories: Indo-Aryan and Tibeto-Burman. The Indo-Aryan people mainly dwell in the lower hills, valleys and flood plains in the south, while Tibeto-Burman ethnicities live in the mountains and upper hills. About 90.2% of the people live in rural areas and pursue subsistence agriculture or agriculture-related activities (Shrestha 1999). Nepal is usually described in terms of five physiographic regions: high Himal (23%), high mountains (20%), mid-mountains (30%), Siwalik (13%), and the Terai (14%) (Shrestha 1999). Another broader classification is also widely used to describe the country. This classification divides the country into three regions: the mountain, the hills and the Terai. They represent distinct strips of land area of varying elevation running parallel east to west within an average latitudinal distance of 200 kilometers (HMGN/CBS 2003). The mountain region lies in the north and encompasses parts of the higher Himalayas and mountains above 4877 meters. This part of the country covers 35% of the total land area and 7.3% of the total population, and it includes alpine and sub-alpine climatic zones (HMGN/CBS 2003). The hill region (42%) is comprised of two main ranges of hills, called the Mahabharat and Siwalik. The Mahabharat range comprises the inner mountains of the country, ranging from 1,500 to 2,700 meters in altitude. The Siwalik, on the other hand, lies south of the Mahabharat and comprises lower hills and valleys. The hill region is inhabited by 44.3% of the population of mixed ethnicities (HMGN/CBS 2003). The Terai, also called the "rice bowl" of Nepal for its paddy production, is a narrow strip of land forming the southernmost part of the country. The 170 Terai spans 23% of the total land area and is home to 48.8% of the people (HMGN/CBS 2003). It is easily the most densely populated region in the country. The Terai is less than 300 meters from sea level. Nepal's physiological variations have created diverse climatic conditions within such a small land area. The climatic conditions of the country have been classified into five major global types: i) cold (Arctic/Nival), ii) cold temperate, iii) warm temperate, iv) sub-tropical, and v) tropical (Shrestha 1999). Biologists have documented four major bio-climatic zones, i.e., tropical, temperate, alpine, and arctic, with further sub-divisions (Shrestha 1999). Biological diversity Extensive variations in the physiographic and climatic conditions have created the right environments for a wide range of flora and fauna to thrive in Nepal. Nepal is located at the "crossroads" of six floristic provinces of Asia: (i) Sino-Japanese, (ii) South-East Asian, (iii) Indian, (iv) African-Asian desert, (v) Irano-Turranean, and (vi) Central Asiatic provinces (Shrestha 1999). The country is uniquely positioned to offer rich biological diversity through its six phytogeographical, 11 bio-climatic zones, 35 forest types, and 75 vegetation types (Shrestha 1999). Nepal is exceptionally rich in flowering plants in proportion to its size (Shrestha 1999). It covers only 0.1% of the planet's land surface but claims 5,160 species, or over 2% of the world's total flowering plants. Nepal also has 352 species of orchids, four of which are found only in Nepal, over 1,500 species of fungi, and over 350 species of lichens (Shrestha 1999). About 370 species of flowering plants are believed to be endemic to Nepal, while 700 species of plants are said to have medicinal properties (Shrestha 1999). The country is equally wealthy in faunal species. An estimated 181 species of mammal along with over 850 species of bird, 143 species of reptiles and amphibians, 185 fresh water fish species, and 640 species of butterfly are found in Nepal (Nepal et al. 2002). The country also claims about 8.5% (844) of the world's total avifauna and lists over 5,000 species of insects (Shrestha 1999). Biologists are still adding to the inventory of species, which is largely based on the data available on vascular plants and vertebrate animals. According to WWF Nepal (2003), rare species like Argali sheep (Oris anamon hodgoni) and Tibetan wolf (Canis lupus chanco) have also been found in Nepal. 171 As new species are found and identified, some of the species come under threats of extinction. It has been estimated that in the absence of strict protection measures, the subtropical forest in the south alone will lose ten species of timber, six species of fiber, six species of edible fruit tree, four species of medicinal herbs and about 50 species of other trees and shrubs (HMGN/MFSC 2002). By the year 2000, 26 mammal species, nine bird species, and three reptile species were legally classified as endangered. Some of the mammal species under the endangered category include snow leopard (Uncia uncia), musk deer (Moschus moschiferous), red panda (Ailurus fulgens), great one-horned rhinoceros {Rhinoceros unicornis), royal Bengali tiger (Panthera tigris), and Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) (Shrestha 1999). Other terrestrial and avian species such as Sams crane (Grus antigone), swamp deer (Servus duvanceli), Gangetic river dolphin (Platanista gangetica), and Gharial crocodile (Gavialis gangeticus) may soon contribute to the list (Shrestha 1999, DNPWC 1999). Nepal's rich biological diversity faces threats from multiple sources. Deforestation and the resultant loss of habitats are often cited as the main contributors to the decline in wildlife diversity