Download Biodiversity Conservation of Rangeland

Biodiversity Conservation of Rangeland
Prasanna Yonzon
Resources Nepal GPO Box 2448, Kathmandu, Nepal
Introduction
Rangelands of Nepal comprise of grasslands, pastures, shrublands and other grazing
areas. These play an important role in the country’s farming systems and are the major feed
resource for livestock and the wild life. These areas are spread vertically on the Himalayan
mountain systems and are very diverse. Thus we have a wide range of sub-tropical-temperatealpine and arid grazing areas which support very high biodiversity.
Distribution of Rangelands in Nepal
Inspite of their importance the rangeland of Nepal have not attracted the attention of researchers
and the detailed accounts of their various aspects are not available. There is no comprehensive
assessment of rangelands because of: 1) overlapping definitions of range, pasture, grassland, and
other types of landuse that produce forage; 2) difficulties in estimating the amount of range use
because of their remoteness; 3) intensive and extensive nature of herd movement patterns; and 4)
no estimates of mountain agropastoralist households who depend on the rangelands. The only
data available is from Land Resource Mapping Project (1986) based on landuse pattern. Total
grazing area of Nepal usually referred to as grassland area, is estimated to cover about 1.7 million
hectares, or 12 percent of total land area (Table 1). About 70% of the rangelands are situated in
the western and mid-western regions and it is estimated that only 37% of the rangeland forage is
actually available or accessible for livestock (LMP, 1993; Pariyar, 1998).
Table 1. Distribution of rangeland in Nepal (LRMP, 1986).
Physiographic Region
Total Land
Area
km2
(percent)
Terai (tropical)
21220 (14.39)
Siwalik (subtropical)
18790(12.74)
Mid - Hills (temperate)
43503(29.50)
High
Mountain 29002(19.66)
(subalpine)
High Himal (alpine)
34970(23.71)
Total
147485
Rangeland (grazing land)
Area
Total Land Grazing
(km2)
(percent)
Land
(percent)
496.6
0.34
2.92
205.5
0.14
1.21
2927.8
1.98
17.20
5071.3
3.44
29.80
8315.4
17016.6
5.64
11.54
48.87
100.00
Rangeland in the High Mountain Protected Areas
The rangelands in the protected areas have not been properly addressed to and adequate
management of these is lacking. Grazing lands in the high mountain parks are called ‘patans’ and
cattle are allowed to graze in specific time on a rotational basis. However, population of cattle
6
has increased double fold and these are brought from other districts for grazing which has caused
over grazing and fragmentation of grazing land within the protected areas.
At present the rangelands constitute 17,016.6 sq.km (11.54 % of total land area) and are slowly
being metamorphosed into barren land. These areas are unique ecosystems and high level of
endemism occurs here. Although the protected areas constitute 34.45 % of the total rangeland,
there has not been a single R&D programme that has been successful in the last 25 years.
However, the protected area managers have prioritized preliminary studies on rangeland
management in recent years.
The 16 protected areas (PA’s) have 5,862.88 km2 as rangelands (34.45 % of rangeland and 25.88
% of PAs) (Table 2)
Table 2 Rangeland inside Protected Areas
Names
Annapurna Conservation Area
Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve
Kanchenjunga Conservation Area
Khaptad National Park
Kosi Tappu Wildlife Reserve
Langtang National Park
Makalu-Barun National Park and Conservation
Area
Parsa Wildlife Reserve
Rara National Park
Royal Bardia National Park
Royal Chitwan National Park
Royal Sukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve
Sagarmatha National Park
Shivapuri Watershed and Wildlife Reserve
Shey-Phoksundo National Park
Total
Total Area Rangeland
(km2)
7629
1325
1650
225
175
1710
2330
2,519.68
445.57
283.97
16.27
29.86
343.49
646.32
499
106
968
932
305
1148
97.38
3555
22,654
.42
11.22
2.93
48.09
55.39
219.62
5.88
1234.17
5,862.88
Biodiversity and Endemism in the Rangelands
Some 246 species out of Nepal’s 5160 recorded flowering plant species are endemic to Nepal.
131 endemic plants (Shrestha, 1998) are known to occur in subalpine and alpine rangelands. This,
therefore, suggests that these reservoirs possess enormous diverse genetic resources and could be
landmark for the Nepal Himalayas. Of the 700 species of plants that have medicinal and
aromatic properties 41 species have been identified as key species of which14 (34%) are known
to occur in the rangelands. The medicinal plants are basically used for Ayurvedic therapy and
have high values in Allopathic medicines as well.
