Global Climate Change

Global climate change is the phenomena of changes in the earth’s climate due to the human induced interfere to the natural systems of the earth. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scenario suggests that the global mean temperature might increase by 2°C over 1990-2100 under best estimate in case of no intervention to prevent the climate changes. Scenario with high emissions and high climate sensitivity5 has reported as high as 4.5°C rise in temperature in 2100 as compared to 1990. Emissions of the greenhouse gases by the various human activities increase their concentrations in earth’s atmosphere. The major gases responsible for the greenhouse effects are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFC-12, HCFC-22c and CF4, but the relative global warming potentials of these gases are different. Carbon dioxide is the major greenhouse gas that is emitted in large volume by human activities. Carbon dioxide is emitted during the production, transportation and consumption of the fossil fuels (such as coal, oil, gas etc.) as energy sources in numerous activities to produce mgoods and services. Higher carbon content fuel such as coal emits greater amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere during the combustion process compared to lower carbon content fuel such as natural gas. The effort to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions would therefore require reductions in the use of the fossil fuels, improvement of the energy efficiency, switching to low carbon content fuels, greater use of renewable energy resources. Apart from the fossil fuels, deforestation and the changes in the land uses are also responsible for net increases in the carbon dioxide emissions by decreasing the carbon uptake from the atmosphere during photosynthesis process and by releasing carbon stock to the atmosphere.

Nepal has the considerable stake in climate change activities. The first is due to its own vulnerable situation and second is due to international donor driven interests. Nepal can tap benefits by participating to the ongoing climate change international initiatives.

Deforestation is a leading cause of climate change—contributing almost 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions annually—most of it driven by demands from industrialized countries for forest products or for commodities like beef or soy that compete with forests for the use of land. In a number of developing countries, tropical deforestation is the largest source of emissions.

Aggressive action to reduce (and ultimately halt) emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) must be part of any serious policy to address the climate crisis, while at the same time respecting other forest values. Without REDD, keeping global average surface temperature increase below 2°C will likely be impossible. Exceeding 2°C of warming creates a much larger risk of triggering critical climate tipping points leading to large-scale species extinctions, catastrophic reductions in water supply, or increasingly rapid disintegration of ice sheets with resulting devastating increases in sea level.

By placing a price on carbon through a cap-and-trade program, keeping forests intact becomes economically valuable. Climate policy can then help realize this value for countries and communities that choose to protect forests. Financing REDD will be substantial, but so will the benefits to the economy. According to the Eliasch Review, a recent report commissioned by the United Kingdom, halving global emissions from deforestation could produce $3.7 trillion in net benefits to the global economy. Financing REDD could be done through a suite of mechanisms including direct payments from governments, market approaches allowing capped emitters to satisfy (i.e. “offset”) some emissions by paying to reduce deforestation and market-hybrid programs that channel a portion of revenues from auctioning emissions allowances to reducing forestry emissions.

Finally, the value of tropical forests extends well beyond their carbon storage capacity to include important ecosystem services and key economic development benefits for forest-dependent people.

Restaurant of Vulture

        Restaurant of Vulture

These restaurants are targeted to preserve the wild vultures that have seen a huge decrease in their population owing to inappropriate meal. The vulture population in Nepal is estimated to have fallen to a mere 500 nesting pairs from at least 50,000 pairs in 1990.

In 2004 researchers working in Pakistan discovered that diclofenac, an anti-inflammatory drug used in livestock, was poisoning and killing vultures (29 July 2006). Nepal started producing a new cattle drug meloxicam, which is considered a safe alternative for anti-inflammatory diclofenac, and it is intended to halt a big decline in endangered vultures. (August 04 2006,). Although the use of diclofenac is prohibited in Nepal and neighbouring India, but the ban is widely ignored.

In a recent news report, it is told that more than 100 birds are the regular “customers” in the restaurant. It is told that there are plans to emulate India and build a breeding centres. Similar schemes have already been run successfully in South Africa and Europe, but the Nepali project is unique as it is being driven by the local community rather than by professional conservationists.

Looks like people are doing a lot to save the bird. But in a report  published in March, 2007 points that the Vulture restaurant has only slowed deaths and more needs to be done to prevent the ultimate extinction of the bird.

It is told that there are plans to emulate India and build a breeding centres. Similar schemes have already been run successfully in South Africa and Europe, but the Nepali project is unique as it is being driven by the local community rather than by professional conservationists.

After the vulture restaurant, conservation effort in Nepal continues by opening its first vulture breeding centre to try to save the birds from extinction.

Of the eight species of vultures found in Nepal, the white-rumped and slender-billed vultures are categorized as critically endangered.

