i

PAANI पानी प रयोजना NEPAL - ASSESSMENT OF AQUATIC RESOURCE BASED LIVELIHOODS, PRACTICES AND ECOTOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN SELECTED WATERSHEDS ACROSS PAANI TARGET RIVER BASINS

MAY 2018

Results of a Study for the USAID PAANI Program and SNV

ii

STUDY TEAM

• Dr. Arthur Neiland (Team Leader & Socio-Economist Consultant, IDDRA Ltd)

• Dr. Martin Van Brakel (Fisheries Biologist Consultant, WorldFish Center)

• Mr. Ram Chandra Sedai (Tourism Consultant, Mountain Heritage Pvt Ltd)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DISCLAIMER

The Study Team would like to thank all the stakeholders in Nepal who contributed to this study, and gave so generously of their time, including members of the Government of Nepal, the staff of the Paani Project, and all the other numerous persons and organisations, both in Kathmandu and in the field sites visited, especially in the Karnali River Basin. We are also grateful for the support and assistance of USAID and SNV.

The Study Team would like to thank the staff of the Paani Project for comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this report. The usual disclaimer applies.

iii

Nepal – Study Locations

Kathmandu Study base at Paani Project, interviews and meetings with government and other stakeholders River Karnali (West of Nepal) Main fieldwork site including three stakeholder meetings plus market and site visits Tarai (South of Nepal) Large flat plain with significant agriculture and fish farming activities – site visits Towns between Kathmandu and River Karnali (Bharatpur, Bhairahawa, Nepalganj and others) Market visits and interviews with hotel owners and other stakeholders

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overview

The following report presents the findings of a study of Nepal’s inland fish resources and fisheries, including both river fisheries, based on wild fish stocks, and to a lesser extent, fish farming or aquaculture.

The work was implemented under the umbrella of the USAID Paani Program, also known as the , which aims to enhance Nepal’s ability to manage water resources for multiple uses and users, including fisheries and fishers, through climate change adaptation and the conservation of freshwater biodiversity. The implementation period spanned January to May 2018, including a three- week period of in-country fieldwork.

It is widely recognised that there is an urgent need to upgrade and improve specific knowledge about Nepal’s living aquatic resources, fisheries and aquaculture, as a pre-requisite to develop mechanisms for future river basin planning and policy decision-making.

Purpose

The overall purpose of the study (as defined by the Terms of Reference) was to develop a strategic approach to promoting local economies and enterprises that are “friendly” to—and help reduce threats to—aquatic biodiversity and sustainable fisheries. The assignment conducted a set of inter-related analyses, as follows:

• An analysis of the current carrying capacity of the river system in terms of fishing (fishing effort);

• A value chain analysis of the fishing industry (mainly in the natural rivers) in the Paani watershed area;

• An examination of existing and alternative livelihood options including ecotourism. Methodology A set of inter-related and complementary activities were designed to constitute the key elements of the methodology including [a] Review of secondary information and data (e.g. Watershed profiles); [b] Key stakeholder interviews (e.g. Public and Private sectors, Civil Society), Kathmandu; [c] Stakeholder interviews and observations (e.g. fish producing and marketing centres between Kathmandu and Karnali River); [d] Stakeholder interviews and observations with the tourism sector (Kathmandu to Karnali River); [e] Stakeholder participatory workshops (x3) – Lower, Middle and Upper Karnali River Basin; [f] Analysis and interpretation of data and information; [g] Reporting and dissemination.

The study team worked closely with SNV and Paani staff, along with a full range of stakeholders. Fieldwork focused on the River Karnali Basin, Western Nepal – as a case-study. Market tours and other site visits and meetings (fisheries and fish farms) were conducted in Kathmandu, and between the capital and Western Nepal, travelling by road over one week.

v

Main Findings and Conclusions

The three key hypotheses which underpin the current study, as outlined in the TOR (below), were used to structure the review and discussion of the main findings. In addition, the study team was mindful of the potential contribution of fisheries to sustainable development in Nepal, the main factors involved, and how they might be addressed in the future.

[A] that river fisheries and biodiversity are threatened by overexploitation, driven by increased fishing overcapacity (too many fishers) and increased fishing effort;

A.1. Severe threat of fisheries overexploitation

It was concluded, on the basis of the findings of the current study – focusing on the results derived from the stakeholder workshops in the River Karnali Basin supported by secondary information from published sources and key interviews - that the river fisheries and biodiversity are severely threatened by both biological and economic overexploitation, as a result of fishing overcapacity (too many fishers) and increased fishing effort, including the use of destructive fishing methods. This outcome is a symptom of the weak fisheries governance regime in place, as also found in many other countries, coupled with the strong incentive to fish intensively provided by an increasingly high market demand for fish, especially for wild fish (e.g. Asala or Snow Trout, Schizothoraichthys spp and Schizothorax spp), which attract premium prices.

A.2. Deleterious environmental changes

However, overexploitation only partly accounts for the perilous status of Nepal’s river fisheries and biodiversity. The impact of recent and widespread development interventions – dams, irrigation schemes and gravel mining – has dramatically changed the riverine environment and continues to do so – with serious and deleterious implications for the long-term viability and biodiversity status of fish stocks and other aquatic organisms;

A.3. Recognising potential impacts and benefits foregone

Unless future plans and schemes take greater account of the potential impact on fisheries and the associated potential benefits (economic, social and environmental) foregone, the options for corrective action may be very limited. Unfortunately, there is a serious lack of up-to-date data and information concerning fish resources and fisheries in Nepal. There are few ongoing and systematic studies and research in key multi-disciplinary areas (e.g. economic valuation of resources, socio-economic analysis, stock status and dynamics) to inform the design of future strategies for fisheries development, including fisheries commercialisation, conservation and social/livelihood contributions.

[B] that river fisheries have the potential to contribute further to local and national economies, and that a better understanding and interventions in the value chain and markets might help to enable this;

B.1. Realising additional potential value

It was concluded that fish resources and fisheries in Nepal could make a greater contribution, than at present, to both the local economy and the national economy. The current value of fish production is estimated at USD 77 million (first sale, gross financial value, using an international

vi

benchmark price of USD1/kg), based on a total output of 77,000 mt (28% of the total originates from capture fisheries, 72% from aquaculture). Further added value could be created along the value chain supplying a variety of existing and emerging markets and growing demand;

B.2. Challenges for key actors

The key actors within the supply chain – middle-men and hotels/restaurants – appear to be effective and adaptable (with good margins and profits), and there is a wide range of services and supply inputs – which is illustrated by the more elaborate fish farm value chain. None of these elements appear to constrain the current operation of the fish value chain, and there is a strong impression of unrealised potential which could be rolled out (assuming that the current actors, above, have the capacity to upscale their activities – which could be facilitated by capacity-building in the future – see ‘Future Opportunities’ below). However, the major constraint is the supply of wild fish – which is probably declining and highly variable – due to the factors discussed above (weak governance and environmental change). Unfortunately, the current high demand for wild fish is also incentivising overfishing;

B.3. Role of fish farming and possible constraints

Farmed fish production and associated value chains appear to be stable, elaborate, with large volumes, but it is unclear whether they have the potential, in the long-term, to generate the level of value or wealth (or other benefits) that could come from capture fisheries (or substitute for wild fish supplies). Fish farming, as a sector, has its own specific challenges, and the development of this sector in Nepal will have to pay close attention to certain emerging issues. In the future, it seems likely that the fish farming sector will have to compete for resources and inputs (e.g. water, feeds) with other agriculture sub-sectors (e.g. poultry, irrigated crops, land use), assuming that fish farming operations are not integrated more fully with agriculture operation and systems. However, presently, it is reported that the top three major challenges for fish farming in Nepal include lack of capital (25% farmers), lack of technical knowledge (17%) and lack of improved fish species (16%)1.

B.4. Fish trade – benefits and future impacts

Trade in fish and fish products for Nepal, at the national level, is difficult to analyse precisely – the situation is complicated – for example, imports of farmed fish from India are thought to be increasing, although probably under-reported in official statistics. For 2016-17, fish imports (7,500 mt valued at USD 9.8 million) far exceeded exports (3 mt valued at USD 12,608). The majority (>90%) of imported fish products originated in India2. Statistics on the internal fish trade in Nepal could not be located, to compare with regional trade (in lieu, the value of imported fish represents about 13% of the estimated turnover value of Nepal’s national fish production). Imports of fish are a “double-edged sword” – providing a cheap and readily available alternative to domestic wild fish supplies, particularly for urban consumers, but this trade may also undermine local fish business and value chains. The options of either facilitating greater import trade, or limiting this trade, should be considered by policy-makers. The fieldwork results from the River Karnali Basin, along with market visits in Kathmandu, revealed that imported (farmed) fish is well-integrated into the fish value chains, at higher volumes and lower price than wild or local fish. However, market demand for fish appears to be high in Nepal, with consumers

1 Nepal Fishery Survey 2072 (2015), Table 34. http://cbs.gov.np/agriculture/Fishery_survey_2072?search_text=fish 2 Fish trade statistics sourced from the Department of Customs, Nepal

vii

prepared to pay a premium for wild (local) fish (e.g. Asala or Snow Trout) over cheaper farmed imports, which have also suffered from poor reputational issues concerning quality. Overall, therefore, while imported (farmed) fish is competitively priced, consumers in Nepal show a preference for wild (local) fish, and a willingness to pay a higher price (which translates into good margins and profits along the value chain, above).

B.5. Trade-offs between different types of benefits, and socio-economic changes

There is limited published information or data, or analysis, on the importance (value) of capture fisheries at a local level in Nepal, in terms of food and nutrition, incomes and livelihoods, and any trade-offs between these uses. The official statistics offer a basic overview of the total number of fishers and other people involved in, or dependent on, the sector for employment or livelihoods. The empirical findings from the River Karnali workshops – especially the timeline and value chain discussions – provide some insights. The stakeholder workshops and key informant interviews provided further information on the changing nature of trade-offs between benefit types and changes in socio-economic conditions over time.

Pre 1960 In the past, it appears that relatively isolated and widely scattered riverine communities had a high level of dependence on fishing, particularly for food and nutrition, and had relatively little connection to market networks offering the possibility of a cash income from fish sales. Fishing communities probably also used their local knowledge to manage the exploitation of local fish resources. The Sonaha (in the Lower Karnali), Raji (in the Middle Karnali) and Majhi (in the Upper Karnali) traditionally exploited wild fish stocks to fulfil the food requirements of their family members. The population of these traditional fishing communities was very small compared to the abundance of fish.

Post 1960 Certain ethnic communities Gurung, Magar, Chhetri and Brahmin started migrating into the Terai area and along the river valleys from the foothills. Fishing communities started exchanging fish for rice, wheat and lentils, and food habits started to change gradually.

After 1976, fish collection, primarily for commercial purposes, was banned completely in the rivers, streams and lakes in Bardia National Park. However, Sonaha communities, who were fully dependent on fish to support their livelihoods, were given a special permit to catch fish in the specified areas and times. However, this provision ended with the killing of a rhino in the Rajapur area. Since then, Sonaha communities have been collecting fish in the western branch of Karnali river (outside the NP), though some communities also collect fish in the NP and Buffer Zone area illegally.

More recently, other major changes have occurred – modern and low cost fishing gears have been widely adopted, many fishing communities and fisheries have become better connected to markets through new roads and better transport, and fish is sold widely as a source of income.

Current situation Both local and non-local (outsiders) fishers exploit the fish resources for commercial purposes, and there is no evidence of any management systems in operation – well-organised and well–equipped outsiders compete with, and often displace, local fishers for valuable catches. The overall contribution of wild fish to food supply and nutrition at local level in the River Karnali Basin is not known, but any associated benefits are probably at risk, given the perilous status of

viii

the fish resources and fisheries, as indicated above. In the Lower Karnali, about 800 Sonaha communities are involved in, and rely on, fishing for their livelihoods. They also have very small plots of land where they can build houses.

Other communities - such as Tharu (ethnic and endemic), Magar and Gurung (ethnic but hill migrant) - are also involved in collecting fish from the natural rivers and streams. Magar and Gurung have adopted fishing as an additional source of income besides their usual income through agriculture. Some of them have also linked fishing with their small-scale tea-houses and restaurants operated in the markets along the highway and river corridors. Tharu people, who used to be fishing traditionally in the nearby swampy areas and small streams, have now started fishing in the major rivers.

Besides the Sonaha communities, there are some 300 to 400 fishermen from other communities (Gurung, Magar, Raji, Tharu) in the lower Karnali. The livelihoods of traditional fishing communities have been threatened with the entry of new groups of fishermen (Magar, Gurung) who have better access to technology, capital and markets. They are often associated with over-fishing and destructive fishing, as well as other anthropogenic activities, including mining, excessive extraction of sand and gravel, and the construction of dams/irrigation channels.

B.6. Importance of sequencing fisheries interventions

Overall, for fisheries development in Nepal, there is an important sequencing issue to be addressed urgently3 – first, to improve fisheries management (to stabilise and sustain fish supply) and consider the likely challenges faced by scaled-up aquaculture, then, second, enable the supply chain (through services/input suppliers) to access existing markets, and develop new ones, in order to increase value and support wealth generation. The future role and impact of fish imports on local and national chains should also be considered, and appropriate policy developed and implemented, to either facilitate or limit this trade in the national interest (which requires further analysis using better data than currently available).

[C] that appropriate alternative livelihood options (within and outside fisheries), including eco-tourism, could contribute to a reduction of fishing pressure and an increase in sustainable outcomes (biodiversity, economic and social);

C.1. Alternative livelihoods for fishing communities

It was concluded from the study results, and especially from the stakeholder workshops, that the potential offered by alternative livelihood options for fishermen and fishing communities, especially through tourism, is both understood and welcomed by many stakeholders.

C.2. Role and impact of tourism

However, at present, there is no evidence to suggest that the current increase in tourism activities is drawing labour out of fisheries and reducing fishing activity. In fact, many persons view tourism as a way to enhance existing livelihoods – fishing and tourism will be integrated – and more tourists mean a larger market (a further incentive to increase fishing);

3 The importance of sequencing interventions for success in fisheries development is explained in this article – see link: http://file.scirp.org/pdf/NR_2016061718504962.pdf

ix

C.3. Economic development integrating fisheries and tourism

Once again, there is no way of avoiding the inevitable conclusion – riverine fisheries in Nepal must be subject to improved management. An alternative livelihoods approach is not a viable alternative at present, but it has a place in contributing to a diversified approach to economic development which could include well-managed fisheries and well-managed tourism enterprises.

Future Opportunities

Despite the serious threats to Nepal’s fish resources and fisheries identified in this report, there are also a number of potential opportunities, or entry-points, which might be considered in order to help formulate fisheries policy in the future, as follows:

[1] Adapting international fisheries best practice for Nepal

There is a growing global knowledge and expertise concerning fisheries management and fisheries governance – forming the basis of international best practice for both marine and inland fisheries4, 5. Much of this could be taken up and adapted in the future for Nepal’s fisheries, including strategies for identifying and utilising ‘fisheries champions’ within the political process. Furthermore, ensuring that the potential economic value of fish resources is revealed and understood by policy advisors and policy-makers in the appropriate line ministry of government, along with related high profile ministries, especially Ministry of Finance. The economic consequences (cost) of adopting policy measures which are not coherent with sustainable fisheries exploitation, such as building dams and diverting rivers (without mitigation measures, such as effective fish passes), should also be revealed and understood. Positioning fisheries within an appropriate analytical framework – including economic valuation of ecosystem services, policy scenario comparisons and multiple-objective trade-off analysis - may also be useful to understand the economic benefits and costs of specific policy choices for society as a whole, and provide guidance for policy decision-makers (see Recommendations - Policy Scenario Analysis – Action Phase 3 below).