7
Indicators of pyramidal type of diversity in the mammals can be encountered with elevation
increment. Of Nepal’s twelve-mammalian order, nine are known to occur in the rangeland. Some
80 species of mammals are known to occur of which 8 are major wildlife species, they are Snow
Leopard, Grey Wolf, Tibetan Argali, Lynx, Brown Bear, Musk Deer, Red Panda and Tibetan
Antelope. Of these 4 are endangered and vulnerable.
Over 840 species of birds are known to occur in Nepal and they exhibit highest diversity in
tropical and subtropical belt where 648 species are found. Only 413 bird species are reported to
occur above 3000m altitude. Of these, only 19 species are known to breed in these high grounds.
Nine species are restricted to alpine rangeland of which 5 species have significant population in
Nepal (Inskipp, 1989).
Of over 20 indigenous breeds of livestock species that are found in Nepal, 8 endemic breeds
(40%) are from alpine region (Sherchand and Pradhan, 1998; Shrestha, 1998). Farmers alone
have conserved this unique assemblage of gene pool that is adapted to severe environments and
resistance to diseases. However, distribution and status of most livestock breeds is poorly known.
Interactions between wildlife and livestock also need to be better understood to assist pastoral
development planning.
Although human activities have degraded wildlife habitat leading to the loss of biodiversity,
primarily through poaching and trapping of wildlife and over-harvesting of herbs and medicinal
plants throughout Nepal, several mountain-protected areas, perhaps, may safeguard rangeland
biodiversity in them.
Management Issues
His Majesty’s Government (HMG) Nepal has given much focus on forests, agriculture, irrigation
and water resources. However, there has been a dearth in policy towards addressing the
rangelands. In the 60’s, planning of policies was primarily focused for food, water and energy.
The agropastoralists failed to make an impact as they were ignorant of the government policies
and were in remote areas tending their herds.
Common properties have been misused due to lack of stewardship and ownership. The
ranglelands have been largely degraded due to these factors. In some areas, rotational grazing is
practiced while communities and individuals for which the herders have to pay a certain fee for
grazing their cattle own some areas.
Historical Perspective of Rangeland Resource Development
Rangeland management has not been adequately addressed to by the HMG (Pariyar, 1998). Most
of Nepal's initiatives have been approached through forage research and development. In the
early 50’s cheese factories were established in central and eastern Nepal. Temperate cultivar
evaluation cum forage production program was launched in 1953 and FAO's Pasture, Fodder and
Livestock Development Project was implemented in Nuwakot and Rasuwa Districts in the late
60's. Similarly establishing Pasture & Fodder Development Farm, Rasuwa in 1971 and Pasture
Development Project at Khumaltar in 1978 strengthened rangeland improvement programmes.
As external assistance continued until 1980's, USAID's Resource Conservation and Utilization
8
Projects (RCUP) and Swiss funded forage improvement works in Dolakha and Sindhupalchowk
(Basnyat, 1995) were implemented.
Profound changes have taken place primarily through expansion of agriculture into rangelands.
Transformation of traditional pastoral production systems and a general desiccation of alpine
rangelands due to climatic changes are perhaps modifying vegetation composition and reducing
plant productivity (Miller, 1993). The ensuing political changes in Tibet (China) after 1959,
disrupted centuries old transhumance patterns. Since then, there were several negotiations on the
issues related to rangeland availability for both Nepali and Tibetan herds. In 1983, the two
governments agreed that animal migration from both countries would be completely stopped by
April 1988. These political, social, economic, and ecological transformations have cumulatively
degraded many previously remote pastoral areas and their environment.
Realizing the severe impacts of such closure, as well as shortage of fodder, Nepal initiated the
Northern Areas Pasture Development Programme in 1985 focusing towards range management
and fodder development in four "Critical" districts: Humla, Mustang, Sindhupalchowk and
Dolakha, and six "emerging" forest/feed crisis districts: Manang, Dolpa, Gorkha, Mugu,
Sankhuwasabha and Taplejung. Between 1987 - 1990, the High Altitude Pasture Development
Project (1987 - 1990) provided extension support while the Himalayan Pasture & Fodder
Research Network (1987 - 1990) supported research. These two FAO/UNDP activities supported
HMG's district level forage improvement Programmes to ease the fodder crisis.