in Nepal. The annual deforestation rate between 1980 and 1990 was 0.9%, which rose to 1.8% a decade later (HMGN/MFSC 2002). Over 90% of the country's 23 million people live in rural areas and pursue subsistence farming for living, while about 42% of them live below the poverty line (HMGN/MFSC 2002). As in most developing countries, rural poverty has a direct negative impact on the natural environment. As the overwhelming majority of the people still rely on forest resources, such as fuel, fodder, timber and medicinal plants, the biological heritage of the country is under mounting pressure. Forests in Nepal have to supply about 75% of the country's total energy needs ((HMGN/MFSC 2002, Shrestha 1999). Per capita fuelwood consumption in the hills and mountains has been estimated to be 640 kg per person per year. Uncontrolled and illegal extraction of forest products such as firewood and timber are said to be major contributors to continued deforestation, which triggers serious environmental problems like soil erosion, loss of farmland, loss of soil fertility, flooding, and pollution (Shrestha 1999). In addition to environmental problems, the country is also beset by social, political, and economic woes, such as overcrowding, political unrest, insecurity, unemployment, landlessness, economic stagnation, and refugee problems. This all explains why conservation 172 concerns in the country cannot be viewed in isolation of the social, political and economic realities. Political development Nepal presents a rare exception to the global trend in political change and democratization. The Late king Prithiv Narayan Shah unified many small kingdoms to create a unified Nepal in the middle of the 18th century. In 1846, a bloody coup by Jung Bahadur Rana led to reign by the Rana dynasty for over a century. The Ranas and their foreign guests hunted large numbers of game animals such as rhinos, tigers and deer during their rule. The game and trophy hunting, however, did not affect the country's flora and fauna a great deal, mainly because of low population pressure on wildlands and malaria infestation of the dense sub-tropical forests in the Terai region. But that was not the case for long. In 1951, then king Tribhuvan revolted against the Rana regime to bring democracy to the country. However, the mass euphoria for democracy was short-lived. After Tribhuvan's demise, his son Mahendra became king. He used the political turmoil in the country as an excuse to dissolve Parliament in 1962. All parties were outlawed and a party-less Panchayati System was introduced. The period of violence, chaos, confusion and lawlessness between 1951 and 1962 saw a spate of assaults on the country's natural resources. The abrupt nationalization of forests in 1951 is also believed to have triggered massive deforestation in the country, resulting in the loss of 38% of the country's forest cover along with resident wild animals during this period (Shrestha 1999). Growing economic problems, political dissent and the international movement toward democracy inspired the Nepali people to revolt against and successfully abolish the Panchayati System in 1990 (Thapa 2003). However, the restoration of democracy didn't translate into improvement in economic and social conditions. Political instability, corruption, and civil unrest fueled public disenchantment with nascent democracy while the country slipped further into poverty. Nepal remained one of the world's least developed countries, one in which 40% of the people still live in abject poverty (UNDP 2002). Various communist parties including Mashal, which ardently followed orthodox Maoist doctrine, played a key role in restoring democracy in Nepal. But the group later chose to stay out of the political process, continuously boycotting elections. While other political parties were caught in a mess of inter-party and intra-party rivalry, Mashal focused on their 173 organizational development for an armed insurgency. In early 2002, they started their first campaign called Nauli Janabadi Kranti (New People's Democratic Revolution) in some remote western districts of Pyuthan, Arghakhanchi, Surkhet, Gulmi, and Baglung where they announced their own local governments (Thapa 2003). Following the royal massacre on June 1, 2001—in which all members of the Royal Family including King Birendra, the Queen and the Crown Prince were killed—Birendra's Brother, Prince Gyanendra, took over and dissolved Parliament on May 2, 2002. This was anything but a sad case of history repeating itself. The Maoists intensified their campaign in other parts of the country despite massive counter insurgency operations by the army. Thousands of people lost their lives, while hundreds of millions of dollars worth of development infrastructure and services were disrupted and destroyed. The war also caused serious setbacks for Nepal's achievements in biodiversity conservation. Protected area offices were bombed or burned down and many conservation workers were kidnapped and killed. Annapurna Conservaiton Area (ACA), Kanchanjungha Conservation Area (KCA), Bardia National Park, and Parsa Wildlife Reserve were most affected by the insurgency. Though there is no official account of the impact on protected flora and fauna, experts believe the infiltration of the protected areas by Maoist guerillas, army, poachers, criminals, and even villagers resulted in the loss of many endangered species (DNPWC 2004). Mangal