[2] Lessons from Nepal’s forestry sector reforms

The idea of capitalising on ‘best practice’ experiences to address the key issue of open access (weak governance) in Nepal’s fisheries could also include experiences closer to home and with reference to other natural resource sectors. The development of sustainable natural resource governance enabling mechanisms for the forest resource sector in Nepal has been particularly successful, in terms of frameworks and laws that deal with conservation and sustainable uses of public goods traditionally utilized by local communities. These are well-framed for the forestry sector, but not for water and aquatic animals in Nepal6,7. The experience and lessons of the forestry sector could be reviewed and adapted for the benefit of the fisheries sector. This could include (but not limited to) (i) defining the goals and potential benefits of policy reform, including community empowerment and livelihood development; (ii) processes to improve forestry governance such as a shift from a state-centric and 4 A set of 14 Policy Briefs on ‘Good management practice in sustainable fisheries’ which outline key principles and lessons are available from the World Bank (relevant to both marine and freshwater fisheries) http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/898841468153270025/pdf/832230BRI0KeyC00Box379886B00PUBLIC0.pdf 5 FAO provides a wide range of knowledge products on inland fisheries management http://www.fao.org/fishery/capture/inland/publications/en 6 Anup Gurung , Rahul Karki , Rajesh Bista , "Community-Based Forest Management in Nepal: Opportunities and Challenges", Resources and Environment, Vol. 1 No. 1, 2011, pp. 26-31. 7 Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests & Soil Conservation, Forestry Sector Strategy (2016-25) Kathmandu,

Babarmahal.

x

top-down approach to a community-based participatory approach (leading to improvements in policy implementation); (iii) developing an underpinning legal framework; (iv) dealing with long-term implementation challenges (e.g. elite capture); and (v) recognising the time needed for institutional change and managing expectations (there is no “quick fix”).

[3] Harnessing domestic demand for fish

The growing market for fish in Nepal, especially in urban areas, could help to underpin a profitable fishing and aquaculture sector in the future, yielding sustainable benefits for stakeholders at all levels (local and national). The further expansion of the tourism sector could also contribute to the demand for fish – ranging from high-end luxury hotels to local level home-stays within communities – with their own specific requirements in terms of fish products and prices, opening up opportunities to develop new niche markets and value chains. But putting in place an effective fisheries governance framework must come first (a sequencing issue) – this is a key lesson from international best practice experiences in fisheries (above).

[4] Developing specialised Nepalese fish products for the international market

Following on from the issues concerning the domestic market (above), there is also potential to develop specialised Nepalese high-value fish products (e.g. an “organic Himalayan rainbow trout” brand) for the international market, which could be exported using air-freight services as opposed to increasingly costly land/sea shipments (a factor likely to continue to impact on regional trade in the future8). The possibility of developing international trade in specialised Nepalese high-value fish products could be explored through a business case approach.

[5] General policy support for fisheries entrepreneurs

In recognising that there are a number of potential business opportunities and entry points in Nepal’s fisheries sector (e.g. high market demand for fish, potential for specialised fish products), government could consider ways to enable and support entrepreneurs through relevant policy interventions. There are two important areas to consider as follows: [a] policy to help business in general (e.g. policy to protect intellectual property, fiscal policy which encourages start-ups, investment in education and training, and policy for the provision of adequate roads and other infrastructure); [b] policy to enable business in the fisheries sector (e.g. investment in core government roles and responsibilities such as fisheries research, fisheries management and fish product standard setting, monitoring and appraisal). However, government should be cautious in getting directly involved in near-market activities (e.g. providing free or subsidised inputs, such as fuel or ice or feeds, or the provision of commercial facilities, such as cold storage or processing plants). This is normally the role of the private sector (businesses or firms) - making investments in response to business opportunities and incentives (to realise a profit and an acceptable return on capital). Based on lessons from other parts of the world - the performance of government-managed near-market fisheries investments and activities is almost always very weak – government organisations and implementation processes tend to be unsuited to a market-oriented working environment (e.g. requiring a quick response to business workings), respond

8 Overview of trade facilitation issues by the ADB https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/linked-documents/44143-01-nep-oth.pdf

xi

to different incentives (e.g. political factors tend to dominate) and lack appropriate human capacity and experience (e.g. working in business operations)9.

[6] Public-private partnership for fisheries development

A number of countries have invested in long-term innovation programmes to foster the economic potential of primary industries, including fisheries10. These can be structured as a partnership between government and industry to encourage entrepreneurs, develop and test new ideas, and channel investment (through a business case approach) to increase market success. The specific areas of activity and support can include - education and skills development, research and development, product development, commercial development, and technology transfer.

[7] Enhancing existing fish value chains

The existing fish value chains, especially those associated with the River Karnali Basin, are relatively short, uncomplicated and local, and appear to be profitable (dried wild fish especially). Opportunities to enhance fish value chains are likely to come through [a] product differentiate (targeting new markets e.g. for rainbow trout and for dried fish in growing urban and tourist markets) and through [b] cost reductions (e.g. through improved fisheries management stabilizing fish supply, through decisions to use new roads and new technologies such as modern fish and hygienic fish drying machines). These types of innovations and business decisions can be enabled by new government policy (above). It should be recognised that at present many, if not most, middle men and hotelier operations are very small scale, with limited understanding of end markets beyond their local areas and limited capacity to scale up. Building further capacity will be required through the type of support and innovation programmes outlined earlier (above).

[8] Creating synergies (fisheries, aquaculture and agriculture)

The options for linking and integrating different natural resource-based sectors - fisheries and aquaculture, and with agriculture, should be examined. The creation of appropriate synergies could lead to cost savings, revenue increases and increased profitability. This appears to be happening in the value chain already in Nepal, based on the preliminary empirical analysis undertaken within the Karnali Basin by the current study.

[9] Using local finance

The existence of finance at a local level (from foreign remittances) could open up opportunities to invest in pilot fishery and aquaculture, and fish trade activities. The same applies to tourism related to fishing communities and activities (e.g. home-stays and guided angling trips). In many countries, a lack of finance is a major constraint. Government and NGO could help to build related capacity and mentoring services in business development and management, innovation and entrepreneurship.

[10] Fostering cross-sectoral links for national sustainable development

The possibility of creating positive links between fisheries and other sectors (e.g. hydropower, tourism) based on a clear assessment and understanding of synergies and integration, accommodation

9 Review of fisheries investment and performance provided by two publications https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-2736-5_11 and http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/401131468336694553/pdf/831810WP0Fishe00Box379886B00PUBLIC0.pdf 10 For an example, see the Primary Growth Partnership in New Zealand, which includes fisheries https://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-and-programmes/primary-growth-partnership/overview/

xii

and mitigation (rather than conflict), at all scales, with reference to national development outcomes, should be considered. Understanding ‘What is at stake?’ in terms of potential fisheries wealth from Nepal’s fish resources, and the potential for livelihood diversification and enhancement, through such activities as tourism and eco-tourism, is a key starting point, as highlighted in the next section. Policy coherence between different sectors is a major challenge faced by many countries. For Nepal, water (and river basin) policy is dominated by a focus on the development of this resource for hydroelectric power and irrigation, with limited consideration given to other options and possible opportunities.

[11] Champions for Change

A number of stakeholder organisations emerged as potential champions for change in the fisheries sector (based on the net-mapping exercises – especially the identification and assessment of the relative power and interest of specific actors). First, the Ministry of Agriculture (Fisheries Department) - with prime responsibility for the sector - recognised the need to address fisheries management in general. Second, within the tourism sector, some private companies were keen to promote better environmental conditions in the future, including those involved in angling and the rafting business, although these are relatively few in number. Third, within the value chain, the hotels and restaurants were considered to be very influential (positively) by many stakeholders. And fourth, the Local Government (Municipalities and Rural Municipalities) were also considered to be very influential, although newly formed and untried. If these four are listed in order of power and interest, it would be appropriate to place Local Governments to level two (after the Ministry of Agriculture) - since they have the authority to make laws and regulations that could influence fisheries management. The functions of District Forest Office, District Agriculture Development Office, and District Livestock Service Office have all been placed under the jurisdiction of Local Governments. It can be claimed, therefore, that Local Governments have the opportunity to become one of the key champions for the conservation and management of fisheries and wetlands outside the Protected Areas. Some of the workshop discussions indicated that the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (recently named as Ministry of Forest and Environment, MoFE) should also be considered as one of the champions for the conservation and management of wetlands and watersheds, including river corridors. In the current structural framework, Protected Areas are centrally controlled by DNPWC (under the MoFE), not by Local or Provincial Government. Regarding the use of water for hydropower, Local and Provincial Governments have the authority to control up to certain limits (capacity). Large-scale hydro power is managed by Federal Government in collaboration with Provincial and Local Governments.

Recommendations – follow-up actions

A set of follow-up actions are recommended with specific reference to the Intermediate Results (IR) framework of the Paani Project, as shown below.

It is proposed that the actions should be organised as a series of inter-related Phases 1-5, which build upon one another, to specifically address the needs identified.

IR1: At the community and watershed levels, Paani increases the knowledge, engagement, and benefits of local water users in target river basins to build local freshwater management capacity.

Fisheries assessment need identified: There is a lack of up-to-date data, information and knowledge concerning the key characteristics of Nepal’s fish stocks and fisheries.

xiii

Action - Phase 1: Design and implement a multi-disciplinary and participatory assessment survey of Nepal’s fisheries and aquaculture (to plug the knowledge gap).

IR 2: At the river basin level, Paani’s activities focus on sustainable hydropower, flood prevention, and participatory basin governance.

IR 3: Paani strengthens national policy and the enabling environment and improves coordination among stakeholders at all levels.

Fisheries study need identified: The economic value of fisheries compared to other river resource uses (e.g. dams, irrigation) is unknown, along with the relationship to the value of river ecosystem services.

Action - Phase 2: Design and implement assessment of the economic valuation of ecosystem services (fisheries as one component).

Fisheries development need identified: The potential contribution of fisheries to national sustainable development, and the role and value of ecosystem services in general, have not been considered or discussed, to date, by a meeting of a broad range of stakeholders, resource users and policy-makers in Nepal – a methodology is needed to frame the issues and facilitate dialogue - to enable the evaluation and comparison of policy options. In turn, the results of these analytical studies (above) could be used as a basis for future scenario-based planning (involving a broad range of stakeholders) and the eventual negotiation of the design of development schemes and outcomes (e.g. using a multiple-objective trade-off analysis framework, as highlighted in the link below: <https://global.nature.org/content/improving-hydropower-outcomes-through-system-scale-planning-an-example-from-myanmar> ).

Rationale for scenario based analysis and planning: The rationale for this type of comparative approach (above) is supported by the activities and results of the current study in Nepal (albeit a brief study focused on one river basin), and especially in relation to the interactions and discussions undertaken with a wide range of stakeholders, at different positions, and with different roles, within the policy process.

It was clear, from the interviews and discussions with national level government policy-makers and private sector actors, that many of the currently-held views and analyses are entrenched and underpinned by specific sectoral narratives, often diametrically opposed to the views held by others. In many instances, for example, rivers and water resources in Nepal were considered to have a single potential use (or economic value) – primarily for hydroelectric power generation – with little or no consideration of alternative uses or services (or alternative values).

Whereas discussions with other actors, and in particular, those in rural locations (farmers, fishers), facilitated by a visioning exercise, revealed that the significance (or economic value) of rivers and water could be viewed in other ways (e.g. direct and indirect uses, through fishing and farming, and environmental attribute promotion for eco-tourism, as alternative livelihood options).

The use of economic valuation techniques to measure environmental or ecosystem services (potential and actual), combined with scenario-based analyses, and multiple-objective trade-off analysis frameworks – offers up the possibility of creating a mechanism to support river basin planning - involving different stakeholders, building understanding of interventions and impacts, and enabling negotiations and consensus-building over uses and development outcomes.

xiv

Action - Phase 3: Design and pilot of policy scenario methodology for the evaluation of the use of watershed/basin ecosystem services (as a basis for dialogue and stakeholder engagement – with a focus on governance and livelihood enabling mechanisms).

Action - Phase 4: Implementation of policy scenario methodology leading to identification and comparison of policy (development) options, and a basis for future planning.

IR 4: Underlying its support across the watershed, river basin, and national levels, Paani also expands the knowledge base and builds Nepal’s capacity for on-going learning on freshwater biodiversity, climate change, and water resources management.

Fisheries development need identified: Knowledge on fisheries is not readily available for policy-makers and their advisors – to include policy options compared and presented for non-specialists, with updates.

Action - Phase 5: Design and implementation of knowledge management strategy and system for fisheries.

xv

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BNP Bardia National Park DoT Department of Tourism DNPWC Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations GDP Gross Domestic Product

GoN Government of Nepal HAN Hotel Association of Nepal IR Intermediate Result MoCTCA Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation MoFE Ministry of Forest and Environment MoFSC Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation NATTA Nepal Association of Tours and Travel Agencies NGO Non-Governmental Organization NP National Park NR Nepalese Rupees NTB Nepal Tourism Board NTNC National Trust for Nature Conservation NTS Nepal Tourism Statistics PA Protected Area PANI Program for Aquatic Natural Resources Improvement REBAN Restaurants and Bar Association of Nepal RNP Rara National Park SNV Netherlands Development Organisation SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats TAAN Trekking Agencies Association of Nepal TAL Terai Arc Landscape USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States Dollars USP Unique Selling Point WMS Watershed Management Specialist

xvi

CONTENTS

Study Team ii Acknowledgements and Disclaimer ii Map iii Executive Summary iv Abbreviations and Acronyms ix

1. Introduction 1 2. Objectives and Purpose 2 3. Approach and Methodology 3 4. Results – Synthesis of Main Findings 6 4.1. Introduction 6 4.2. Fish Resources, Fisheries 6 4.3. Value Chain 20 4.4. Alternative Livelihoods, Eco-tourism 26

5. Discussion and Conclusions 36 6. Recommendations 43 Appendices

1. Terms of Reference 46 2. Implementation Schedule 52 3. Inception Phase Report 54 4. List of Key Interviews 69 5. Key Interviews – Summary of key findings 72 6. Market Visits – Summary of key findings 76 7. Site Visits – Summary of key findings 80 8. Workshop Findings 85 8.1. Lower Karnali 86 8.1.1. Summary of key findings 8.1.2. Timeline 8.1.3. Resource Mapping 8.1.4. SWOT 8.1.5. Net-Mapping 8.2. Middle Karnali 105 8.2.1. Summary of key findings 8.2.2. Timeline 8.2.3. Resource Mapping 8.2.4. SWOT 8.2.5. Net-Mapping 8.3. Upper Karnali 120 8.3.1. Summary of key findings 8.3.2. Timeline 8.3.3. Resource Mapping 8.3.4. SWOT 8.3.5. Net-Mapping

8(A) Fish Value Chain Analysis 143 9. Preliminary Results – USAID presentation 147

10. Bibliography 156

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Water is the single most important natural resource underpinning Nepal’s economy and livelihoods. The sustainable management of water resources in Nepal depends on addressing climate change and protecting healthy ecosystems with high bio-diversity.