To alleviate poverty and restore degraded hill slopes in 12 districts through access to credit,
inputs and technological assistance to poor farmers, the Hills Leasehold Forestry and Forage
Development Project (1992) was jointly implemented by the Department of Forest, Department
of Agriculture, Nepal Agriculture Research Council and the Agriculture Development Bank of
Nepal. Institutional interactive relationships between researcher, technician and farmer, public
and private sectors are being developed.
Overview of Policy Measures
Sustainable rangeland development requires appropriate policies. Policies in the past have largely
ignored mountain rangelands due to the fact that the Government has failed to recognize the
importance of rangelands in its 5 year Plans for the last forty years. There is a general perception
that rangelands are overgrazed and that modern techniques are needed to improve the conditions.
However, livestock planners who generally ignore the complexities of rangeland systems often
prescribe the “improved” grazing systems. Furthermore, agricultural and forestry policies have
usually neglected the role of rangeland biodiversity in development and their potential
contribution to mountain economic growth.
Ownership of rangelands rests with the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MFSC), while
their utilization by local communities is associated with the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). The
Department of Livestock Services, Department of Agriculture and Nepal Agricultural Research
Council has carried out pasture development and livestock improvement. The northern
rangelands are located within protected areas under the jurisdiction of the Department of National
Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) and the King Mahendra Trust for Nature
Conservation (KMTNC). As rangelands are multisectoral because of their many uses, there is a
9
distinct need for MOA and MFSC to jointly develop rangeland policy and appropriate
management strategies in consultation with local communities.
Rangeland Tenure System and Human Use
Rangelands in the High Mountains of Nepal do not serve only as animal feed resources, but also
as catchment areas for a number of river systems that flow down to the Mid Hills and Terai.
Although mountain slopes forming the catchment of principal perennial river systems are under
heavy grazing pressure, animal husbandry and pasturelands are central to the socioeconomy of
the high altitude areas of Nepal. Being food-deficit areas, livestock, barter and trade, and
seasonal migration are the evolved strategies of the mountain communities. Even the centuries
old Trans-Himalayan (Nepal -Tibet) trade has also depended on animal husbandry for
transportation.
Indigenous pasture management systems have been structured primarily from local knowledge
and experiences. Many pastoral systems involve moving livestock herds following seasonal
patterns for forage or water sources. For these reasons, traditional rights to pasture lands are held.
Most pastoral families and groups have developed these rights into institutions to regulate the use
of rangelands, the scheduling of movements within the group and the temporary or permanent
closure of certain areas to grazing. Therefore, indigenous management systems have been an
important element in the social structure of the local populations for effectively maintaining
productivity at levels sufficient to meet local needs.
Many studies have documented the sophistication of traditional knowledge. However, they are
not without shortcomings. Traditional technologies were developed under conditions of relatively
vast resources, sparse human population and low livestock pressure. Much of the traditional
knowledge has been lost or is no longer applicable because of population growth,
commercialization of livestock and rangeland products and services. Yet, traditional knowledge
can be modified with modern technologies to meet development needs.
Rangeland Loss and Major Threats
The rangelands provide 36 % of the total feed requirement for livestock in the country. Estimated
forage production of high altitude grazing is comparatively higher including their carrying
capacity (Table 3). However, enormous grazing pressure exists and estimates suggest that there
are nine times more grazing animals than the land can viably support. This high grazing pressure
depletes the palatable species, especially legume component. With extremes of wind, rainfall, and
temperature, arid mountain rangelands are especially prone to the process of verification, or
drying out, that can be caused or accelerated by overgrazing.
The 20 - year Agriculture Perspective Plan period (APROSC, 1995) projects that the demand for
the growing livestock raising will be 25.6 million MT, which means massive efforts have to be
concentrated on the production of cultivated fodder and optimum management of forest and
pasture land to make up the deficit of 7.6 million MT. As the availability of quality fodder will
remain a major limiting factor, the contribution of cultivated fodder and pastures has to be
boosted up from 26% to 49% (Sherchand and Pradhan, 1998).