Man Shakya, Chairman of Wildlife Watch Group in Nepal, said in an interview with the Himalayan News Service on December 31, 2006 that at least 47 rhinos, 20 tigers and about the same number of spotted leopards were killed in 2006 (CITES Nepal 2007). Nepal's prominent wildlife biologist Pralad Yonzon of Resources Himalaya said no research and monitoring could be done because both Maoists and the army used protected areas as battlegrounds and left bombs and booby traps behind before moving on to a new location. The breakdown in the law and order situation led to significant encroachment on forests within the protected area boundaries. Illegal settlers have cleared patches of forest in Chitwan National Park, Parsa Wildlife Reserves, Royal Bardia National Park and other protected areas and are suspected of being involved in poaching and trade of wildlife body parts (Thapa 2003). 174 In 2006, another public uprising forced King Gyanendra to restore Parliament. In an interesting change of policy, the Maoists agreed in principle to cease their armed campaign and share power with other political parties. Now with the King, political parties and the Maoists still negotiating the terms and conditions for peace, it is hard to say what direction Nepali politics will take in future and whether there ever will be lasting peace in the Himalayan kingdom. National conservation initiatives and policy framework Nature protection and sustainable use of natural resources are not new in Nepal. They are in fact rooted in the religious beliefs and traditional way of life of many rural communities. Both Hindu scriptures and Buddhist teachings interpret nature as 'provider' or 'giver' and call for its protection or perpetuation. Large tracts of forests dedicated to different deities represent a traditional form of nature protection. In addition, traditional communities in Nepal had their own systems, local institutions and processes for managing common property resources such as water, forests, and even minerals. Singi nawa (forest guardian) among the Sherpa people of Khumbu, and guthi and kipat (clan or communal ownership of land and other properties) in the Kathmandu Valley are some of the examples of traditional resource management systems in Nepal (Nepal et al. 2002). The National Conservation Strategy (NCS), which was prepared in 1977 and implemented in 1988 in collaboration with IUCN, was a landmark event in biodiversity conservation in the country (HMGN/MFSC 2002). NCS was formulated with four main objectives: to promote sustainable development to address the basic needs of the people; to ensure sustainable use of natural resources; to preserve biological diversity; and, to sustain ecological life support systems (HMGN/MFSC 2002). NCS was the first major departure in policy toward an integrated approach to biodiversity protection. The Environment and Resource Conservation Chapter of the Ninth Plan (1988-2002) is another significant step in the creation of a policy environment for effective biodiversity conservation. It provided policy guidelines for the preservation of both natural and cultural assets, documentation and promotion of traditional conservation knowledge and skills, regular collection and documentation of endemic and other living species and provisions of in situ and ex situ conservation in protected areas, botanical gardens and zoos, and creation of 175 protected areas for the protection and promotion of biological diversity (Shrestha 1999). Similarly, Nepal Environmental Policy and Action Plan (NEPAP) chapter on Biodiversity Conservation provides an important policy framework for biodiversity conservation. It emphasizes the importance of finding innovative management plans to preserve biodiversity beyond the protected area boundaries, such as community forests, wetlands and other forms of land use (Shrestha 1999). Besides these policy measures, a number of legal measures were also adopted to translate these policies into action. The Aquatic Animals Protection Act of 1961 was perhaps the first legal measure taken for species protection in Nepal. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act or the Wildlife Act passed in 1973 laid the ground for the designation of protected areas to preserve ecologically valuable landscapes and their wildlife. The promulgation of the Buffer Zone Management Regulations (1996) under this Act laid legal grounds for the creation of buffer zones around parks and reserves in the Terai. In order to make conservation meaningful in the local context, the Nepalese government created buffer zones around all five national parks and introduced social development programs in the adjoining buffer zone villages through the Park, and People Project (PPP) in collaboration with UNDP. The new Forest Act of 1993 complements the Wildlife Act in conservation beyond protected areas. The Act empowers the national government to designate any area of national forest with special scientific, cultural or ecological importance as protected forest. This also clarifies the ambiguity seen in the 1961 Forest Act, especially with regard to community forest and local involvement in its creation and management (Shrestha 1999). The Environment Protection Act (1996) is equally significant in its own right. It is the only piece of legislation which defines 'biodiversity' along the lines of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). In addition to these