Fish stocks and other aquatic organisms form part of the riverine systems, and underpin Nepal’s inland fisheries and aquaculture sectors. For generations, fisher folk living along the rivers and lakeshores have used traditional gear mainly for subsistence fishing.

There are 395,000 ha of rivers and 5,000 ha of small and medium sized lakes in Nepal. Fishing also takes place in irrigated paddy fields and marginal swamp areas, (410,000 ha) (FAO 1995/1996).

Fisheries production

Some early data and statistics are provided by FAO (2005). During 2003/2004 the fisheries sector, including aquaculture and capture fisheries, produced a total of 39,947 tonnes of aquatic products Per capita fish production in Nepal for 2003/2004 reached 1.6 kg/year.

It has been estimated that during 2003/2004 fisheries and aquaculture development activities in Nepal employed about 504,000 people and benefited 741,000 (over 3 percent of the population) - approximately 136,000 families were directly engaged in fishing and aquaculture.

Furthermore, the value of total fish production (39,947 tonnes) was estimated at Nepalese Rupees 4 242 million (US$ 60 million) and contributed over 2 percent in Gross Domestic Production (GDP) – Agriculture.

The government’s strategy on fisheries focused on poverty reduction through creating livelihood opportunities for the targeted rural population.

Paani Program

In this context, the USAID Paani Program, also known as the , is a 5 year, $25 million project that aims to enhance Nepal’s ability to manage water resources for multiple uses and users, including fisheries and fishers, through climate change adaptation and the conservation of freshwater biodiversity.

Paani focuses at the watershed, basin, and national scales, with specific objectives – to reduce threats to freshwater biodiversity in the Karnali, Mahakali, and Rapti river basins; and – to increase the ability of targeted human and ecological communities to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change through improved water management.

This will be accomplished through 11 strategic approaches and supporting activities, as defined in Section C, Statement of Work (SOW) of the Paani Contract and annual work plans, which provide the framework and overall guidance for all Paani team members.

Lack of fisheries knowledge

However, with specific reference to freshwater (also termed inland or riverine) aquatic living resources and fisheries, it is generally acknowledged that, in common with many countries, there is a lack of data and knowledge concerning their key characteristics, the issues which affect them and current trends. As a consequence, the opportunities to engage with the approach used by the Paani

2

Project – to manage the aquatic resources and fisheries, with particular reference to water use in general, and taking into account other users - are very limited.

There is, therefore, an urgent need to upgrade and improve specific knowledge about Nepal’s living aquatic resources, fisheries and aquaculture, as one component of the mechanisms for future basin level planning and decision-making.

2. OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSE

2.1. General objectives

As defined by the TOR (Appendix 1) – the proposed assignment will help to:

[a] Assess capture fishery pressures on key freshwater systems, to inform stakeholders and help manage through informed decision processes without compromising watershed health;

[b] Assess the potential value of alternative livelihood options e.g., eco-tourism such as rafting, home stay management, sport fishing and restaurants;

[c] To contribute to addressing the knowledge gaps and explore opportunities under different strategic approaches. The results will be relevant to local planning and policy, training and capacity building, improved management of capture fisheries and help to inform basin level planning.

2.2. Specific objectives

Specific objectives include – identification and analysis in the following areas:

• The most important social and/or ecological assets/strengths and weaknesses related to aquatic natural resources including capture fisheries, and

• The most important aquatic biodiversity focal interests, problems/threats, and opportunities, both policy - and market-related elements

• The potential livelihood related interventions including ecotourism • The engagement of potential “champions” individuals or groups • The information to develop strategic approaches, especially with regard to strengthening

environmentally-friendly local economies and enterprises. 2.3. Purpose

As defined by the TOR (Appendix 1), the overall purpose is to develop a strategic approach to promoting local economies and enterprises that are “friendly” to—and help reduce threats to—aquatic biodiversity and sustainable fisheries. The assignment will do this by conducting a set of inter-related analyses (Box 1):

Box 1. Study analyses defined (TOR, Appendix 1)

• An analysis of the current “carrying capacity” of the river system in terms of fishing;

• A value chain analysis of fishing industry (in particular in the natural rivers) in the

Paani watershed area; • An examination of existing & alternative livelihood options including ecotourism;

3

The main focus of this work will be on natural (capture) fisheries, but will take the existing commercial aquaculture practices into consideration as well. The primary focus will be on the Karnali river basin, though Paani is also working in other river basins as well. Furthermore, the assessment results will contribute to improve (a) local management of capture fisheries, (b) local capacity for water management and c) characterizing habitats and their carrying capacity for capture fisheries and alternative fish farming opportunity. The assessment will inform basin level planning of hydropower, gravel mining, roads and irrigation that affect natural system and mobility of aquatic biodiversity.

3. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

3.1. Preparation, Planning and Schedule

The initial activity of the study team, at home base, involved reviewing and cross-checking their individual TOR, and clarifying objectives and tasks, along with overlaps and synergies. The overall implementation schedule is presented in Appendix 2.

The preparation of an initial Inception Report was undertaken, with a focus on a review of relevant background literature and consideration of possible methodology and tools.

Once the team had assembled at the Paani Office in Kathmandu, more detailed planning and methodology development were undertaken.

To start, an initial meeting was held with the Paani team, and the key elements of the Inception Report were presented (Appendix 3). This included a clarification of the objectives of the current assignment, and the identification and review of study options (methods and tools). An initial discussion of the implementation approach, locations, stakeholder involvement and schedule was also undertaken with the Paani team.

Given the very wide-ranging and detailed nature of the TOR (Appendix 1), the initial Inception meeting helped to clarify the key assignment objectives (in alignment with [3.3.] Purpose), as follows:

• To contribute to the Paani project generally

• To assess the current status of fish stock & exploitation

• To characterise and analyse the fish value chain

• To investigate the potential role of eco-tourism

3.2. Themes and reference points

The Inception Report and meeting also enabled the study team to define a set of themes and reference points, in collaboration with the Paani team, which would underpin the development of the study approach and methodology, as shown in Box 2.

4

3.3. Methodology - Key elements

Follow-up development work by the study team led to the identification and definition of a set of inter-related and complementary activities, which would constitute the key elements of the methodology (between February and June 2018), as shown in Box 3.

Box 2. Study Themes and Reference Points

• Multi-disciplinary analyses (economic, social, environmental) • Fisheries as part of the aquatic & hydrological system • Inter-related scales (local, regional, national, international) • Economic valuation , policy scenario analysis & decision-making • Stakeholder engagement and participatory analyses • Social inclusiveness and gender • Knowledge sharing and livelihoods • Paani project context, goals and links

Box 3: Study Methodology – Key Elements

[a] Review of secondary information and data (e.g. Watershed profiles) [b] Key stakeholder interviews (e.g. Public and Private sectors, Civil Society), Kathmandu [c] Stakeholder interviews and observations (e.g. fish producing and marketing centres between Kathmandu and Karnali River) [d] Stakeholder interviews and observations with the tourism sector (Kathmandu to Karnali River) [e] Stakeholder participatory workshops (x3) – Lower, Middle and Upper Karnali River Basin; [f] Analysis and interpretation of data and information [g] Reporting and dissemination

Box 4. Study Implementation Phases

Phase 1 (Home base) involved reviewing background information and preparing for the field mission. Phase 2 (Kathmandu) focused on further review and analysis of secondary information, a series of key interviews with stakeholders, and a number of visits to fish markets. Phase 3 (Karnali Basin – Lower and Middle) involved the operation of a series of stakeholder workshops, plus meetings with government officials, and market visits. Phase 4 (Karnali Basin – Upper) also involved a stakeholder workshop and meetings, and represented an extension of the work completed in Phase 3 (to ensure coverage of all parts of the Karnali system). Phase 5 (Home base) – the study team worked remotely (although connected by email, Skype) from one another to collate, analyse and synthesise the data and information collected earlier – in order to produce the current report.

5

3.4. Definition of Stakeholder Workshop Methodology

As part of the methodology development process, particular attention was given to the opportunity to meet and work with relevant stakeholders in the Karnali River basin, to discuss key issues and to gather empirical data and information, in order to complement existing secondary sources. A workshop format, which would employ four participatory tools – Timeline, Resource Mapping, SWOT Analysis and Net-mapping – was designed, and then piloted with staff from the Paani catchment areas during a meeting (one full morning). The methodology was revised and adapted in the light of comments received from the local teams. The finalised version of the workshop methodology is shown in Appendix 3 (a).

3.5. Implementation

The implementation schedule – operated in a series of 5 phases by the study team - is presented in Appendix 2 and summarised in Box 4.

3.6. Analysis and Reporting

The primary and secondary data and information collected, concerning the fisheries of Nepal, formed the basis for analysis and reporting - undertaken in 5 steps as follows:

Step 1: For each section of the Karnali River (Lower, Upper and Middle) - the primary empirical data derived from the series of workshops were first analysed on the basis of the main objectives of the tools employed (also presented in Appendix 8), as follows:

[a] Time-line: Used to describe trends in the fishery and environment since 1950;

[b] Mapping: To describe the main features of the fisheries (water bodies, fish resources, catches);

[c] SWOT: To identify and describe the key characteristics and issues for the fisheries sector;

[d] Net-mapping: To identify and describe the relationships between the fish production and marketing systems, along the value chain, focusing on key stakeholders, with reference to goods, inputs and services. The relative power (to influence) of the different actors was also determined.

Step 2: Using the information derived from Step 1, the key findings, with reference to the Objectives and Purpose (Section 2, above), were synthesised and summarised under the following headings, for each section of the Karnali River (Appendix 8):

[a] Fish and fisheries

[b] Value chain

[c] Alternative livelihoods and eco-tourism

Step 3: Additional information, collected through site visits, interviews and market visits, was summarised in the form of a set of concise reports (Appendices 5, 6, 7). This would be used to supplement and inform the analysis of the workshop data and information (Steps 1 and 2, above).

Step 4: The data and information collected through the workshops (Steps 1 and 2) and the supplementary information, along with other secondary information (e.g. project report findings, published literature), were used to generate and summarise the main findings – with reference to the

6

three key assessment areas (Fish/fisheries, value chain and livelihoods/eco-tourism). Close attention was paid to the list of tasks given in the TOR (Appendix 1) to ensure that all the key areas were covered (a checklist approach).

Step 5: Finally, the summarised results were used to inform a discussion of the future role of the river fisheries and aquaculture in Nepal, with reference to national sustainable development, leading to a set of conclusions. The underlying hypotheses in each of the three study areas – fish/fisheries, value-chain and livelihoods/tourism – were tested and used to inform the overall discussion.

The report finishes with a set of recommendations relevant to the Intermediate Results (IR) of the Paani Project.

4. RESULTS – SYNTHESIS OF MAIN FINDINGS

4.1. Introduction

In the following section, the main findings of the study are synthesized and summarised.

The presentation of the results is structured according to the three main themes involved – fish resources and fisheries, the fish value chain and livelihoods (including the role of tourism and eco-tourism).

The findings draw upon both the empirical and secondary information and data collected during the study, with particular reference to the following elements: - the three stakeholder workshops in the Lower, Middle and Upper River Karnali Basin (Appendix 8); - Site visits, key interviews and meeting reports, market visits (Appendices 5, 6, 7); This section is set against the background of the overall purpose of the study as defined by the TOR (i.e. to develop a strategic approach to promoting local economies and enterprises that are “friendly” to—and help reduce threats to—aquatic biodiversity and sustainable fisheries) (Appendix 1). 4.2. Fish Resources and Fisheries

4.2.1. Introduction

To start, the key characteristics of the fish resources and fisheries of the River Karnali are described and analysed, along with relevant issues identified during the course of the study.

The primary objective is an analysis of the current ‘carrying capacity’ of the river system in terms of fishing activity (fishing effort) (as defined by the TOR).

4.2.2. Overview of Key Issues

The results of the stakeholder workshops, in particular, revealed a general consensus on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the fisheries of River Karnali. The Timeline and SWOT analysis proved to be particularly useful and informative. A simplified SWOT highlighting the key issues is shown in Box 5.

In terms of Strengths, the fish resources were considered to have a high potential for both fish biodiversity and productivity. This has allowed many riparian households and communities to integrate fishing within their livelihood strategies and activities, often involving agriculture. Some communities have relied on fishing almost exclusively (so-called ‘traditional fishers’), usually where

7

farmland has been scarce or unavailable, and a significant proportion of the fish landed has been consumed, as a primary source of nutrition, rather than sold or traded.

Regarding Weaknesses, the key issue is the lack of effective fisheries governance – defined as fisheries policy, fisheries law and fisheries management. At a national level, there is no formal fisheries policy, and the recently-created local administrations have yet to put any policy in place either (or inherited any local arrangements from the past). The mapping exercises, in particular, revealed that while many fisheries operated under free and open access conditions, some parts of the river were controlled (as no fishing zones) associated with the Bardia National Park and others. There was very little information or evidence of older, local or traditional fisheries management systems.

Box 5: Nepal – River Fisheries – Some Key Issues from stakeholder workshops (River Karnali, 2018)

Strengths Weaknesses High fish biodiversity High fish productivity Full-time fishers and communities using

fish resources for livelihoods Others integrating fishing with agriculture

and other occupations Range of benefit types – fish traded,

bartered and consumed (nutrition)

Lack of effective fisheries governance No policy, or law or fisheries management Traditional fisheries management is not

resilient to outside impacts; Free and open access conditions lead to

overexploitation Patchy effectiveness of national parks

preventing fishing

Opportunities Threats Potential source of employment, incomes,

food Integrating fishing with other activities

further (farming, tourism)

Destructive fishing methods by outsiders (e.g. poisons, electric fishing)

Impact of other sector development schemes (e.g. dams, irrigation)

Other users (e.g. gravel mining)

For Opportunities, there was a general perception amongst stakeholders that the fish resources and fisheries sector (both wild and fish farming) have the potential to provide employment and incomes at a local level and to contribute to food supply. The possibility of integrating fisheries activity and production into other livelihood activities, especially farming, was recognised. In this context, however, it was also acknowledged that the successful operation of fisheries, in the future, would depend on effective fisheries management, along with integration and alignment with other users of the river resources, especially those concerned with water use and energy (e.g. dam schemes and irrigation).

In terms of Threats, it was generally agreed that total fishing activity (fishing effort) on the river had increased significantly over the past two decades, along with the introduction of larger nets made of nylon. Fishing activity was largely uncontrolled, except in the national parks. The impact of destructive and non-selective fishing operations (often by outsiders, it was reported), including electric fishing and the use of poisons, was also a serious and widespread problem. A further set of threats concerned the use of the river resources and environment by other stakeholders and sectors. Dam construction for energy and irrigation, along with gravel mining, over the past 30 years had dramatically altered the riverine environment, altering channels and flows, with a deleterious impact

8

on fish populations, and a reduction of the potential fishing opportunities and fisheries production (according to fishing and community stakeholders).