The numbers of both species have plunged in Nepal and India and scientists say the decline is largely due to farmers dosing their cattle with diclofenac, a drug used to treat inflammation, poisoning the scavenging birds.

The plan is to capture at least 10 breeding pairs of vultures for each of the critically endangered species and keep them initially in two aviaries at Kasara in Chitwan National Park, said Dev Ghimire, an official with Bird Conservation Nepal.

forest management in nepal

                               Forest Management In Nepal

One-fourth of Nepal’s national forest is now managed by more than 35 per cent of the total population. Community forestry is now the second-largest forest management regime after government-managed forests.

Forest user groups develop their own operational plans, set harvesting rules, set rates and prices for products, and determine how surplus income is distributed or spent. There is evidence of significant improvement in the conservation of forests  and enhanced soil and water management.                                                                        

ommunCommunity forestry promotes inclusive growth. Some community forest activities have initiated a scholarship programme for low income people, as well as savings and credit operations among members, including loans to finance income generation activities. Community forestry also empowers  with greater influence over decision making through participation in planning and management.ity forestry has contributed

The Master Plan for the Forestry Sector prepared in 1989, the Forest Act of 1993, the Forest Regulations of 1995, and the Forestry Sector Policy of 2000 were developed and implemented to support the community forestry programme, after earlier efforts at centralized control. The Forest Act and Forest Rules accelerated the transfer of forests to forest user groups; they provide the legal basis for the implementation of community forestry and recognize CFUGs as “self-governing autonomous corporate bodies for managing and using community forests”.t 40

national park

                                     National park

                     Nepal covers a region of immense natural beauty and a high level of cultural and biological diversity. Recognizing the importance of these resources for the betterment of human kind at global and national level, Nepal has established a network of 16 protected areas of different catagories (as shown in table 1), which provides protection to at least 80 of the country’s 118 ecosystems. As legal basis given by using National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (NPWC) Act 1973, protected areas of Nepal are defined as follows:
*National Park: an area set aside for conservation and landscape together with national environment.
*Strict Nature Reserve: an area of ecological significance aet aside for purposes of scientific studies.
*Wildlife Reserve: an area set aside for conservation and management of animals and birds and their habitat.
*Hunting Reserve: an area set aside of the management of animals and bird resources for the purposes of sport hunting.
*Conservation Area: an area set aside for the consercation of the natural resources, for its utilization in a blanced way on the basis of an integrated management plan.

 1.CHITWAN NATIONAL PARK
Area: 932 sq km; Established: 1973; altitude: 150 to 815m
Location: situated in lowlands of the southern central part of the Nepal in chitwan district.

2. SAGARMATHA NATIONAL PARK
Area: 1148 sq.km; Established: 1976: Altitude: 2845 to 8848m (the world’s higest peak).
Location: Lies in the solu-khumbu district of the north�eastern region of Nepal.

3. LANGTANG NATIONAL PARK
Area: 1710 sq.km; established: 1976; altitude 792 to 7245m                                                                   
location: Lies in the central Himalayan region of Nepal, 32 km north from Kathmandu.

4. RARA NATIONAL PARK
Area: 106 sq.km; Established: 1976; Altitude: 2800 to 4048 m
Location: Lies in Mugu & Jumula districts in mid-western Himalaya region of Nepal.

5. SHEY- PHOKSUNDO NATIONAL PARK
Area:  3555 sq.km; established: 1984; Altitude; 2,000 to 6.885m
Location: Mountainours region of western Nepal covering parts of Dolpa and Mugu districts.

6. KHAPTAD NATIONAL PARK
Area: 225 sq.km; established: 1986; altitude: 1,000 to 3,300m.
Location: ecompasses part of Doti, Bajura, Bajhang and Achham.

7. BARDIA NATIONAL PARK
Area: 968 sq.km. ; established: 1988 as National Park ; altitude : 152 to 1441 m.
Location: situated in South- west Nepal in Bardia district.

                Fire in forestry

"The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit." ~ Nelson Hen

          Forest fires occur annually throughout Nepal and are a major cause of an estimated 1.7% deforestation annually.

These fires cause economic losses and environmental degradation throwing delicate ecosystems out of balance

and threatening valuable and endangered flora and fauna degrading the soil and inducing flood and landslides.

Nepal does not have accurate data about its forest fires, including the severity of their environmental impact or annual economic losses. Community forest organizations do not have systematic plans to reduce risk of fire hazards and prevent the spread of fires.