national policy frameworks and legal instruments, Nepal is party to international conventions and treaties related to biodiversity conservation such as: Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Ramsar or Wetland Convention, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), World Heritage Convention, Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 176 Convention on the Protection of world Cultural and Natural Heritage, and many others (Shrestha 1999). A series of policy revisions and legal provisions at the national level and a pledge to honor international conventions, treaties and guidelines demonstrate Nepal's continued and firm commitment to preserve its biological diversity. The country's commitment to protect its biological wealth can also be seen in the past three decades of national conservation practice, which has produced an impressive network of protected areas. Growth of the protected area system In 1973 Nepal invoked the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (NPWCA) to create Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), the main national institution responsible for protected area management and biodiversity conservation, under the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation. The Act governs all areas of biodiversity protection and natural resource management. In protected areas NPWCA prohibits, among others, activities, such as hunting of wild animals and birds, clearing or cultivation of land under protection and harvesting of protected resources, pasturing of domesticated animals or birds, vandalizing of forest resources, and mining in protected areas (DNPWC 2004, Shrestha 1999). Less than a year after passage, the Act was instrumental in creating the country's first protected area, called the Chitwan National Park (CNP). The park was created to protect the dwindling population of the Terai's charismatic megafauna, such as the one-horned rhinoceros, the royal Bengali Tiger, the Asian elephant, the gaur bison, floral species, and the sal forest (Shrestha 1999). Soon, more protected areas were created in different parts of the country. Nepal now has a fairly extensive network of protected areas that include nine national parks, four wildlife reserves, three conservation areas, and one hunting reserve (DNPWC 2004). Together, these protected areas and their buffer zones cover 18.11% sof the country's total land area, and represent many critical ecological zones, valuable species of wildlife and key habitats in need of protection (DNPWC 2004). Some of these protected areas have tremendous international significance as well. Chitwan National Park and Sagarmatha National Park are listed as World Heritage Sites, while Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve is a Ramsar Site (DNPWC 2004). 177 The evolution of Nepal's protected areas and management approaches indicates that the country has exhibited flexibility, adaptability, foresight, and progressive thinking with regard to issues of biodiversity conservation. Protected areas in the country reflect a continued and progressive change in management approaches, styles and forms of institutional partnership, and represent five of IUCN's seven management categories (DNPWC 2004). The initial top-down, state-led, authoritarian approach to protected areas is being gradually replaced by more people-friendly and participatory management approaches with greater recognition of rural communities as key partners in conservation efforts. Local participation and community empowerment are increasingly driving the national conservation movement in the country. After the perceived success of the Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA)—the first community-driven conservation area in the country to be based on the participatory conservation model—the general conservation trend in the country has been in favor of multiple-use conservation areas. The third and fourth amendments to the National Park and Wildlife Act in 1989 and 1993 provided the legal basis for the creation of conservation areas and buffer zones around national parks, and for local participation in community development and conservation. However, Nepal's conservation efforts are not without challenges. Challenges in biodiversity conservation Conflict between protected areas and local communities One of the major challenges facing Nepal's conservation efforts in general and protected areas in particular is the lack of local public support. This is more evident in and around the national parks and wildlife reserves, some of which were created by removing indigenous communities. Since all the national parks and wildlife reserves are managed by state authorities in a top-down bureaucratic management structure, strict rules and regulations have been imposed preventing local community access to forest resources with little or no regard to the needs and values of the surrounding communities which rely on these resources for subsistence (Nepal and Weber 1995). The majority of the people living in boundary communities ignore conservation rules and regulations, and enter protected areas to collect firewood, fodder, food and even timber on a regular basis. 