4.2.3. Fisheries Knowledge, Information and Data – Status and Key Features

The initial exploration of the riverine fisheries of Nepal, through key interviews in Kathmandu, and using the River Karnali as a case-study for fieldwork, based on workshops and participatory methods, revealed that there was widespread consensus amongst stakeholders concerning the key issues affecting the fisheries sector, as indicated above. However, it was also confirmed that there was a lack of (or patchiness) of formal knowledge in almost all locations and subject areas. Most significantly, it was confirmed (by the Ministry of Agriculture) that there was a lack of up-to-date basic information and data concerning the size and distribution fish populations (the resource), the size and distribution of fishers (the exploiters), and the extent and status of specific fisheries (the potential catch and actual catch, and the level of exploitation). Clearly, this significant knowledge lacuna represents a major constraint to planning and policy development for the fisheries sector in Nepal.

Nepal – National Fisheries Perspective

According to published sources (Box 6), there are some 462,070 persons involved in fishing, with 12 different ethnic groups (18% total population). Total national fish production is 77,000 (capture fisheries 28%, aquaculture 72%). Fisheries contribute 2.47% to AGDP (including fish farming). However, overall, there are major information gaps, and great uncertainty about the state of Nepal’s fisheries (Box 7).

Looking at the reported information11 in more detail - Shrestha and Mishra (2014) estimate per caput fish production in Nepal at 2.0 kg per year. Aquaculture is an important food sector and is growing rapidly in Nepal. Various types of aquaculture practices are being adopted. According to MoAD (2017) aquaculture production reached 55,500 mt fish in fiscal year 2015/16). Pond aquaculture is the major contributor which alone generated 48,543 mt (87.5%) of the total aquaculture production. Capture fisheries is also an important sector and reported by MoAD (2017) to generate an output of 21,500 mt in fiscal year 2015/16, with 7,110 mt realised from a total river area of 395,000 ha and a similar amount, 7,165 mt, from 398,000 ha of lowland irrigated paddy fields (MARD 2017). Gurung (pers. comm. 22 Feb 2018) estimates the capture fish yield nationwide at 30,000 to 35,000 mt / year, which assuming that anywhere between 400,000 and 500,000 people, in one way or another, involved in fishing might be a realistic estimate in the absence of a reliable catch monitoring system. From the

11 Central Bureau of Statistics. 2007. Metadata for National Agriculture Statistics in Nepal (Metadata Agriculture) http://cbs.gov.np/image/data/Agriculture/Metadata%20Agriculture/Metadata_Agriculture.pdf

Ministry of Agricultural Development. 2017. Statistical Information on Nepalese Agriculture, 2072/73 (2015/16) http://moad.gov.np/public/uploads/1142453195-STATISTIC%20AGRICULTURE%20BOOK_2016.pdf

Mishra, R.N. 2015. Status of Aquaculture in Nepal. Nepalese Journal of Aquaculture and Fisheries 2: 1-12

Regmi, H.R. 2015. An Appraisal of the Agricultural Statistics of Nepal. Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Economics Vols. 2-3:178-182 http://www.naes.org.np/downloadfile/Chapter%2012_1454485479.pdf

Shrestha, M.K. and R.N. Mishra. 2014. Fish Production Systems in Nepal. Annual Innovation Lab Council Partners Workshop; March 10-12, 2014; Shangri-La Hotel Kathmandu

9

official statistics it is notable that the yield is highest at 540 kg/ha from areas classified as waterlogged followed by that from reservoirs (257 kg/ha) and lakes (170 kg/ha), far above the estimated catch of 18 kg/ha both from rivers and low land irrigated paddy.

Box 6. Nepal - Status and Key Features of Fisheries Knowledge, Information and Data

Aquaculture is one of the fastest growing agricultural subsectors in Nepal. The current total national fish production is 77,000 mt of which 28% contributes from capture fisheries while 72%

is from aquaculture (Kunwar, P. S. & B. Adhikari, 2018. Status and development trend of aquaculture and fisheries in Nepal. The Journal of the Nepal Fisheries Society, 3,)

Currently, there are 462,070 people engaged in capture fisheries among them 60% are female (Mishra, R. N. 2015. Status of Aquaculture in Nepal. The Journal of the Nepal Fisheries Society, 2:1-12)

During the period of 1981/82 to 2015/16 annual per capita fish consumption has significantly increased from 330 g to 2,750 g (Kunwar, P. S. & B. Adhikari, 2018. Status and development trend of aquaculture and fisheries in Nepal. The Journal of the Nepal Fisheries Society, 3,).

Approximately twelve different ethnic communities (about 18% of total population of the country) are involved directly or indirectly in fisheries (Gurung et al. 2005).

Lakes, streams, rivers and reservoirs are the natural habitats of 229 freshwater fish species (Petr 2002; Rajbanshi 2013)

Fisheries contribute 2.47% of Agricultural GDP in 2008 (AFPIC) (Rai, Clausen and Funge-Smith) There are problems with baseline information and ‘recycling’ of information (Deep Narayan Shah, pers. comm.)

Box 7. Nepal - Assessment of Carrying Capacity for Fishing

Knowledge, Information and Data Gaps

Lack of up-to-date basic information & data concerning the size and distribution of fish

populations Lack of up-to-date basic information and data concerning the number and distribution of fishers Lack of up-to-date basic information and data concerning the level and distribution of fishing

effort (CPUE) Lack of up-to-date basic information and data concerning the use of different gear types Lack of up-to-date basic information and data concerning the socio-economic status of fishers

Need for updated information on key features and knowledge gaps (status of implementation)

Frame survey of fishing activity (not yet undertaken or planned) Survey on fish biomass, variety, abundance (relative abundance), migratory blockages

(engagement with IFC-WB on-going; Dibesh Karmacharya pers. comm.) Research on aquatic macro-invertebrates (planned for nationwide implementation from April

2018 onward at > 1000 sampling stations; Deep Narayan Shah pers. comm.) Survey of fish- and aquatic biodiversity using e-DNA (undertaken for Karnali, CFMD-Nepal)

10

For fisheries, the data on number of ponds, area, total water surface area and fish production are collected, compiled and disseminated by the Fishery Development Directorate of the Department of Agriculture. Both official figures and expert estimates, however, should be used with caution. Regmi (2015) describes how the fishery statistics of the Nepal are estimated from a random selection of ponds and monthly interviews with owners. Fish production from natural ponds, streams, and rivers is estimated ‘in a similar fashion’, applying a measure of fixed productivity (kg/ha) that appears to yield the exact same figure of 21,500 mt annual capture fish production, repeated in the annual Statistical Information on Nepalese Agriculture at least since fiscal year 2010/11. These figures are subsequently adopted and reprinted in the Journal of the Nepal Fisheries Society and cited in various reports (e.g. Mishra 2015 cites the same for 2013/14), without questioning their accuracy or estimation method.

Nepal – River Karnali Fisheries

Overview There is a diversity of fish in the Lower, Middle and Upper Karnali. At the Chisapani bridge, local market, river fish is traded, often by ethnic Sonaha, Tharu, Raji and Magar communities, who depend on the River Karnali fisheries for a livelihood. There has been an increased tendency of using freshwater fish, crabs, mussels and snails by Tharu people during tourism periods and trade festivals. Fishermen in the Karnali catch small amounts of fish, of the order of a few kilograms every day. Most fishing is undertaken with set nets and cast nets, or with seine hauls. Hook and lines are used as well. Boats are only used in the downstream parts of the Karnali. There are about 100 to 150 families, living on river islands and beds, who set nets during the night, operate cast nets during the day, and engage in sun-drying of fish. There are, however, thousands of fishing families living on the river banks. The general perception amongst stakeholders is that catches have declined over the years. April to June is the breeding period for fish and fish moves upstream during this period. Capturing fish during this period is perceived as one of the major causes of decline in fish population. There are various ethnic groups who are landless or near-landless and who depend mainly on fishing and wage labour for their livelihood, and fishing is undertaken opportunistically (part-time). Lower Karnali From the mapping and net-mapping exercises (Appendix 8), it was estimated that on average about 1,000 Kg/day of fish are consumed in the Lower Karnali. About 50% of this fish are supplied from Karnali River, particularly captured in the Kuina-Lamki section of Lower Karnali, about 20% from other natural lakes and about 30% from private fish farms and imported from India. About 500 Kg of fish are supplied and sold from Chisapani - the only centre where regional and national consumers can eat fresh fish and take away dried fish to their home, 100 Kg from Kothiaghat, about 50-60 Kg from Daulatpur and the remainder from other sites. Only a rough estimate of annual capture fisheries production can be made on the basis of this information. If it can be reasonably assumed that 700 kg is captured and traded on a daily basis, it would suggest that about 255 mt / year of fish is captured and traded from the Lower Karnali. Middle Karnali In the Middle Karnali, Upper Dungeshwor is the major supplier of fish for the residents of Narayani Municipality (Dailekh). Small restaurants and teashops collect and sell daily about 20 Kg wild fish in cooked and dried forms to locals and travellers, which amounts to 7.3 mt on yearly basis. Rakam

11

Karnali area has the highest stock of wild fish. About 500 kg of wild fish is captured on daily basis12 at Rakam Karnali during peak season (March-May). In Rakam Karnali, there are about 50 to 60 full time fishermen. If we assume 2,000 kg/day is captured during peak season (90 days) and 200 kg during the remainder of the year, it would suggest that yearly about 235 mt fish is captured and traded from the Middle Karnali. Upper Karnali In the Rara watershed of the Upper Karnali, only the Mugu Karnali provides fish to the residents of Gamgadi bazaar, the district headquarters of Mugu district. Fishing in Rara Lake is completely banned. Other major rivers that provide fish in the Upper Karnali include the Humla Karnali and the Tila Karnali. River Karnali Basin - Fish Supply and Demand In the absence of reliable data on catch and number of fishermen involved in capture fisheries in the Karnali, and the plausible assumption that most river fish caught in the Karnali River are destined for the local market, a rough estimation of fish supply and demand has been attempted, based on a range of assumptions. First, the current population was confirmed - Bardiya district (426,576), Dailekh (261,770), and Rukum (208,567) in 2011 (Central Bureau of Statistics 2017). Second, projected population will stand at 486,334 for Bardiya, 302,085 for Dailekh, and 231,015 for Rukum respectively, in 2021 (medium level estimate).

Third, fish consumption per capita reached 2.10 kg in 2013 in Nepal, down from an all-time high of 2.20 kg in 2011. Gurung (2016) estimates per capita fish consumption at 2,060g in 2013. Based on an estimated population of 1.8 million people living in the Midwest hills and 1.6 million people living in the Midwest Terai, and average per capita consumption of 2 Kg of fish per year, annual fish consumption in these two areas would be approximately 3,612 mt and 3,239 mt respectively (Table 1, below). What tentative conclusions can be drawn from this very preliminary analysis? First, in absolute terms, the total fisheries production in the middle region of the River Karnali is low (3,264 mt) at the present time. The question is whether a higher level of production could be achieved under different conditions (improved management and environmental protection). Second, the current supply represents less than 50% of the projected future demand for fish (based on fish consumption assumptions). Third, however, if we assume that fish captured from the Lower and Middle Karnali are predominantly consumed locally, fish captured at Rakam Karnali would fulfil more than 50% of local demand, whereas fish captured in Upper Dungeshwor would fulfil about 14% of local demand in Narayan Municipality (27,000 inhabitants) and fish captured in the Lower Karnali would fulfil about 28% of demand in Bardiya.

12

Reported in net-mapping exercise, although the information is confusing; it was reported that the 50 to 60 fishermen in the Rakam Karnali area can capture 1500 to 2000 kg/day during peak season, and each fisherman can catch up to 30 to 35 kg of fish during the peak months and about 5 to 6 kg fish (150 to 250 kg/day) during the slack season

12

Table 1 Population13 Ponds

14 Water surface

Current Fish production6

Consumption (Mt)15

Surplus / Deficit (-) (mt) District 2011 2021 (#) (ha) (mt) (Kg/ha)

RUKUM 208,567 231,015 104 4.86 10.7 2,200 439.6 -428.9 ROLPA 224,506 239,145 84 4.2 8.0 1,905 463.7 -455.7 PYUTHAN 228,102 243,816 115 10 23.5 2,350 471.9 -448.4 SALYAN 242,444 276,060 98 9.75 16.3 1,674 518.5 -502.2 JAJARKOT 171,304 201,913 373.2 -373.2 DAILEKH 261,770 302,085 80 4 6.0 1,500 563.9 -557.9 SURKHET 350,804 426,673 61 13.09 43.9 3,356 777.5 -733.5 MW.HILLS 1,689,508 1,922,728 542 45.9 108.4 2,363 3,612.2 -3,503.8 DANG 552,583 660,742 741 139.96 633.8 4,529 1,213.3 -579.5 BANKE 491,313 621,921 1,323 249.35 1,107.9 4,443 1,113.2 -5.4 BARDIYA 426,576 486,334 1,432 297.32 1,414.4 4,757 912.9 501.5 MW.TERAI 1,470,472 1,768,997 3,496 686.63 3,156.0 4,596 3,239.5 -83.4

Fourth, clearly, it is very difficult to assess the overall level of fish production in the Karnali River Basin using the current information (above). There are serious doubts over the accuracy of the official statistics, and even the results of the stakeholder workshops were difficult to interpret (for fish production) – probably because the diversity of, and lack of connections between different locations, means that it is difficult for stakeholders to form a good overview. The only way to make an accurate assessment is to undertake a detailed and systematic field-based survey along the river. It should be emphasised that assumptions about capture fishery contributions at district level cannot be made on the basis of Table 1, or otherwise, due to the lack of reliable data on capture fisheries. This in turn points to the need to reinstate a reliable fishery statistics collection system , that should go beyond applying a simple and somewhat arbitrary measure of fixed productivity (kg/ha), which is the current practice reported by Regmi (2015). Estimates of capture fisheries in rivers should at the very least be collected and reported on a river basin scale, and stratified for Hills and Terai. The yield/ha/year for selected rivers of Nepal has been estimated as 22 to 637 kg/km/year, and 46 to 117 kg/ha/year (Swar, 2002)16.

4.2.4. Assessment of Carrying Capacity for Fishing

Given the lack of formal information and data for river fisheries in Nepal, it was recognised early-on that addressing the primary objective under this section - an analysis of the current ‘carrying capacity’ of the river system in terms of fishing (as defined by the TOR) – represented a major challenge in the time available for the study.

13 National Population and Housing Census 2011 14 MARD 2017 15 Based on average consumption of 2 kg/Capita/year, averaged over actual (2011) and projected (2021) population 16 Swar, D.B. 2002. The status of cold water fish and fisheries in Nepal and prospects of their utilization for poverty reduction. In: Cold Water Fisheries in the Trans-Himalayan Countries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 431. Eds: Petr. T. and D.B. Swar. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y3994e/y3994e00.htm#Contents

13

In the future, there is no doubt that Nepal will need to develop a formal fisheries knowledge management system – based on systematic data collection and analysis – in order to support policy and management decision-making.

For the current study, a range of empirical and secondary sources were used to provide an initial assessment of the fisheries – in relation to fish stocks, the level of exploitation and the performance of the fisheries (in terms of generating economic, social and environmental benefits on a sustainable basis).

