CONSERVING BIODIVERSITY & DELIVERING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

(David Thomas)
Some facts and figures
AREA: 4,296 ha
PROTECTION STATUS: 18% protected as Community Forests, remaining area is National Forest
CONSERVATION STATUS: medium pressures, near favourable state, low response
MAIN METHODS FOR ASSESSING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES: key informant meetings, rapid appraisal,
household surveys (35), water modelling, visitor interviews (32)
SURVEY STAFF: 3
SURVEY TIME: 13 person days
The Site: This Important Bird Area (IBA) lies 16 km southeast of Kathmandu and is the highest peak of the Kathmandu Valley.
It supports a lush growth of different forest types and is recognised as an IBA due to its importance for forest bird species,
including the endemic Spiny Babbler and restricted range Hoary throated Barwing.
The Issues: Some of Phulchoki’s forests are managed by community Forest User Groups (FUGs). In Nepal, community forestry
forms a principal part of a national strategy for livelihoods improvement, resource management and environmental protection.
However, it is not always clear whether this governance system is working in the way intended.
This study: The benefits that people receive from ecosystem services were assessed by comparing their provision under the
current state (Community Forests) to an alternative state. In the absence of community forestry, the forest would have been
gradually converted to a mixture of degraded forest, farmland and built up areas. Current benefits received from carbon
sequestration, water quality, harvested wild goods and revenues from recreational visitors (picnickers) would decline. However,
in the alternative state, there would be increased benefits from agricultural production.
Interpreting the results: In general, community forestry has meant that more resources are now captured locally rather than
by distant users coming to take resources (as was the case in the past), but not everyone benefits equally. There have been
differential impacts according to localness, gender, economic status, occupation, caste and ethnicity. For example, heavy use of
forest resources in the past was made by non-local Kami (blacksmiths) and Sunar (goldsmiths) castes for the production of
charcoal. These people no longer have access unless they are living locally and are members of a FUG. Also, restrictions linked
to Community Forestry have impacted poorer households (who are most reliant on harvesting wild goods) as their lower social
status means that they are less influential when it comes to making management decisions. Hence, well-targeted local
development should be implemented to deliver more equitable outcomes within the FUGs by enhancing the capture of
ecosystem service values by the poorer members of the community and other vulnerable groups, while continuing to conserve
the important biodiversity at the site. This could be achieved through improving the recreational facilities (e.g. bird hides, picnic
areas) around the forest and engaging the poorer households in their management in order to increase local cash incomes.