178 Problems from wild animals provide another dimension of conflict between social survival and conservation mandates in the country (Nepal and Weber 1995). Villagers living close to parks and reserves lose most of their crops and livestock to wild animals. Besides, wild animals such as tigers, rhinos and elephants also kill local people in these villages. Boundary encroachment and poaching Protected area boundary encroachment mainly by political and social refugees, and poaching and illegal logging in protected areas are some of the major conservation challenges in Nepal (DNPWC 2004, Nepal and Weber 1995). Park boundary encroachment is particularly serious in CNP where entire communities of illegal settlers have occupied parts of the park's key wildlife habitats. In addition, poaching has remained unabated for decades. Hundreds of trophy animals such as rhinos, tigers and leopards are killed in the protected areas every year. A total of 37 rhinos, along with individuals of many other protected species, were killed in 1999 in the Chitwan National Park alone (DNPWC 2001). Park authorities admit cross-border poaching from India is a major problem, one they have not been able to curb despite years of efforts, including the deployment of armed military units in some of the parks. Unregulated tourism Tourism is an integral part of Nepal's protected areas. It has not only brought in muchneeded foreign currency for the cash-strapped national economy, but has provided income and livelihood to thousands of people. However, uncontrolled growth and poor management of tourism activities in and around protected areas have produced a series of ecological, environmental, economic and socio-cultural problems (Nepal et al. 2002). For example, large-scale deforestation in and around Sagarmatha National Park (SNP) and Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA) has been linked with rapid growth in the number of hotels and lodges in those areas (Nepal et al. 2002). The fragile mountain ecosystems of these protected areas are exposed to severe pollution from tourism. Unregulated tourism is also blamed for creating or widening social disparity, as only a small fraction of the people in the tourism business have been able to benefit from protected area tourism, while the majority of the people who do not benefit from tourism have to deal with its negative impacts, such as inflation, cultural deterioration and even displacement (Nepal et al. 2002, Mehta and Heinen 2001). Since the protected areas in the country lack concrete strategies to deal with the harmful consequences of tourism, the problems are most likely to get worse in the years ahead. The issues described above constitute major management challenges. The policy approach and management strategies adopted and institutional partnerships forged make a critical difference in the success and long-term survival of protected areas in Nepal. DNPWC is the main national authority in charge of biodiversity conservation and protected area management in Nepal. However, DNPWC lacks effective management capacity, human and financial resources, and effective policy and legal instruments (Shrestha 1999). 180 A p p e n d i x 2 : Survey questionnaire Principal Researchers Damodar Khadka Master of Arts Candidate University of Northern BC 3333 University Way Prince George BC V2N 4Z9 khadka@unbc.ca Arian Spiteri Master of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Candidate University of Northern BC 3333 University Way Prince George BC V2N 4Z9 spiteri@unbc.ca APPROACHES TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN NEPAL UflK 1. Who are the members of your household, and what are their ages and sex? Members Age Sex Education Q#2 Occupation Q#3 C Y A M S L S S U Park Related Q#4 M F P z Y N • • • • • • D • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Respondent 2. Spouse 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Note: C = under 18, Y = 18 - 24, A = 25 - 45, M = 46 - 64, S = 65+, M = Male, F = Female, P = Primary, LS = Lower Secondary, 181 S = Secondary, U = University, Z = No education, Y = Yes, N = No 2. What is each household member's level of education? Refer to chart above 3. What is each household member's occupation {use student for children attending school)! Refer to chart above 4. Are any members of the household directly employed by the conservation area / park? Refer to chart above 5. What is your caste? 6. What is your religion? 7. Is this your birth place, or did you move here from elsewhere? LJ Birth place proceed to question #10 LI Moved from 8. Why did you move here? Reasons Employment opportunities Agricultural opportunities Economic opportunities Political reasons Religious reasons Natural calamities in previous village To be close to family / friends To be close to nature Most Important Somewhat important Not important Don't know • • • • • • • • • • • n • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • D Other: Specify check all that apply and rank 9. How long have you lived here? Years This section con fains questions about your household's socio-economic status 182 10. What is the size of your landholding? Bigha Anna 11. Do you grow crops? Yes if no, proceed to question #19 Kattha Ropani No 12. What crops do you grow? Crops Wild animals responsible for damage Q#14 13. Have any wild animals ever damaged your crops? Yes No if no, proceed to question #19 14. Which crops have been damaged by which wild animals? Refer to chart above 15. Why do you think^these wild animals damage your crops? Reasons They do not have enough food They like agricultural crops Over population of wild animals Authorities do not control the wild