The primary empirical sources used – namely the results of the three stakeholder workshops (Lower, Middle and Upper Karnali) conducted during February and March 2018 – led to some clear and important findings, as follows:

First, the river Karnali supported a diverse and productive fish population in the period before 1960. The main species included cyprinids, catfish and others. Many of the fish stocks were remote and inaccessible to human populations, except in the lower foothills and Terai. In general, the fisheries appeared productive, and there was an adequate fish supply, mainly for local subsistence consumption.

Second, after 1960, fishing activity started to increase, with the penetration of new locations by roads, the introduction of new fishing gears (e.g. large nylon nets) and linked to an increasing demand for fish for consumption and trade from a growing human population.

Third, the trend of increasing fishing activity and fishing effort has continued right up to the present day. A lack of effective fisheries governance (free and open access fisheries) has led to increasing exploitation of the fish stocks to supply a growing market in Nepal. More seriously, the lack of general regulation and control has enabled the widespread expansion of destructive and non-selective fishing methods – stone-blasting, electric fishing and poisoning in particular.

The findings of the recent stakeholder workshops confirm many of the issues and themes which were already raised through key interviews, particularly in Kathmandu, with government officials, researchers and fish traders.

In summary, therefore, while there is a lack of basic fisheries data on which to undertake a formal assessment of the status and performance of the riverine fisheries of Nepal, the findings of the current study (using both rapid appraisal and interview techniques with stakeholders) indicate clearly that the fish stocks of Nepal are at great risk from overexploitation and destructive fishing methods, and that the future potential for generating productive and sustainable benefits is also at risk. The anecdote to this serious situation is to improve the fisheries governance arrangements. In the next section, the current governance arrangements will be examined.

4.2.5. Fisheries Governance and Fisheries Management

Fisheries governance should consist of an integrated framework with three key elements - policy (to define the general development direction for the sector along with clear objectives), a legal framework (to provide an enabling framework for policy implementation) and a fisheries management system (to operationalize policy). In the first instance, a fisheries governance framework should be defined at national level, with appropriate institutions and processes at a more local level. Fisheries policy should also be coherent with other related policy in areas such as economic policy, development policy and environmental policy.

14

In the case of Nepal, there is no national policy on fisheries, although a draft policy is in preparation (Box 8 below). There are some legal regulations concerning fish and fisheries, which were established many years ago (Box 8.A.). There is no formal fisheries management system at a national level.

Aquatic Animals Protection Act (1961)

The current governance arrangements for fisheries in Nepal centre on the Aquatic Animals Protection Act (1961) (Box 8A). The Act (one of Nepal’s oldest) has a number of positive features – it recognises the value (significance) of aquatic environments and aquatic life to society, it attempts to specify the environments and areas involved, it recognises the rights of citizens to catch fish (in particular ways, and in specific seasons), and requires that developers (dams for electricity, irrigation and other purposes) must consider mitigation measures (e.g. fish ladders). The Act also places full responsibility with Government, and empowers the relevant fisheries officers, to oversee and implement the Act and its provisions (sections). However, the Act, and its central position within the fisheries governance framework, faces a number of challenges and problems. The Act, as a piece of legislation, cannot by itself provide all the requirements for effective fisheries governance – an overarching policy and an implementation mechanism (fisheries management system) are also required (Nepal does not have either). Furthermore, the Act is old, and requires updating, for example, to better define water bodies, fish stocks, fisheries stakeholders, the use of fisheries instruments and many other elements (according to international best practice). The Act should also follow-on from and align with fisheries policy. The definitions of roles, rights and responsibilities between different stakeholders, and especially the relationship between government and fishers, will have to be considered in the future. At present, all rights and power to decide on the use of the aquatic environment and its resources (e.g. fish) are vested in government (this does not align with modern fisheries policy – which increasingly focuses on co-management systems and the allocation of clearly defined rights to a range of stakeholders). Finally, it is also concerning that the implementation of the current Act has been limited and weak – for example, there have never been any prosecutions concerning the use of poisons and explosives for fishing – despite their widespread use in Nepal.

Fisheries Governance – Workshop observations

At a local level, government issues permits to selected contractors (fishers) to fish in public rivers and ponds (in some locations), and collects fees. However, there are no limits on the numbers of fishermen, as the contractor then sub-contracts the various sections of the river to many fishermen on an informal basis. Government also attempts to prevent the use of illegal gears (e.g. poisons), but the level of effectiveness concerning this task is low.

The Protected Areas (e.g. Bardia National Park) do not allow fishing within their boundaries. However, controlled sport fishing (angling) is allowed in some areas (e.g. in the Babai and Karnali Rivers in Bardia National Park) though it is completely banned in some protected areas (e.g. Rara NP). However, there is encroachment by local fishermen in many locations, and this represents a source of ongoing dispute.

In terms of local, indigenous or informal management practices, there was very little evidence (no discussion during workshops) that the fisheries were subject to any so-called traditional systems. In both the Lower and Middle Karnali, the workshops indicated that traditional fishermen, who typically exploited river fish stocks, were unable to prevent others from outside from fishing and using illegal methods.

15

Box 8. Nepal – Fisheries Governance – Overview (stakeholder interviews)

Nepal’s 2015 Constitution entrusts responsibility for water resource conservation policy to the Federal level

alone. Concurrent executive and legislative power is provided to the Federal, Province and Local levels only for

water utilization. One strategy17 within National Water Resources Policy (draft) also provides for the Local Bodies to have the

authority to issue licenses for agriculture, fishery and livestock, industrial use, recreation, religious-cultural and environmental use.

PAANI’s feedback to the draft policy points out that the reason for including this provision in the strategy is unclear. Schedule 8 of the Industrial Policy provides a list of the industrial enterprises that need to obtain licenses to be established. PAANI therefore cautions that the water-based industries/services be classified when providing for licensing rather than giving sole authority to the Local Bodies, to prevent a race to the bottom that might compromise riverine ecological values in order to attract industry to the respective local bodies’ jurisdictions.

Policy 7.11.1 stipulates that policy and laws will be implemented for rehabilitation of population displaced due to the implementation of large projects, especially in water resources, with higher living standards than before displacement. Strategy 7.11.1.5 “The project affected families will also be encouraged to embrace tourism business related to fishing, boating, etc., related to the source of the project.”

The Ministry of Agriculture Development (MOAD) has no fisheries division, and there is no fisheries department. There is only the Directorate of Fish Development, and National Agricultural Research Council (NARC).

NARC has about 61 focal sectors, of which fisheries is the smallest component. The Directorate manages a number of fisheries development centres, and provides fingerlings and expertise

for aquaculture. A draft fisheries policy is under the process of approval but has now to be customized because it was

designed for the previous system. There are only 14 activities proposed under capture fisheries whereas there are about 40 under aquaculture.

There is a 1961 law on aquatic animal protection, which later was amended. It is apparently not yet implemented.

Given the current governance reform it would be important to create separate aquatic protection laws at the province level.

Local governments will also have legislative power, but the local governance budget is limited, which raises questions about implementation, and continuity of personnel.

It is clear, therefore, taking into account experiences from other countries, and international best practice in general, that there is an urgent need to establish an appropriate and effective fisheries governance framework for Nepal. Without this foundation, or pre-requisite, the potential for Nepal’s fisheries to contribute to national sustainable development is very limited.

In the case of fish farming in Nepal, the governance arrangements are different compared to wild fisheries. While there is no formal policy or legal framework, fish farming is often closely associated with the agriculture sector and systems. One of the advantages is that fish farms are established and operated on private land by the owners of that land (or rented or leased) (with well-defined access rights to water and other resources) – as opposed to the common pool nature of wild fisheries in Nepal – where weakly defined property and use rights have led to both economic and biological overexploitation under free and open access conditions (a common outcome in many countries with similar conditions).

17

Strategy 7.2.2.7 Permission will be issued from local level for agriculture, fisheries and animal husbandry, industrial purpose, leisure, religious, cultural and environmental purposes.

16

Box 8 (A). Aquatic Animals Protection Act 1961

Aquatic Animals Protection Act - The Aquatic Animals Protection Act 1961 is Nepal’s one of the oldest pieces of legislation, indicating the early recognition of wetlands and aquatic life values. Water includes lakes, marshes, streams, rivers, rivulets, tanks, canals, channels, ponds, reservoirs, artificial reservoirs, wetlands, cages used for fishing and fish farming water in paddy fields and their sources (section 2 (a)). It does not specify natural or artificial, static or flowing water, but the definition includes lakes, ponds, temporary steams, watercourses and entire river systems.

The Aquatic Animals Protection Act 1961 does recognize the rights of the citizens to catch fish without using noxious and explosive materials and electrification (section 3). Citizens are allowed fishing only those fish species and in the season that the GoN has allowed to fish by publishing notification in Nepal Gazette (section 4), and fishing only in those water bodies that have not been prohibited by the GoN for fishing by publishing notification in Nepal Gazette. The Act has been in effect since 1961, yet both noxious and explosive materials are increasingly used in water bodies throughout Nepal. There is no reported case of person being prosecuted for violating the Act. This is a clear evidence of the government’s ineffectiveness in developing a surveillance system for conserving aquatic life and wetland habitats. However, if poison is to be used for catching or killing an aquatic life, only safe poison is allowed to be used (section 5 (a)).1

Developers that wish to construct a dam for electricity, drinking water or irrigation or some other purpose is required to construct fish ladder, to the extent possible, for passage of aquatic life. In case construction of fish ladder is not possible, arrangements must be made for aquatic hatchery or nursery for artificial breeding of aquatic life (section 5 (b)(1)).

Closing the doors of a dam and any other structure or destroying fish ladder by anybody other than the authorized officer is prohibited (section 3 (a)). The GoN may prohibit catching, killing and harming certain kinds of aquatic animals through notification in the Nepal Gazette (section 4 (a)). Section 4 (b) further empowers the government to prohibit catching, killing and harming certain kind of aquatic animals in a specified season and condition.

The government may publish a notice in the Nepal Gazette to prohibit catching, killing and harming aquatic animals in a specified water bodies without the permission authorized officer and the Government shall have sole right over the aquatic animals in such water body (section 5). This section gives overriding right to Government over aquatic animals in such water bodies, which is likely to curtail livelihood opportunity and traditional practices of local people. A notification to this effect was published by the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives on 5 August 2002 in Section 52 Number 17 of Nepal Gazette prohibits capturing, killing and or harming different species of turtle, crocodile, dolphin, Tor, Neolissochilus, and fish and also killing or capturing of aquatic life on certain distance of Koshi and Gandak barrage and Phewa Lake.

Given the current governance and fisheries management arrangements, coupled with the massive habitat and man-made environmental changes, which have taken place over the past 50 years, it is virtually impossible to describe and understand the impacts and trends on fish stocks or species, either generally or by species. For example, regarding the vulnerability of particular species to fishing pressure, impacts on habitats, bycatch, and ecological behaviours, or specifically, relating to the apparent decline of iconic species such as the Golden Mahseer over this period. Unfortunately, a lack of historical length-based catch data on Mahseer and other species hinders objective analysis of possible recruitment overfishing for these species. There are anecdotal reports on declining sizes of Mahseer over the last century. Results from timeline and vision analyses indicate that fish resources were stable up and including the 1960s, followed by a rapid decline after the introduction of new fishing gear, such as monofilament nets in 1983.

17

In terms of available data indicative of relative abundance and related trends, from the key interviews/discussions, or from the CMDN study, once again it was confirmed that there is no baseline or other information on the fish biodiversity in the Karnali (Dibesh Karmacharya, pers. comm. 16/02/2018). Based on different studies there are about 186 fish species in the Karnali. Ten percent of the identified species were Schizothorax (snow trout) spp. CFMD has compiled a geospatial baseline database to monitor indicator species across the Karnali. There are various putative new records of species such as carps found more upstream, previously thought to be found only in the Terai. Studies from other parts of the world have confirmed the impact of man-made environmental changes on river fish stocks when a historical baseline is available18.

Summing up – Governance issues affecting fisheries

In drawing together the various perspectives on governance issues which currently affect fisheries – from discussions with key informants at all levels and different sectors, from secondary published sources, and from the results of the stakeholder – there are clearly a range of issues, including bottlenecks, irregularities and gaps. There are at least five key elements to be considered.

First, for a start, the government has recognised the huge potential value of water resources for national development, through dam schemes (for electricity generation and irrigation) – this top priority completely overshadows other water resource users – and there is apparently little consideration of the role or potential contribution of fisheries, in particular. There is no fisheries policy in place and no focused sectoral development strategy (as a result).

Second, water development schemes appear to take little account of their potential and actual negative impact on fisheries (a policy coherence issue). This is partly due to a lack of information and analysis to consider the likely impacts of dam schemes on fish stocks and fisheries – and the flows of benefits which might be affected, including livelihood support, employment and nutrition.

Third, although both EIA and IEE are mandatory and a pre-condition for developers who intend to take up licences and build dams and irrigation schemes, it would be difficult to undertake any meaningful assessment of the results since there is a lack of baseline data on aquatic bio-diversity. Furthermore, there have clearly been problems with the implementation of mitigation measures concerning fish stocks – relating to the design and operation of fish passes, for example, but nobody has been held accountable – either in government or the private sector firms involved – partly because it is difficult to detect the faults and impacts due to a lack of human (expert) capacity in the relevant government departments.

Fourth, there is also a range of government ministries, departments and organisations involved with aquatic resources and fisheries – with overlapping and conflicting mandates and activities. Although key informants recognized the Directorate of Fisheries Development, Ministry of Agriculture Development as important to address fisheries management issues in public waters, the ownership of these resources is retained by the Ministry of Forestry. A decision is needed over which organisation will have the primary role for significant interventions in fisheries management in natural waters. There is an inter-ministerial committee, which includes the Ministry of Forestry, for allocating water uses. The draft fisheries policy also notes that a single Ministry does not fully control this process. Furthermore, the mandates of the Ministry of Agriculture Development, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Livestock Development are mostly confined to the private wetlands, including

18

Neiland et al. (1990) The impact of damming, drought and over‐exploitation on the conservation of marketable fish stocks of the River Benue, Nigeria. J. Fish. Biol. 37: 203-205.

18

aquaculture. The Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) is responsible for the conservation of wetlands (including fish) in the protected areas (National Parks, Wildlife Reserves, Hunting Reserves, Conservation Areas) whereas the Department of Forest (DoF) is responsible for that in the areas outside the protected areas (national forest, community forest, protected forest, and religious forest). Fifth, although much of the emphasis was placed on the role of government, during the stakeholder workshops and interviews with key informants, there are clearly many other stakeholders within the public and private sectors who also have an interest and impact on fish resources and fisheries. Although the precise numbers and involvement of fishers and communities is not known, although it is undoubtedly a large number of persons all along the supply chain, it is also noteworthy that they lack a ‘voice’ in the policy formation process, lacking appropriate organisation or support (although there is some NGO involvement).

4.2.6. Possible Future Trends and Champions for Change

The results of the stakeholder workshops, in particular, have revealed a number of clear (and often alarming) trends concerning the riverine fisheries of Nepal.

For a start, there is a general consensus amongst stakeholders that fishing activity and fishing effort have increased rapidly over the past 30 years. The current levels of exploitation are undoubtedly unsustainable. As a result, fish stocks and the associated economic, social and environmental benefits, are all at severe risk. This situation could be addressed, and recovered, by improved fisheries governance and fisheries management (based on empirical experiences in other countries).