         Our objectives were to document existing forest fire risk reduction practices; to find out the causes and effects of

forest fires; to outline the role of stakeholders to reduce the risk of forest fires; and to inform the policies and

appropriate mechanisms on forest fire risk reduction in community forests. Data on causes, effects, types, and

frequency of fires was collected from a survey of selected Forest User's Groups and members’ household

surveys. Round table discussions drew upon knowledge and experience of forestry professionals and community

representatives. Six focus group discussions (three each in buffer zone and non-buffer zone) were held to find

the indigenous techniques that community forest organizations were effectively using.

         Top-down approaches have proven inadequate while local populations are the most informative source to gauge

causes and impact of forest fires. Preventive measures that encourage the involvement of community-based

organizations offer the most promising solutions. Re-designing fire forecasting systems will help stakeholders to

manage and conserve fire prone areas more effectively and efficiently.

             The forest fires that flared unusually viciously in many of Nepal's national parks and conserved areas dry season have left conservationists worrying if climate change played a role.

             At least four protected areas were recently on fire for an unusually long time,most of the big fires were in and around the national parks along the country's northern areas bordering Tibet. Active fires were recorded in renowned conservation success stories like the Annapurna, Kanchanjunga, Langtang and Makalu Barun national parks. The extent of the loss of flora and fauna is not yet known.

   More than the loss of plants and animals, the carbon dioxide emitted by the fires was a matter of concern. . Some of the national parks in the plains bordering India were also on fire, but those caused less concern among conservationists and forest officials. "Fires in the protected areas in the plain lands can be controlled easily because we have logistics and manpower ready for that - and that is what we did this time," said Laxmi Manandhar, spokesman for Nepal's department of National parks and wildlife consservation.  . "But in the national parks in the Himalayan region, we could hardly do anything because of the difficult geography. Nor do we have facilities of pouring water using planes and helicopters."

             Forest fires in Nepal's jungles and protected areas are not uncommon during the dry season between October and January. Most of the fires come about as a consequence of the "slash and burn" practice that farmers employ for better vegetation and agricultural yields. But this time the fires remained out of control even in the national parks in the Himalayan region where the slash and burn practice is uncommon. In some of the protected areas, the fires flared up even after locals and officials tried to put them out for several days.

Key Findings

􀂃 Most fire incidences are caused by people. The interface between agriculture and forestry requires policies

and approaches that transcend each economic sector. Hunting practices are responsible for 23% of forest

fires in community forests, cigarettes 19%, intentional fires to accelerate growth of grasses to feed livestock

18%, intentional fire setting by herb and charcoal collectors 8% and 5%, children playing with fire 8%,

deliberately set for prevention 6%, and unknown 4%. Certain types of trees, especially Sal (Shorea robusta),

are particularly susceptible to fire.

􀂃 Local populations have developed their own methods and traditional ways of forest fire management: planting

evergreen trees along the trails; collection of forest litter for animal bedding and for making compost; patrolling

within their community forests; penalty and reward systems for the villages; construction of small ponds, and

fire lines inside the forest in fire prone areas. People also believe that worshiping the forest goddess is of

critical importance in control of fires.

􀂃 Community forests face insufficient human and financial resources, lack of training programs for cattle

herders, school children and non-timber forest products collectors; and lack of strong policy on fire prevention.

􀂃 No organization focuses specifically on fire control. The various district forest offices and the National Trust for

Nature Conservation have not made forest fires risk reduction a strong priority.

􀂃 Fire management includes monitoring, early warning, prevention, preparation, suppression, and restoration.

Local communities can play a part in all those areas in which holistic approaches are necessary. Both

community-based practices and scientific knowledge and technology should be embraced and applied.

a series describing short-term research and implementation projects funded through the Applied Research

Grants for Disaster Reduction Programme, an initiative managed by the ProVention Consortium as a collaborative initiative with the

University of Wisconsin Disaster Management Center, the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center in Bangkok, and the Disaster Mitigation

for Sust Recommendations for National Stakeholders

􀂃 Include forest fire education materials in the school level curriculum.

􀂃 Use GIS satellite imagery to monitor forest cover change and fire extent throughout the country.

􀂃 Develop training curriculum for community-based forest fire risk reduction programs.

􀂃 Form institutions to address fire prevention extension activities, human resources development, law enforcement,

fire suppression and conduct research on fires and effectiveness of prevention.

􀂃 Prepare and distribute illustrated booklets, leaflets and other materials in local language.

􀂃 Make policies based on current forest fire research and work closely with Department of Agriculture.

Recommendations for District Government and NGOs

􀂃 Provide fire prevention educational materials and training programs to Forest Users Groups (FUG) members,

teachers, community leaders, children, and cow herders.

􀂃 Enforce laws, regulations and restrictions on the use of fires in community forests.

􀂃 Involve community FUG's in conducting research and formulating effective community-based disaster plans

including early warning and communications systems to for response capacity.