animals Most important Somewhat important Not important Don't know • • • D • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Other: Specify check all that apply and rank 183 16. What was your total loss of income due to crop raids by wild animals last year? rupees 17. Has the conservation authority compensated you in cash or kinds? Yes No if no, proceed to question #19 18. What was the amount? What was the kind? rupees kind 19. Do you keep livestock? Yes if no, proceed to question #28 No 20. What livestock do you keep? Livestock Number of Livestock Q#21 Wild animals responsible for predation Q#23 Number killed Q#24 21. For each type of livestock you keep, what is the quantity? Refer to chart above 22. Have any wild animals ever killed your livestock? Yes No if no, proceed to question #29 23. Which livestock have been killed by which wild animals? Refer to chart above 24. How many of your livestock have been killed by wild animals during the last year? Refer to chart above 184 25. Why do you think these wild animals kill your livestock? Reasons They do not have enough food They like domesticated livestock Over population of wild animals Authorities do not control the wild animals Most important Somewhat important Not important Don't know • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Other: Specify • check all that apply and rank 26. What was your total loss of income due to wild animals killing livestock last year? rupees 27. Has the conservation authority compensated you in cash or kinds? Yes No if no, proceed to question #29 28. What was the amount? What was the kind? rupees kind 29. What is your approximate annual income? rupees 30. Are youi aMejto^ 1 Yes I I n n Sometimes No Don't know ( • • | Mehta and Heinen (2001) - determine wealth This section contains questions regarding your attitudes towards and your perceptions of institutions and their policies conservation 31. Are you aware of the existence of the park / conservation area? Yes No filter question 185 32. Do you see any need for the conservation area / park to exist? Ite (1996) - looking for a positive or negative response 33. What organizations or agencies are involved with the conservation area / park management? U Government Government and non-government organizations U Non-government organization LI Don't know filter question 34. Why do you think the park / conservation area was created? Reasons Protect wild animals for the future Protect the forest for the future Stop poaching Protect the cultural heritage of the area Allow for community development Promote tourism Repair fallow lands To improve the living standards of the community To generate tourism income for outsiders In response to pressure from the international community to create protected areas Other: Specify check all that apply and rank Most Somewhat Not Important important important Don't know • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 35. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the park / conservation area? Statements It is important to protect the plant species in the park / conservation area. It is important to protect the wild animal species in the park / conservation area. It is a waste of time and money to conserve forests and wildlife. People should be able to hunt in the park / conservation area. People should be able to collect plants or trees from the park / conservation area. People who poach should be punished. It is good this land is protected. Agree Disagree Don't know • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Gillingham and Lee (1999) - cross check responses to gain a conservation attitude index 36. Was the conservation area / park already in existence when you were born? Yes No if no, proceed to question #39 37. Thinking about your perceptions at the time the park / conservation area was established, do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the park / conservation area? Statements I thought the park / conservation area was created for the betterment of our community. I was happy that my village was included / bordered the park / conservation area. Generally speaking, I initially liked the new park / conservation area. Agree Disagree Don't know • • • • • • • • • Mehta and Heinen (2001) 38. Please explain why you initially liked or disliked the conservation area/park? 187 39. Based on your current experiences, do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the park / conservation area? Statements The park / conservation area was created for the betterment of our community. I am generally satisfied that my village is included / borders the park / conservation area. Generally speaking, I like the park / conservation area. Agree Disagree Don't know • • • • • • • • • 40. Please explain why you currently like or dislike the conservation area/park? Abbot et al. (2001) - compare the two answers to determine perceived linkage if development/benefits are mentioned 41. How would you rate the conservation area/paik'syDolicy on wild animal conservation? Good n 1 1 Okay Bad Don't know • • • 42. How would you rate the conservation area / park's policy on community development? Good Okay Bad Don't know 1 • • • • 1 43. How would you rate the conservation area / park's policy on community forestry? Good Okay Bad Don't know § • • • o I 44. Overall, how would you evaluate the management of the conservation area / park? | ( ^ Good Okay Bad Don't know 1 • • • • I 45. Please explain