However, Nepal’s fisheries are also threatened and put at significant risk by the rapid and extensive changes in the riverine environment which are taking place. The impact of specific development projects and economic activities were readily identified by stakeholders including dam projects (reducing stream-flow), irrigation projects (changing river courses) and gravel mining (affecting river flows and water quality). It is unclear whether the impact of these projects and activities on the fisheries sector has been considered by government policy-makers and planners. One of the main challenges, of course, is that the potential value (or loss) of fisheries benefits has not been determined in Nepal, and, therefore, decisions and decision-makers may overlook them when considering large multiple sector and river basin wide schemes.

In terms of future trends, first, it seems likely that fisheries exploitation will continue to intensify, particularly given the increasing demand for fish and fish products in Nepal, coupled with increased inter-connectedness between remote river basins and population centres, due to road building and infrastructure (bridges). Second, it is also very likely that Nepal’s rivers will be increasingly changed and modified by dam projects for hydro-power, water and irrigation schemes. The likely impact of climate change has not been addressed specifically in the current analysis, but it could certainly complicate and exacerbate both the processes and impact of the man-made river interventions described above.

The visioning exercises conducted with stakeholders in all the three sections of the Karnali River suggested that these two major factors - fisheries exploitation and river development schemes - should be addressed in order to conserve and develop the fisheries.

The drivers for the current changes have been identified (above). The fundamental issue is that fish and fisheries are not recognised at all within either national development policy or sectoral policies, or

19

the underpinning planning and decision-making processes. One of the fundamental questions here is – What is at stake? Or what is the potential benefit foregone by not considering fisheries development and the impact of other sectors, through a lack of policy coherence. This will be discussed further below.

Who are the potential ‘Champions for Change’? A number of ‘stakeholders’ emerged as potential champions (based on the net-mapping exercises – the identification and assessment of the relative power and interest of specific actors). First, the Ministry of Agriculture (Fisheries Department) recognised the need to address fisheries management in general (revealed by key interviews). Second, with the tourism sector, some private companies were keen to promote better environmental conditions in the future, including angling and rafting business, although these are relatively few in number. Third, within the value chain, the hotels and restaurants were considered to be very influential (positively) by many stakeholders. And finally, fourth, the Local Government (Municipalities and Rural Municipalities) were also considered to be very influential, although newly formed and untried.

Local governments have been identified as the fourth level of potential champions. If these four are listed in order of power and interest, it would be appropriate to shift local governments to level two, since they have rights to make law and regulation that may influence the fisheries management at especially at the local level. The functions of the District Forest Office, District Agriculture Development Office, District Livestock Service Office and others have all been put under the jurisdiction of Local Governments. It can be claimed that Local Governments have the opportunity to become the key champions for the conservation and management of wetlands outside the protected areas.

Local governments under the recently changed political context do have legislative power, and will need to develop regulatory mechanisms for any freshwater fisheries under their jurisdiction. Local legislative power combined with a limited local government budget raises questions about implementation, and continuity of personnel. Strategy 7.2.2.7 of the National Water Resources Policy (draft) also provides authority to the Local Bodies to issue licenses for fisheries. Sole authority of Local Bodies in need of financial resources (e.g. incentive to issue more licences) might therefore imply a risk of compromising riverine resources through over-exploitation of local fish resources and attracting industry to the respective local bodies’ jurisdictions.

Interestingly, other than the hotels/restaurants, there were few other stakeholders considered to be influential concerning the future of Nepal’s river fisheries. The so-called ‘traditional fishermen’ communities are scattered and not organised into an association, with no significant ‘voice’. There is some supporting NGO, but few deal specifically with fisheries (as opposed to water and the environment). Of course, other stakeholders were also considered influential – particularly the Ministry of Water and Energy, and the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation – but it seems unlikely that their agenda will expand to include fisheries conservation or fisheries development to any great degree in the future – unless there is a good reason, in terms of additional net benefits (or a loss of benefits for Nepal) or pressure from other stakeholders (or “Champions”).

Some of the workshop discussions indicated that the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (recently named as Ministry of Forest and Environment) should also be considered as one of the “champions” for the conservation and management of wetlands and watersheds including river corridors (see Forestry Sector Strategy 2016). Under the current structural framework, Protected Areas are centrally controlled by DNPWC under the MoFE, not by Local or Provincial Government.

20

Regarding the use of water for hydropower, Local and Provincial Governments have a power to control up to some limits (capacity) and the large-scale hydro-electric power is managed by Federal Government in collaboration with Provincial and Local Governments. 4.3. Value Chain

4.3.1. Introduction

In the following section, the major findings concerning markets and trade, and the value chain for fish, in Nepal, will be described, based on the empirical fieldwork activities (workshops, interviews, observations) and a review of secondary sources, including official statistics.

The primary objective is a value chain analysis of fishing industry (in particular in the natural rivers) in the Paani watershed area, as defined by the TOR. The River Karnali basin formed the main case-study. 4.3.2. Overview of Key Issues

The key issues relating to the fish value chain in Nepal, and with particular reference to its potential future contribution to the development of the fisheries sector (both wild and farmed activities), in terms of the generation and growth of benefits (economic, social and environmental) on a sustainable basis, were explored and revealed using the portfolio of research and analytical techniques which formed the study methodology. In particular, the participatory workshops provided a rich source of information. As with the earlier section, above, to start a simple SWOT framework is used to summarise the key features and issues for the fish value chain.

In terms of Strengths, first, the fish value chains examined in the Lower, Middle and Upper Karnali appeared to be well-adapted to their local situation – relatively small landings of wild fish supplied local markets over short distances and with a small number of steps in the chain (the fish products passing between a low number of participants). The value chains which focused on farmed fish (mainly in the Lower and Middle Karnali) were also relatively short, and supplied local markets. Second, it was also noted that the value chain (and its participants) were adaptable to changes (both opportunities and threats) – for example, new roads and tourist venues had opened up new markets for fish, even as far as Kathmandu. The farmed fish value chain appeared to be particularly adaptable – for example, local farmed fish was being sold live in many places, and at a premium, in the face of cheap imports from India, with a poor reputation (rumoured to be preserved with formalin). Overall, it was found that wild fish and wild fish products (e.g. dried) achieved higher prices than farmed fish.

Regarding Weaknesses, the value chain for wild fish in the River Karnali basin is currently constrained by the low supply of fish and the unpredictable volume available. By their very nature, many of the riverine fish stocks show significant seasonal variability, but increasingly the fish stocks are threatened by overexploitation (in the face of weak or no management), but also by significant man-made alterations to the riverine environment, which threatens their productivity and survival. It is difficult to develop a value chain for a specific product, if there is a high degree of variability or risk associated with its supply. The further elaboration and extension of the value chains associated with farmed fish may be less of a problem in the future, since a base supply can be assured. Other issues such as the cost of production and profitability, and quality control and market demand may be more important for farmed fish, although these elements require further research.

21

In terms of Opportunities, first, there is every indication that the domestic market for fish in Nepal is growing each year, with population expanding and incomes increasing leading to higher demand. In addition, meat and poultry are generally more expensive, and fish remains a competitive alternative. Second , the growth of the domestic market and the possible elaboration of existing fish value chains (for both wild and farmed fish) are also linked to the expansion of the road network, and a resulting greater level of connectivity between fish landing sites and fish farms, and markets, particularly in Kathmandu and other urban areas. Third, the future growth of the tourist industry may also lead to further market opportunities and the elaboration of the value chain, particularly for specialist products (e.g. farmed Himalayan trout). Fourth, while exports of fish from Nepal are minimal, the possibility of growing external links (to India and elsewhere) by road and air may develop if Nepalese fish products can compete on price, quality or as a unique product type in the future (differentiation).

For Threats, there are a number of important factors and issues relating to the value chain. First, the underlying supply of fish (raw material) from wild sources is at risk from both overexploitation (in the face of weak governance) and environmental changes (e.g. dam and irrigation schemes, impact of climate change on water resources). Second, imports of cheap farmed fish from India may create adverse competition for local fish supplies, reducing its competitiveness and undermining the businesses associated with the current value-chain. Third, poor reputational issues associated with imported fish may also affect the demand for domestic fish, unless the products are clearly differentiated, and quality assurance is guaranteed.

4.3.3. Market Knowledge, Information and Data – Status and Key Features

In comparison to the current status of knowledge, information and data for wild fisheries, and the fish farming sector to some extent, the situation for fish markets and trade is better. For a start, the activities of markets, at all levels, and in both urban areas, and rural municipalities are recorded by local government. However, there is no readily available analysis or status report of the recent trends and features of the market and trade for fish in Nepal, compared to other products (such as cereals, or rice or fruit), based on our preliminary searches under the current study. There is even less known about the fish value chain.

4.3.4. . Fish Value Chain – Key Characteristics – Current Status

The fish value chain analysis was undertaken from three complementary perspectives:

- The net-mapping exercise completed during the stakeholder workshops in the River Karnali Basin (Lower, Middle and Upper) was used initially to identify and describe the key components and relationships (Appendix 8);

- The relationship between the fisheries, value chain, and fish trade beyond the Karnali Basin was examined through key interviews and visits to fish markets and vendors in Kathmandu and other sites (Appendices 5,6,7);

- A more formal value chain analysis was conducted using a standard framework to identify key actors, relationships, constraints/opportunities, key products, financial analysis (prices, gross margins, value shares) and quality management issues; (Appendix 8A);

The net-mapping exercises undertaken with stakeholders in the River Karnali basin (Lower, Middle and Upper) proved to be very useful in characterising the fish value chain. It was found that there were both similarities and differences across the basin, and also for wild fisheries and farmed fish. This information was also complemented by the outputs from the other workshop exercises, and from secondary sources.

22

For a start, the timeline results revealed that the expansion of roads and bridges in Nepal had helped to increase the accessibility of many potential fishing areas, and that these had become linked into the value chains. It was also notable that many of the resource maps indicated that good fishing areas tended to be located near bridges and roads.

In the case of the Lower Karnali, for example, the value chain for wild fish was relatively short, with only 4-6 steps between fishers and consumers. The middlemen, vendors and hotels/restaurants were the most important intermediaries, controlling the flow of products, along with setting prices – a feature which is common to fish value chains all over the world. There are no auction markets, and few centralised markets, except in larger towns.

The main fish products included fresh fish of various types (e.g. cyprinids and catfish), along with dried fish, either whole or in pieces, which had been smoked, either by the fishermen themselves in remote locations prior to transport, or by the hotels/restaurants.

It was also found that most fish products (both fresh and dried) tend to be sold/traded/consumed locally (not moved nationally to any great extent). In Kathmandu, by comparison, the variety and volume of fish species and products types was much larger, and much farmed and imported fish.

There was a wide range of consumers - local, national and international (mainly tourists). The fish entering the value chain is a surplus over and above that consumed locally - mainly by so-called ‘traditional fishing households’. Many households, with ready access to the river, both fish and also farm, if they own land, within an integrated arrangement making up their livelihood – in other words, there are both full-time and part-time fishers and fishing activities.

There is clearly an incentive in many locations for fishermen to sell their catch, with favourable prices offered for fresh fish, and sufficient margins to sustain the value chain, albeit relatively short and uncomplicated – a typical fish price sequence is shown in Box 9.

The summary of fish value chain analysis (financial performance) (Box 10) highlights the differences between the different levels of the chain, the actors involved and the product types. It is interesting to note that fishermen manage to retain a significant amount of the value, that the middlemen operate on relatively low margins and value retained, and that the hotels/restaurants have developed a very good business with traditional ‘dried fish products’. Interestingly, farmed fish is less competitive, compared to wild fish, but probably maintains a steady and high volume of trade.

Box 9. Nepal – Fish value chain – prices (Middle Karnali)

Fishermen tend to sell to the hoteliers and middlemen 350 - 400 NR/Kg (small fishes <1Kg), 400 - 500 NR/Kg (Big fishes >1 Kg). Hoteliers (after processing, removing scales etc.) sell to consumers 800 NR/Kg (fresh) 2,200 - 2,500 NR/Kg (dried) Wild fish prices are at a premium (over farmed fish). Fish farmers sell to all consumers for 220 NR/Kg. Middlemen sell for 250-270 NR/Kg to consumers.

It is also evident from the net-mapping results that for farmed fish, the value chain is slightly longer and more complex than for the wild fish. For a start, farmed fish is sold through more outlets,

23

including shops and outlets on a regular basis. Farmed fish can also be sent to distant locations (e.g. Kathmandu), depending on the availability of cost-effective transport. Farmed fish is mainly sold fresh (live) or frozen/chilled.

The farmed fish value chain also benefits from inputs and support relating to fish transport and preservation (e.g. poly boxes). It was noted that there is some degree of integration between the farmed and wild fish value chain, particularly involving certain middlemen.

Farmed fish from Nepal also has to compete with farmed fish from India (mainly carps), and overall the price of farmed fish is lower compared to wild fish.

In many locations, in urban areas, fish shops supplied by fish farms, often as an integrated operation, sell live fish held in large tanks. The customers select the fish which they wish to buy, and have it killed, processed and packaged, while they wait. Many of these value chains are also local (fish farm – shop – consumers) and appear to operate successfully and profitably – offering fish and fish products of a high standard, with a dependable supply and low prices. The recent scare over formalin preserved imported fish has further enhanced the role of the fish shops selling local fish.

From a gender perspective, field observations of activities along the value chain, from both capture fisheries (landing sites) and fish farm (pond sites) to market, provided a good impression of the roles of men and women (although a more detailed and systematic study would be needed in the future to produce precise data). In the Karnali River Basin, fishing and fish farm activities were usually undertaken by men. However, thereafter, women also became more involved – fish collectors or middlemen sold the fish to stall owners (in local markets) (often run by women, also involving men, usually family members), also to shops associated with fish farms (with live fish tanks) managed and run by women (and daughters and husbands), where live fish was selected, killed and processed for consumers. Women were also found operating small shops and restaurants, which sold fish, in the form of meals and also smoked fish for onward sale (often to visiting tourists). In high-end restaurants and hotels, where wild and farmed fish was used in meals, both men and women were engaged in various roles (administrative, kitchen roles, waiters). Although en route between the Karnali Basin and Kathmandu, a similar pattern was observed, with women more in evidence selling fish, operating small cafe/restaurant outlets (fish as meals), and in high-end hotels and restaurants. The services and suppliers supporting the value-chain for fish were also operated by a mixture of men and women – including government officers (rules and support services), private companies (net sellers, fuel suppliers, fish food, drug companies, transporters, and fuel). Overall, therefore, the fish value chain in Nepal offers a range of employment and income opportunities for both men and women, but a more detailed study and analysis would be required to assess and quantify the likely multiplier effect of an enhanced fish value chain in the future.

In terms of social inclusion and ethnicity, both endemic (Sonaha, Raji) and migrant (Magar, Gurung) communities currently involved in fishing belong to ethnic and marginalized communities. In Sonaha, Raji and Tharu communities, women used to be actively engaged in capturing the fish and men used to be engaged in both capturing and selling the fish. Nowadays, both women and men are engaged in collecting and selling fish. In Magar and Gurung communities, men are engaged in collecting fish and women are engaged in cooking/drying and selling fish to the consumer visiting their small hotel and restaurant. In the Tharu community, more women than men are engaged in collecting fishes from the nearby swampy areas. They are also expert in cooking fish and other aquatic life. Nowadays, many Tharu communities have started home-stays and have started offering various aquatic products including fish and Ghongi to visitors.