Recommendations for Community Level Stakeholders

􀂃 Develop and implement plans for fire lines, forest tracks, ponds and canals and controlled burning.

􀂃 Ensure prompt detection of fires through observation points, patrols and communication networks.

􀂃 Organize fire prevention and suppression campaigns during forest fire prone season.

􀂃 Provide training to FUG and community members and children, regularly.

􀂃 Clearly mark forest areas to deter unsupervised children and strangers.

􀂃 Form cooperative volunteer and professional fire fighting teams and coordinate response.

􀂃 Research causes of fires in order to correct safety lapses and improve prevention.ainable Livelihoods Programme at the University of Cape Town. See www.proventionconsortium.org/grant_projects for a list of

community forest in nepal

Community forestry has had a significant beneficial impact on forest cover and

slowed rates of deforestation in Nepal. The area covered by national forests and

protected area systems, which includes national parks, wildlife reserves, hunting

reserves, conservation areas and buffer-zones (BZs) is about 5.83 million hectares,

representing 39.6% of the total land area of the country. (DFRS 1999) The forest area

has decreased at an annual rate of 1.7%, whereas forests and shrub-land together

decreased by an annual rate of 0.5% during the period 1978 to 1994 (DFRS 1999).

A recent study of twenty Terai in the plains region of Nepal shows that the rate of

deforestation has substantially decreased (from 8,000 to 800 hectares per year) due

mainly to the implementation of community forestry.

The Community Forest user groups (CFUGs) is an independent and self

governing entity formed by a number of households living near a particular forest area

and legally recognized by the Forest Act of 1993. The group is responsible for the

management of a particular community forest handed over to them. The constitution

of the user groups controls the democratic functioning of the user groups. The

community forest user group members have the rights given by the legislation and as

mentioned in the operational plan. They can use the forest products internally at a

price fixed by the groups themselves, and also sell the surplus forest products to

outsiders at market prices. They also have their own group fund, and the income from

the sale of forest products and any other source has to be deposited in that fund. The

fund can be utilized for forest protection and community development activities.

A committee of CFUGs is normally formed by election or selected by the user

members for effective implementation of day-to-day activities. The committee is

comprised of about 11 members and they constitute the executive wing of a CFUG.

The committee has no particular rights according to the forest act and rules. However,

they exercise the rights as authorized by the user groups and as mentioned in the

operational plan. It has been reported that most of the executive members of the

CFUGs are elites or wealthy, and they do not necessary represent the interests of the

poor, women and socially disadvantaged members of the group.

responsible

Who is Responsible for Deforestation and Forest Degradation In Nepal?

Nepal is a small mountainous country surrounded by India to the south, east and west with total land area of 147,181 km² and China to the north. The forest and shrub land together cover about 5.83 million ha which is 39.6% of the total land of the country (GoV/N, 1999). The country is rich in biodiversity because of its altitudinal and climatic variations. The forest resource is one of the imperative sources of income that is directly correlated with livelihood systems of the locals. About 25.5% of the total population is below poverty line (government information, 2010 , But some studies have noted that more than 38 % population is below poverty line) where 70% is estimated to be forest dependent.

Forest resources of Nepal are managed under different management model. Among them, community forestry management (CFM) is one of the renowned participatory schemes. About 15,000 Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) are legally functioning across the country. Nepal is in fact a leading country in institutionalizing the concept of CFM in national forest policy , with 35% of the total population of the country managing around 1.2 m ha or 25 % of the National Forest ( Kesheb Kanel 2004). The harmony among different ethnic groups, indigenous people and other forest dependent communities during the process and functions of the community forest management are enthusiastic and impressive. Because of the effective and efficient management model, community forestry has become a popular model of community development not only in Nepal but also to the rest of the world.

However, government is still reluctant to handover forest, in which the daily livelihood, to community. The data shows that more than 78% of the national forest area is still under government supervision that is severely affected by deforestation and degradation.

Nepal is under the political transition and rules and regulations of the forestry sector at the field level have seemed ineffective. Reports generated by media, parliamentary committee for natural resources and means and civil society organizations have indicated that the mismanagement and misguidance of Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MoFS) is the main cause of deforestation and forest degradation. Historical evidences show that Nepal's forest has always been suffered during the political transition. The current transitional state and the breakdown of the rule of law have allowed a nationwide network of timber mafia to be flourished.

Deforestation and illegal harvesting of the timber is much more serious problem in Nepal.

 Nearly 30 years after the state began to hand over the forest to local communities for protection, management and utilization, the community forestry appears to be a victim of its own success. The forests that communities nourished have become so valuable that some corrupted community leaders, political parties' leaders and government officials have been attracted by the timber mafias to plunder woodland.