why you feel that way about the management and their policies. (Ref: Q#41 - 44) 188 46. Who do you like to work with most in development and conservation activities? Pick one Local or national non-government organizations U Foreign non-government organizations LJ Government representatives • Others Specify: LJ Don't know 47. Thinking about who you would like to work with most, do you agree or disagree with these statements? Statements I like their overall policies on community development and conservation. They are friendly, approachable, and understand our problems. They provide benefits other organizations cannot provide. They respect our culture and value our role in conservation and development. Other: Specify Agree Disagree Don't know • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 48. Who do you think would be the most appropriate group, or combination of groups to manage the conservation area / park? Check one box Government Non-government organization Foreign non-government organization Local communities Government Nongovernment organization Foreign nongovernment organization Local commu nities Other: Specify • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • D Other: Specify 49. Please explain why you think this group or these groups is / are the most appropriate to manage the area. 189 50. Are you negatively affected by the park / conservation area? Yes No if no, proceed to question #52 51. What are the main problems you experience due to thepark / conservation area? Problem Damages caused by wild animals Confrontations with conservation authorities Threats to human safety Restrictions on access to resources Restrictions on livestock grazing areas Inability to meet subsistence needs Decline in cultural values Loss of economic opportunities from the sale of natural resources Increased costs of living Other: Specify Major problem Sometimes a problem Not a problem Don't know • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • check all that apply and rank 52. When the park / conservation area was established, what effect did the establishment have on your economic status? 1 Much 1 Improvement " Somewhat improved No change Somewhat worse Much worse Don't 1 know | • • • • • I 53. How does your economic status today compare to five years ago? 1 1 Much Improvement 1 D Somewhat improved No change Somewhat worse Much worse Don't 1 know 1 • • • • • I 190 54. How frequently do you obtain these resources from within the conservation area/park? Reasons Frequently Sometimes Never Don't know • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Dead trees and wood Live trees Plants and herbs Wild animals - meat and fish Land for livestock grazing D Other: Specify 55. Would you like to personally have more access to resources within the conservation area / park boundary? Yes No if no, proceed to question #58 de Boer & Baquete (1998) - provide info for management alternatives 56. Which resources would you like to have more access to? Reasons Dead trees and wood Live trees Plants and herbs Most Important Somewhat important Not important Don't know • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • D Wild animals - meat and fish Land for livestock grazing Other: Specify • • • 57. An increased access to resources would provide me and my family with: m Construction material • Food U Areas for livestock grazing LJ Medicines • Economic opportunities from the commercial sale of resources LJ Opportunities for spiritual / traditional activities 191 • Heat Q Other Specify: 58. Do the activities and policies of KMTNC / DNPWC restrict your ability to feed and support your family or make money? Prompts: Policies such ax... Ki'siiicliiiiii on le.wuiie use Prutri'lion oFiiiU u'limuh iMciiuriijtemrru a\ loial I'timci/MtHm 59. How have conservation development activities affected the culture of your community? Improved Worsened U No difference Don't know 60. How have conservation development activities affected your community's traditional knowledge of the forest? Improved LJ Worsened No difference LJ Don't know 61. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements about benefits? Statements DNPWC / KMTNC / WWF try to solve the problems of local residents through development programs. The park / conservation area provides employment to many local people. The protection of the forest and wild animals is essential to the area's future tourism potential. My livelihood depends on the existence of the forest and wild animals. The protection of the forest and wild animals does not improve the social services in my community. Agree Disagree Don't know • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 192 It is good that RCNP / ACA / KCA is protected for our future. • • • • • • • Tourists would still visit this area if there was less forest and wild animals. The protection of the forest and wild animals does not improve my standard of living. The DNPWC / KMTNC / WWF care more about wild animals than local people. Improvements to the social services available in my community are due to the presence of the park / conservation area. Tourists come here because of RCNP / ACA / KCA. The authorities protect the park / conservation area so that the resources will be available for use in the future. • • • • • • • • • • • • • D Nepal (thesis); test the identification of the linkage between tourism and conservation 62. Who do you think should benefit from the conservation