24

4.3.5. Policy and governance frameworks (current and needs and options)

In Nepal at present, there is no specific policy relating to fish trade and fish markets, or the nature of the value chain, as far as could be judged from this brief study. There are a number of policy areas which could be addressed. First, fish underpins livelihoods, economic activity and nutrition for many persons in Nepal, but the underpinning supply of fish from wild sources is threatened by both overexploitation and environmental change. If the supply of wild fish continues to decline, it is likely that this will have a detrimental impact on many of Nepal’s citizens.

Box 10. Nepal – River Karnali Basin – Fish Value Chain Analysis: Summary of Financial Performance by Actor and by Product Type

Actor Prices, Margins, Value Shares Fish products Purchase

Price (NR/Kg)

Selling Price (NR/Kg)

Gross income (NR)

Gross margin

Value share (Hotel))

Value share (Shops)

(A)Fishermen (A1) Fish Farmers Products Small fish (Fresh) 400 400 100% 50% 67%

Large fish (Fresh) 500 500 100% 56% 63% Fish (Processed) 450 450 100% 18% - Farmed fish 220 220 100% - 79%

(B) Middlemen Products Small Fish 400 500 100 25% 12% 17%

Large fish (Fresh) 500 600 100 20% 11% 13% Fish (Processed) 450 550 100 22% 4% - Farmed fish 220 250 30 14% - 11%

(C1) Retailers (1) Local Hotels/with restaurants Products Small Fish 500 800 300 38% 38% -

Large fish (Fresh) 600 900 300 50% 33% - Fish (Processed) 550 2500 1950 355% 78% - Farmed fish - - - - - -

(C2) Retailers (2) Fish shops, stalls, local markets, city markets Products Small Fish 500 600 100 20% - 17%

Large fish (Fresh) 600 800 200 33% 25% Fish (Processed) - - - - - Farmed fish 250 280 30 12% 11%

(D) Consumers Small Fish 600-800 Large fish (Fresh) 800-900 Fish (Processed) 2500 Farmed fish 280 Source: Stakeholder workshops, River Karnali Basin (2018) plus key interviews (APPENDIX 8A)

25

Second, fish farming in Nepal has received a lot of attention over the past few years, and the government currently offers some subsidies to new operations and investments in this sub-sector. It is unclear whether the government sees aquaculture as the future source of fish for Nepal’s domestic market, and whether the existing value chains will adapt accordingly. Third, imports of fish are a “double-edged sword” – providing a cheap and ready alternative to wild fish, particularly for urban consumers, but this trade may also undermine local fish business and value chains. The options of either facilitating greater import trade or limiting this trade should be considered by policy-makers. 4.3.6. Future Trends There a number of important trends affecting the nature of the fish value chain in Nepal at present which have potentially serious implications for the future. First, in terms of supply, wild fish and fish products appear to be at severe risk. As already indicated above, fisheries are almost certainly overexploited and disrupted by massive environmental changes brought about by man-made interventions ranging from dams and irrigation schemes, to climate change. The scarcity and fluctuating nature of wild fish supply in many locations, in relation to a relatively high demand for fish, has pushed up prices, and in the short-term, catching, trading and selling fish are attractive for specific stakeholders (middle-men and hotel/restaurant outlets). The businesses and value chain tend to operate at a local level, constrained by limited road networks, and the unprofitable nature of long-distance trade. In the long-run, the scarcity of wild fish supply, if current governance and infrastructure policy continues, will limit any greater extension or development of the fish value chain from many river systems, including the River Karnali. Under these conditions, investment in the fish trade (or value chain) would carry a high risk for the private sector, compared to alternatives. Second, at the same time, at the other end of the value chain, the demand for fish and fish products in Nepal, particularly in large urban areas such as Kathmandu is likely to increase. With a growing population, higher incomes and greater awareness of the benefits of fish consumption, as well as competitiveness with more expensive protein sources, both demand and prices will increase (with low supply). This trend has already been noted. If the riverine fisheries were operated under effective management, then this market would represent a great opportunity for improved livelihoods and incomes for fishers, and other actors along the value chain. However, without management (free and open access conditions), the market and its value chain will just drive further overexploitation and compromise long-term sustainability and benefit flows. Third, if appropriate governance arrangements were in place, then healthy and productive river fisheries in Nepal would form the essential base to develop new products, elaborate and enhance the value chains, and generate an increased supply of sustainable benefits, including incomes and livelihoods for fishermen and all the other actors involved. Fourth, the extent to which the fish farming sector can re-place capture fisheries for wild fish and form the underpinning of the value chain is open to debate. On the one hand, well-managed fish farms can generate a steady and predictable supply of fish – the raw material for the value chain. But on the other hand, experience from many other countries shows that fish farms can be difficult to manage, and require appropriate policy and enabling frameworks, as well as careful and well-planned business

26

investment decision-making and operational expertise. It is unclear whether Nepal has the right recipe in place for aquaculture at the moment, but forming close links, and integration, with the well-established agriculture sector, particularly in the Terai, may be a good option for the future. Fifth, there is no doubt that Nepal’s river fisheries (and aquaculture) could capitalise on some unique selling points to develop specialist niche fish products (e.g. trout from the Himalayas) and markets (e.g. linked to the tourist industry)., but the fundamental governance arrangements for fisheries management are the essential first step (which remains unresolved). 4.4. Alternative Livelihoods and Ecotourism

4.4.1. Introduction

In this section, the riverine fisheries of Nepal, and particularly, the River Karnali, will be examined in terms of the livelihoods which they provide and support, based on the recent fieldwork and workshops undertaken in the Lower, Middle and Upper Karnali.

The main objective will be to conduct an examination of existing and alternative livelihood options including ecotourism (based on the TOR).

4.4.2. Overview of Key Issues

To start, the key issues relating to livelihoods, alternative livelihoods and ecotourism are summarised using a simple SWOT framework. On the basis of the results of the primary and secondary data and information collected through the workshops and other activities, it was possible to categorise the issues as shown below.

In terms of Strengths, the riverine fisheries in Nepal show a number of important attributes for supporting livelihoods. First, the diverse and productive fish resources have long provided a source of food and income for so-called ‘traditional fishermen and communities’, who have often been landless. Second, fishing can be integrated with other activities, particularly farming, on a seasonal basis. Third, fish and fish products when sold through local markets can provide a ready source of money (cash) or even exchanged for other goods and services (as a result of the demand for fish as a protein source in rural communities).

Regarding Weaknesses, livelihoods based on river fisheries are prone to certain risks and uncertainties. First, the rivers in Nepal are subject to unpredictable and dangerous floods and associated landslides. Second, up until recently many fisheries were in remote parts of the basins, far from markets, and other services. Third, although so-called traditional indigenous fisheries management systems operated on certain rivers, there is evidence that the fishermen and fishing communities have had limited success in defending their ‘rights’ to certain fish resources or fisheries (in the face of outsiders moving in, and market demand increasing). Fourth, the so-called traditional fishermen and communities have received limited support from local or national government (according to the stakeholder workshop in the Middle Karnali).

In terms of Opportunities, there appears to be a wide range of options. First, based on lessons from elsewhere, if there was an improvement in fisheries governance in Nepal, the foundation for an improved set of livelihoods based on riverine fisheries would be established – a well-managed fishery could provide a sound basis for economic development, harvesting and selling fish, and this could be operated at community-level to start. Second, a well-managed fishery or fishery reserve, as part of a

27

Himalayan riverine landscape could offer tourism opportunities – in terms of home-stays, or guided tours – an integrated approach to fisheries and tourism. Third, tourism (and specifically ecotourism) probably offers one of the best alternative livelihoods for fishing communities who wish to remain within the rural riverine setting, as opposed to taking up employment in other sectors elsewhere. This could include river rafting, river guiding and angling on a seasonal basis. Tourism also offers new markets for fish and fish products.

Regarding Threats, there are a number of important issues which may limit the opportunities for livelihoods and alternative livelihoods connected with fisheries. First, the riverine fisheries are at risk from overexploitation and environmental changes, and unless they can be addressed then the opportunities for livelihood support are also put at risk. Second, the creation of opportunities for alternative livelihoods will require support and enabling processes, which could come from government or the private sector (e.g. finance, training, mentoring etc). But without this foundation and backup, the possibilities for development are limited. The increased level of infrastructure in Nepal, and especially roads and electricity supply, while representing a threat to the rivers and fisheries from one perspective, could also under the right circumstances, provide opportunities for rural fishing communities – greater connectivity and exchange of information and ideas, access to markets and services.

4.4.3. Knowledge and Information concerning Livelihoods

Nepal has a long experience of research and development concerning livelihoods and alternative livelihoods. Much of this has focused on rural farming communities and community forestry. There is little information on livelihoods, or related interventions, in fisheries, although fish farming has increasingly been identified as an option for rural development, investment and integration with farming systems, particularly in the Terai and mid-hills. Tourism is one area where fishing and fishing communities could be integrated and used as a basis for alternative livelihoods. There are some examples of fishing communities developing alternative livelihoods in this regard, including working as guides for anglers and in national parks, working for river rafting companies, and offering home-stay opportunities to tourists. However, it is unclear at this stage whether the alternative livelihood opportunities identified (above) can be realised, whether tourism (and eco-tourism) is one of them, and what are the pre-conditions involved (the enabling mechanisms).

4.4.4. Fishing Livelihoods and Tourism – Key Features and Issues

A range of perspectives on livelihoods connected with river fisheries in Nepal were provided by the stakeholder workshops in the Karnali Basin in particular, and complemented by the information provided from key interviews and secondary sources. Many of the findings have already been reported (above), and in this section, specific attention will be paid to the links between fishing livelihoods and tourism, especially eco-tourism.

In the Lower Karnali, the stakeholders emphasised that it is important for sustainable livelihoods to be underpinned by well-managed fisheries, in order to provide employment and income opportunities. It was also recognised that, since 2010, the level of tourism-related activity has increased, including river rafting, national park visits and home-stays), but that the extent to which fishing communities have benefitted is unclear. The stakeholders also indicated that in the future beneficial links could be created between fishing and aquaculture (e.g. using local fish for farming, sharing expertise, fishermen also undertaking fish farming), and also with tourism (e.g. home-stays in fishing

28

communities) to provide a basis for alternative livelihoods. Furthermore, tourism would create a larger and more diverse market for both farmed and wild fish.

In the Middle Karnali, the stakeholders made relatively few comments on the role of tourism, except that there would be increased opportunity for selling fish to the visitors coming to various locations (e.g. Khaptad, Ramaroshan, Dullu, Jumla and Rara).

In the Upper Karnali, there is a growing tourism industry, with the Rara Lake a well-recognised beauty spot. Rara Lake started becoming popular for ecotourism with the organization of Rara Festival in 2001, successful operation of air flights to Talcha Airport from 2003 and connection of the road to Rara/Gamgadi in 2012. In environmental terms, the region has some unique aquatic characteristics. For example, Rara Lake is home to three endemic species of Nepalese Snow Trout. Locally, the fish in Rara Lake have been described as a “jewel” - they are protected since fishing is banned. The Khatyad River and Humla Karnali in the west, and Sinja/Hema River and Tila Karnali River in the east/south, are the two major access corridors to Rara Lake, and are thought to contain productive fish stocks. The stakeholders believe that there is a real opportunity to link fish with ecotourism. In fact, in Rara, fish products are the integral part of tourism attraction. Along the Karnali River corridor, fish could be a part of gastronomy and sports (rafting and fishing) tourism. Other various livelihood options can be linked with fish and ecotourism including river grass handicrafts, production of and selling juices, commercialization of apple, high-altitude Marshy Rice and soybean. Once again, there is the possibility of more tourists providing an enhanced market for fish in the Rara area and along the Karnali River corridor in general.

Key features of tourism in the Karnali River Basin can be described using a standard tourism value chain. A tourist service flow map produced by the workshop participants in Upper Karnali workshop (Appendix 8.3) provides a brief overview of tourism value chain for the study areas. The tourism value chain in the Karnali River Basin also links to key chains relating to other tourism destinations such as promotion/marketing (outbound and inbound countries), travel/transport (outbound and inbound countries), accommodation/food, excursion/events, and shopping/entertainments. Nevertheless, key opportunities for value addition for products and activities for destination specific value chain lie within the excursions and events, though some site specific value can be added in remaining chains especially in transport, accommodation/food and shopping/entertainment.

The broader tourism value chain for Karnali River Basin is presented in Map 1 below. However, separate value chain mapping could also be developed for each sub-product/activity appeared under the excursions/events (Jungle Safari, Rafting/Fishing, Home-stay, Trekking, and Pilgrimage).

Key tourism forms/activities that are directly and indirectly associated with fish and the aquatic environment in the Karnali River Basin include the following:

Jungle safari and nature tourism: Bardia National Park (BNP) is the second largest safari destination after Chitwan NP. BNP is increasingly becoming a popular safari destination for high-end safari enthusiasts after the closure of seven safari lodges inside Chitwan National Park in 2010. Jeep drives, elephant safari, jungle walks, rafting, fishing (angling), jungle tented camp, boating, bird-watching,

29

Map 1. Tourism Value Chain Mapping for Karnali River Basin

Marketing & Promotion

Travel & Transportation

Accommodation & Food

Excursions/ Events Shopping & Entertainments

Travel/Tour Operators & Marketing Agents (at Karnali, Kathmandu and abroad)

Airlines Operators & Inland Transport Operators (Local, regional, national, international-Indian)

Souvenir Shops, Super Markets

Jungle Safari Rafting Fishing (Angling) Homestay-Experience Trekking Pilgrimage

Hotel & Restaurant operators (Hotel, Lodges, Homestays, campsites, teahouse, Restaurants)

Inbound and outbound

advertising supply chain (web,

information, PR media etc.)

Transport sector supply chain

(airlines/vehicle manufactures,

workshops/repairs, training

institutions, financing etc.)

Agri--business and service supply chain (fishes, milks, organic

vegetables, clean water, power

supply, laundry, HR etc.)

Supply chains of various sub-products (jeep/elephant safari

operators, rafting/fishing

operators, equipment suppliers, tour guides, information suppliers)

Handicrafts and other souvenir supply chain

(handicrafts, dry fish, dry apple,

juices etc.)

Maj

or V

alue

C

hain

s

Supp

liers

/ M

arke

t A

ctor

s R

elat

ed S

uppl

y C

hain

s

30

village tours and home-stay experiences are the key tourist activities. The rivers, wetlands and swampy areas are the key components of the safari and nature based tourism in BNP as it provides habitat and food/water for aquatic species such as fish and other terrestrial species such as Tiger, Rhino, Deer, Elephants and birds. In FY 2073/074, Bardia NP received a total 17,959 visitors with 11,609 domestic visitors (64.64%), 523 SAARC nationals (2.91%) and 5,827 other international visitors (32.45%). About 90% visitors are thought to have participated in the key safari activities.

Hoteliers and tour operators offer half day to 5-day long safari packages to the visitors in BNP. Key safari sites in BNP include BNP headquarters (crocodile breeding centre), Elephant breeding centre, Lalmati and Manaughat area, Chisapani, Chepang, Babai valley, and Dalla home-stay. Bird watching enthusiasts also visit Badhaiya Tal in Bardia and Ghodaghodi Tal in Kailali.