10
Table 3. Productivity of rangelands (Miller, 1989; Rajbhandari and Shah, 1981)
Rangeland
Area
Productivity
(km2)
(TDN. t/ha)
Subtropical & Temperate 6293
0.58
Alpine
10141
1.54
Steppe
1875
0.06
TDN = total digestible nutrient; LU = livestock unit
Carrying
Stocking rate
capacity
(LU/ha)
0.54
7.07
1.42
0.64
0.09
1.19
Most mountain rangeland ecosystems are relatively susceptible to degradation such as arid
regions and high mountain pasture communities because they are less resilient to disruption than
subtropical ecosystems. Moderately degraded range can usually be restored over time through
integrated management systems. Severely degraded rangelands may require both investment and
techniques to make them economically viable and ecologically restored.
Building partnership for strengthening rangeland management
Limited support for pastoral development and rangeland resource management without
understanding range ecosystem dynamics, pastoral production practices, and biodiversity
conservation in the past has led to loss of biodiversity. Rangeland ecosystem is diverse and
issues that relate to policy, management, institutional, technical and socio-economics can be
looked upon at three sectoral levels; private sector, communities and public.
In the private sector, poor land allocation associated with very poor quality (productivity) of
livestock in large numbers are found to be the major issues. All these stem either from degraded
or overgrazed rangelands including burning of large areas annually, poor economy and lack of
markets, and absence of management support.
At community level, many rangelands face the crisis of common property resources. There is a
distinct need for awareness, and restrengthening traditional community organization.
In the implementation sector (public), lack of proper policy together with integrated development
plans; technical support and trained manpower are considered important. Lack of institutional
networking and frequent restructuring and organizational changes are also distinct. Long-term
integrated research - development - extension projects are non-existent and more involvement of
international non-government organizations and communities are needed.
Conclusion
The subtropical and temperate rangelands are complementary to agriculture. Historically, forage
-related programmes were concentrated in these two regions. Unfortunately, policy makers and
development agencies because of their remoteness, high altitude locations, harsh climate, and
sparse settlements have neglected high altitude rangelands. Nepal's high altitude rangelands need
a major focus because they contain biodiversity with exceptionally high number of endangered
species. Therefore, they need a greater support to maintain existing biodiversity, rural livelihood,
and viable economy.
11
To integrate needs and perceptions of local pastoral communities and conservation of
biodiversity, development of a national rangeland policy is suggested where legislation is made
comprehensive with institutional mandate and clears organizational arrangement.
Conservation of rangelands require three priority actions within an integrated range management
encompassing ecosystem approach and technology and approaches to grazing management
(ICIMOD, 1998). Along this well-thought strategy, the rangeland plan of action should include 1)
rangeland biodiversity; 2) pastoral development; and 3) forage and fodder development. Above
all, lessons learnt from the past four decades calls for pastoralists and development workers to
interact and adopt more reliance on local knowledge seeking a cooperative search for appropriate
technologies and local organizational structures for development.
References
1. APROSC. 1995. Agriculture Perspective Plan. Agriculture Project Services
Center and John Mellor Associates, Inc. Kathmandu Archer, A. C. 1987. Himalayan
Pasture and Fodder Research Network. RAS/ 79/121 Consultant's Report. Kathmandu,
Nepal.
2. Basnyat N.B.1995. Background paper on present state of Environment with
Respect to Rangeland Sustainability -NEPPAP II.
3. ICIMOD. 1998. Status of Himalayan Rangelands and Their Sustainable
Management. Paper for Regional Expert Meeting on Rangelands and Pastoral
Development in the Hindu Kush - Himalayan Mountain Region, ICIMOD, Nepal.
4. Inskipp, C. 1989. Nepal’s forest birds: Their status and conservation. ICBP
Monograph No. 4. U.K.
5. LRMP. 1986.
Kathmandu.
Survey Department, HMG and Kenting Earth Sciences.
6. LMP.1993.
Livestock Master Plan. The livestock Sector volume III , Asian
Development Bank/ANZDECK /APROSC.
7. Miller, D. J. 1993. Grazing Lands in the Nepal Himalayas. Draft. USAID Nepal,
Kathmandu.
8. Pariyar, D. 1998. Rangeland resource biodiversity and some options for their improvements.
National Biodiversity Action Plan. Kathmandu.
9. Serchand, L. and S. L. Pradhan. 1998. Domestic Animal Genetic Resource Management and
Utilization in Nepal. National Biodiversity Action Plan. Kathmandu.
10. Shrestha, N. P. 1998. Livestock and Poultry Genetic Resource Conservation in Nepal.
National Biodiversity Action Plan. Kathmandu.
12