area / park? Group You and your household Your community Surrounding communities - Who: Immigrants: Other Nepali Resident foreigners Non-government conservation organizations Nepal International community Other: Specify Should benefit most Should benefit somewhat Should benefit least Should not benefit Don't know • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • de Boer & Baquete (1998) 63. Of the groups listed below, how much do you think they actually do benefit from the protection of forests and wild animals? Group You and your household Your community Benefit most Benefit somewhat Benefit least No benef it Don't know • • • • • • • • • n Describe benefits Q#64 193 Surrounding communities - Who: Immigrants: Other Nepali Resident foreigners Non-government conservation organizations Nepal International community Other: Specify • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 64. What do you think are the benefits for each group you identified? Refer to chart above 65. Why do you think some of the groups you just outlined benefit more than others? 66. Of the groups listed below, how much d o you think they actually do benefit from the development programs run by DNPWC / ECMTNC / WWF? Group You and your household Your community Surrounding communities - Who: Immigrants: Other Nepali Resident foreigners Non-government conservation organizations Nepal Benefit most Benefit somewhat Benefit least No benefit Don't know • • • a • • a a a a • • • a a • • a a a a a a a a • • a a a • a • a a Describe benefits Q#72 194 International community Other: Specify • • • • • • • • • • 67. What do you think are the benefits for each group you identified? Refer to chart above 68. Why do you think some of the groups you just outlined benefit more than others? 69. What do you think are the needs of your community? Can you provide examples of these needs? Needs Economic development Social programs Forest Protection Wild animal protection Most Important R Q#70 A Q#71 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • n • • • • • • Somewhat important R A Q#70 Q# 71 • a • • • a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a • a a a a a Not important R A Q# Q#70 71 Don't know R A Q#70 Q# 71 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a a a a a a a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a a • • a a • a a a a a 195 • • • • • • • • • • Cultural protection Other • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a a a a a a • • • a a a a a a a a a a • a a a a a a a a a a a • • • a a a a a a a a a • • a a a a a Note: R = respondent, A = authority Mehta and Kellert (1998) 70. How would you rank the importance of these needs to you? Refer to chart above 71. In regard to the needs you have identified, what do you think are the priorities of the park / conservation authority? Refer to chart above 72. Have the park / conservation projects been successful at meeting any of the needs that you have identified? 1 Yes Somewhat No Don't know 1 1 n • • • ( 73. What projects have been implemented by the park /conservation programs? Prompts: Project such as. ... Safe drinking water Training programs Electricity projects Projects Q#74 Significant difference Some difference No difference Don't know • • • • • • • • • • • • 196 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 74. Have these programs made any difference in terms of improving your standard of living? Refer to chart above 75. How would you rate the DNPWC / KMTNC / WWF's ability to deliver benefits to you personally? Excellent Good Poor Don't know 1 • • • • ( Determine access 76. Do you agree or disagree with the followin g statements about tclurism? Statements I would be happy to see more tourists here. Tourism makes goods and services more expensive. Because visitors like to experience our culture, tourism strengthens our cultural traditions. Only outsiders benefit financially from tourism to our area. Our community has too many tourists. Tourists do not respect our local culture and traditions. My. family has more money because of tourism. The financial opportunities offered to me by tourism have adequately offset my losses from conservation. Tourism benefits my family. Tourism is damaging our culture. Agree Disagree Don't know • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Walpole and Goodwin (2001) 77. If the resources of the park / conservation area were to be damaged, what would happen to your livelihood activity? Continue as is 197 <_l Improve Worsen • End LI Don't know Walpole and Goodwin (2001) This section contains questions regarding participation in conservation projects 78. Do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding your relationship with Statements ...are generally helpful and understand our problems, needs and expectations. ...are not interested in our needs or concerns. ...are open to our suggestions and concerns regarding development and conservation programs. ...treat us as equal partners in development and conservation. ...don't understand our problems and needs. ...encourage us to participate in conservation and development programs. ...don't respect our input or appreciate our efforts Agree Disagree Don't know • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • D 79. Are you a member, or do you participate in any development or conservation committees or groups? Yes No if no, proceed to question #85 I'rnmpis.-Wiliiltlc conservation groups, H ihllilr /x/'ii'//