Buffer Zone Resources, Livelihood and Conservation Practices in Kumroj Buffer Zone Village Development Committee, Chitwan National Park
Date
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Department of Environmental Science
Abstract
Buffer zone (750 Km
2
) of Chitwan National Park (932 Km
2
) was declared in 1996 to
balance biodiversity conservation and human needs through devolution of resource use
rights to the local communities. Kumroj buffer zone VDC of Chitwan National Park was
examined as a case study to understand conservation practices through interfacing
ecology, economic and social attributes of local communities. Methods included were
stratified random samplings of households and analysis of vegetation and land use
change. The annual demand and supply for green fodder and fuel wood from the buffer
zone community forest do not match and deficits were met through national park, private
land and private forest. Out of the total demand, buffer zone forest can supply only 36.49
% of green fodder and 15.58 % of fuelwood. Fuelwood was extracted four times and
green fodder 1.2 times more than community forest could supply suggesting over harvest
and forest degradation. Only 10% of regenerating tree species attaining height above 1m
also suggests high anthropogenic pressure on buffer zone community forest. Majority of
poorer households were dependent on park for forest products while richer households
mostly on their private land, although these households were also dependent on park
resources. Per capita fuelwood consumption and green fodder need per unit livestock was
more in poorer households than rich households, mainly due to access on modern energy
sources and large farm size of rich households. Poor and indigenous people were further
prone to continuous marginalization by losing their ownership on land and livestocks, and
were also excluded from better opportunities and decision making process. A great
majority of households reported insufficient resources, wildlife occurrence, and poor
management in the buffer zone community forest. However, one third of the households
were not well informed about buffer zone activities. Household representatives
emphasized on enforcing strict management, incentives for investment to mobilize
community and plantation in the buffer zone community forest. All these suggest that
conservation and development efforts at Kumroj were less compatible in meeting the twin
goals of conservation and development goal.