Based on the revenue generated by BNP through jeep drives in FY 2073/74, it is obvious that at least 1,503 jeeps obtained permits from BNP and offered Jungle Drive packages to at least 12,029 visitors (1 jeep = 8 visitors). Likewise, at least 717 third country visitors, 93 SAARC nationals and 2,274 domestic visitors took elephant rides (for 1 hour) in BNP.

Currently, about 150 trained and licensed nature tour guides (with 15 to 20 women nature tour guides) are actively offering nature tour guide services including jungle safari and other special interest eco-tourism activities, though the trained guides number about 300. About 30 tourist hotels and about 20 small restaurants and tea shops offer accommodation and food services to the visitors in BNP.

Shuklaphanta National Park, located on the banks of Mahakali River, and Banke National Park are other safari destinations in the region. In FY 2073/074, SNP received a total of 2,460 visitors with 2,373 domestic, 130 SAARC nationals and 137 other international visitors (Annual Progress Report, SNP 2017). The number of visitors in Banke NP is still negligible in number.

Rafting and Boating: The Karnali River is one of the longest, virgin, rafting destinations in Nepal. Though there is a dearth of tourist records, about 400 to 500 rafting visitors are estimated to have recently undertaken rafting in various rivers in the Karnali River Basin ranging from short (4 days) to longer days rafting (up to 13 days) (Field workshops and interviews, 2018).

Bardia NP, Babai Valley, and the Geruwa branch of the Karnali River are three major rafting destinations. Based on the revenue generated through rafting in BNP (in FY 2073/074), it is obvious that at least 238 third country international visitors, 164 domestic visitors and 6 visitors from SAARC nations enjoyed rafting in BNP. Babai Valley is the best site for rafting in BNP and rafting in Babai valley is often combined with angling (fishing).

The best rafting and fishing rivers in the region include the following:

i. Babai Valley Rafting: Starting at Chepand and ending at Babai Dam ii. Bheri River Rafting and Fishing: Starting at Dolpa and ending at Karnali iii. Karnali River Rafting/Fishing: Starting at Lower Dungeshwor and ending at Chisapani; the

longest one with 14 days package. iv. Seti Karnali River Rafting/Fishing: 172 km long rafting.

Some visitors also enjoy boating in the Geruwa and main branch of the Karnali.

Currently about five licensed river guides and about 40 locally trained river guides offer rafting and boating services to domestic and Indian visitors locally in the BNP and Karnali River Basin. Paddle

31

Nepal, Ultimate Descends and Himalayan Encounters are the major rafting companies operating rafting and fishing for international visitors in the BNP and the Karnali River Basin.

Most of the rafting agencies currently offering rafting services in Karnali River bring their crew members from Kathmandu. Some local rafting agencies have now started employing locally trained rafting guides from the Sonaha, Raji and Magar communities.

Angling (Fishing): Babai Valley is the best site for fishing (angling) in BNP. Golden Mahaseer, Silver Mahasheer, Trout and Common Carp can be fished in the Babai Valley. The revenue generated through fishing in BNP (in FY 2073/074), revealed that at least 127 third country international visitors, 98 some domestic visitors and 2 visitors from SAARC nations fished in the BNP.

Other fishing (angling) sites in the Karnali River basin include Karnali, Bheri, Thuli Bheri and West Seti.

Home-stays: Formally started in 2010, home-stay is the latest, and an inclusive form of tourism activity in Nepal, aimed at enhancing the livelihoods of the rural poor and marginalized communities, while offering authentic cultural experiences to visitors. Home-stay could possibly be one of the best alternative livelihood options for the fishing communities in the Karnali River basin. A study carried out by GIZ19 in 2017 reveals that at least 6 formally registered community home-stays are currently operational in the Mid and Far Western Terai Region (Bardia, Banke, Kailali. Kanchanpur, Surkhet districts) of Nepal offering at least 221 tourist beds. The report also suggests that at least 6 community home-stays are in the process of seeking registration, including Raji Home-stay at the western bank of Bheri River in Surkhet. The report reveals that 57% of home-stays are registered under female members of the home-stay households and the majority of the members operating home-stays are just literate (41.83%). In the study areas, 44% of the home-stays units were found to be within existing houses. On average, each home-stay was found to be investing NPR 107,422 on home-stay infrastructure.

Accommodation and food components were found to be the largest and most significant functions of the home-stay, in terms of visitor consumption and the benefits accrued to the community members. Fish was found to be the common food offered to the visitors by the home-stay operators. The average annual income of each home-stay was found to be NPR 70,966 - contributing 20.42% of total annual household income (GIZ, 2018).

Trekking: The Karnali River basin also comprises of a significant and virgin section of the Greater Himalaya Trail (GHT). Though visited by only small numbers of international and domestic visitors, Khaptad - Rara Jumla Trekking trail, Rara-Jumla-Dolpa Trekking trail, and Rara-Humla Mansarobar Trekking trail represent some of the most promising trekking trails, with high potential for visitors, in the Karnali River basin. A short trek (4 to 5 days) is also offered by tour guides and hoteliers in the Churia areas of BNP.

The Trekking segment employs the largest number of workers and local products after mountaineering. Visitors in this segment will be hugely involved in fish and fishery related activities in and along the Karnali River basin. About 10 professional licensed trekking guides are available in Thakurdwara.

19

Sedai R C (2018): Assessment of Community Based Home-stays in the Mid and Far Western Terai Region of Nepal: Analysis of Current Situation and Recommendation of Upgrading Solutions; Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Kathmandu Office, Nepal.

32

Pilgrimage: The important pilgrimage and religious sites for Hindu and Buddhist pilgrimages located in the Karnali River Basin are Thakurdwara, Kakre Bihara (Surkhet), Deuti Bajai (Surkhet), Dullu Pancha Koshi Than, Manma Pancha Deval (Kalikot), Tripurasundhari Temple (Sinja), Chandannath Temple (Jumla), Chhayanath Temple (Mugu), Karpunath Temple (Humla), Raling Gompa and Halji Gompa (Humla). However, these sites are yet to be promoted in the domestic and international market, including India.

However, about 10,000 to 15,000 Indian pilgrims visit Kailash Mansarobar every year (during June to September) via Nepalgunj-Humla and Hilsa route. Currently Nepalgunj and Humla are receiving the benefits of this pilgrimage. Upon the completion of the Karnali-Humla Road corridor, thousands of Indian and Nepalese pilgrims may visit Surkhet Kakre Vihara, Dullu Pancha Deval, Sinja, Rara, Kharpunath and other sites in Nepal before entering into Tibet, China for Kailash Mansarobar Darshan.

Only a very small portion of this segment may be interested in fish and water related activities.

Table 2. Revenue generated through tourism related fees in Bardia NP (FY 2073/074 BS)

Particulars/Activities Revenue Generated in NRs (Excluding VAT)

Foreigners SAARC Nationals Domestic National Park Entry 5827000 261500 580450 Jeep Drive Fee 3308000 Rafting 476000 6000 16400 Fishing 254000 2000 9800 Camping 424000 12500 92100 Boating 2000 Elephant Safari 1792500 139500 1137000 Elephant for Children 8750 9750 57500 Source: Annual Progress Report, Bardia NP (2017)

4.4.5. Policy and Governance Frameworks

Tourism is an important part of Nepal’s economy and it is set to expand further.

Ecotourism is a growing dimension and offers opportunities for linking to rural economies and communities in Nepal, both directly (e.g. home-stays) and indirectly (e.g. market for local products and services).

Tourism being a multi-sectoral and multi-services industry is governed and supported by various sectoral and cross-sectoral policies and legal frameworks. Tourism Act 2035 BS, Tourism Policy 2009 and relevant regulations and procedures (on trekking, rafting, mountaineering, hotels/lodges and home-stays) are the major policy documents governing the operation of tourism businesses in Nepal. Tourism Policy (2009) has identified the tourism sector as an important vehicle for economic and social development and has emphasized the expansion of tourism activities into the relatively undiscovered, remote, destinations, and promotion of eco-tourism and rural tourism. Home-stay Operating Procedure 2010 is intended to encourage and support the rural poor and marginalized communities to establish and operate home-stays by utilizing their rich culture and natural surroundings.

33

The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (1973) has made a clear provision for the operation of eco-tourism businesses in the protected areas. Buffer Zone Management Regulation 1996 has empowered, through skill development, community infrastructure and conservation education supports, the residents of buffer zone area to operate green enterprises, including eco-tourism. As per the Buffer Zone Management Regulation, up to 30 to 50% of total revenue of the protected area is provided to the respective buffer zone.

The Forest Policy (2015) has provided room for the operation of eco-tourism in the national forest (including community forest areas) and protected areas. National Wetland Policy (2012), National Biodiversity Strategy & Action Plan (2014), Forestry Sector Strategy (2016-25) have also emphasized the promotion of ecotourism as a sustainable economic tool for biodiversity conservation and local livelihood enhancement.

The prime objective of promoting ecotourism by PA is to engage and motivate local communities, through tourism benefits, in the stewardship and conservation of biodiversity and natural landscapes. DNPWC has defined a common governance setting (policy, legal and implementation framework) for all protected areas and separate regulations for each protected area.

Table 3. Fees designated for various tourist activities in Bardia National Park (2018)

Particulars/Activities Unit Rate

Foreigners SAARC Nationals

Domestic

National Park Entry Fee person per day 1000 + VAT 500+VAT 50+VAT Jeep Safari per jeep 2200 + VAT 1000+VAT 100+VAT Rafting Fee person per trip 2000+VAT 1000+VAT 100+VAT Fishing Fee person per day 2000+VAT 1000+VAT 100+VAT Camping Fee person per night 1000+VAT 500+VAT 100+VAT Liasion Officer (for nigh stay)

person per group 1200 1200 1200

Elephant Safari person per hour 2500 +VAT 1500+VAT 500+VAT Source: Bardia NP and Interview with Tour Guides (2018)

Is there a policy to promote Western Nepal and ecotourism?

The Government of Nepal in its National Tourism Strategic Plan (2016-2025) has identified two (out of six) Tourism Development Areas (TDAs) in the western region focusing on the tourism potential of relatively undeveloped areas (NTSP, MoCTCA 2016). The selected TDAs include the following:

TDA-1: Greater Pokhara- Western region TDA-2: Greater Lumbini– South-Western region TDA-3: Kailali and Surroundings- Far West region (Lower Karnali ) TDA-4: Illam and Surroundings- Eastern region TDA-5: Karnali Region- Mid-Western region (Rara being the epicenter) TDA-6: Central Region NTSP has given a high priority to the community-based styles of tourism and improving tourist attractions in protected areas of both the TDAs selected in the Mid and Far western regions. The overarching objective for Kailali and Surroundings as a TDA is to kick-start sustained tourism growth

34

by optimum utilization of the protected areas and creating water-based tourism activities on the Karnali river (NTSP, MoCTCA, 2016).

Recently, the Provincial Government of Karnali Province (Province #6) has declared “Visit Rara and Karnali Year 2075 BS” and has initiated various promotional activities accordingly.

As part of the Visioning Exercise in the Upper Karnali, it was suggested that

“Rara National Park would be able to constitute and enforce adequate eco-tourism and conservation friendly policy and regulations” (Appendix 8.3).

4.4.6. Current and Future Trends and Vision

Western Nepal is still a virgin and highly promising tourism destination. Existence of still virgin rivers for white water rafting and fishing, improved access to Rara and other popular mountain trekking destinations, including Dolpa, Mugu and Humla, increasing popularity of Bardia National Park over the Chitwan National Park, as a pristine safari destination, and increasing demand for pilgrimage visits to Kailash Mansarobar by Indian and Nepalese visitors, have made Western Nepal more competitive and promising than other destinations in Nepal. Though the tourism industry in Western Nepal shows a very low performance at the moment, it is anticipated that positive growth can be expected in the very near future, particularly for premier wildlife safaris, white water rafting/fishing, travel/trekking and pilgrimages.

In 2017, Nepal received 940,218 international visitors. However, details on visitor arrivals in 2017 are yet to be published. In 2016, the country received 753,002 international visitors with average length of stay of 13.4 days and an average per day expenditure of USD 53 (Nepal Tourism Statistics 2016 and 2017, MoCTCA). According to the Nepal Tourism Statistics (NTS 2016), the highest proportion of visitors came to Nepal for Holidays and Pleasure - accounting for about 65% followed by Pilgrimage (11%), Trekking and Mountaineering (8.83%), Business (3.23%), Official visits (2.83%) and Convention/Conference (1.7%). About 7.41% visitors came for miscellaneous purposes (NTS 2016, MoCTCA).

Mid and Far West Nepal receive about 6% of the total international tourists visiting Nepal. Bardia National Park, located in the Lower Karnali basin is the first-ranked and the largest destination in the Karnali River Basin, whilst Humla (located at the Upper Karnali basin) is the second largest destination by visitor numbers. Other tourist destinations include Rara, Jumla, Dolpa, Surkhet, and Banke National Park.

In FY 2073/074, Bardia NP received a total of 17,959 visitors. Amongst the tourist destinations located in the Karnali River basin, Humla receives the largest number of international visitors accounting for about 10,106 (FY 2072/73 BS). Of this, about 90% visitors come from India to visit the Kailash Mansarobar in Tibet, China. Rara National Park received only 132 international visitors whereas Khaptad NP received 21 visitors in FY 202/073 (NTS 2016, MoCTCA). In the same year, Lower Dolpa and Upper Dolpa received 1,023 and 531 international visitors respectively. Though there is a lack of formal records, Rara National Park is estimated to have the largest number of domestic visitors, accounting for about 30,000 visitors per year.

A majority of the tourist visiting Bardia NP come to enjoy wildlife safari and other ecotourism activities, including rafting, fishing, boating, jungle walking and village walking. In FY 2072/073 Badia NP received 7,244 domestic visitors, 325 SAARC nationals and 3,069 other international

35

visitors. Tourists from 51 countries, including nationals from three SAARC countries (India, Bangladesh and Pakistan), visited Bardia NP in FY 2072/073. The Top 10 major international markets for Bardia NP for 2072/073 include France (658), UK (479), USA (456), Germany (267), Australia (133), Hungary (103), Denmark (101), Netherlands (86), Switzerland (95) and Japan (69) (Annual Progress Report, BNP 2016).

There is no doubt that communities living within the River Karnali Basin are experiencing increasing levels of change, with potentially important impacts on their livelihoods in the future.

First, as highlighted earlier, the deleterious impact of both overexploitation and widespread environmental changes to the river fisheries and the river systems is almost certainly reducing the opportunities for maintaining and building sustainable livelihoods based on fishing alone. At the present time, with no fisheries policy or fisheries management system in place, and with no apparent recognition or accommodation (or mitigation) of river fisheries within major programmes and activities (e.g. dams and gravel mining), the future prospects do not look encouraging.

Second, on the other hand, both aquaculture and tourism are growing in Nepal (while fishing is probably on the decline). There was widespread agreement amongst stakeholders that both of these sectors offer real and potential future opportunities for developing alternative livelihoods. At the present time, some communities have already engaged in fish farming, as well as supplying wild fish to hotels and restaurants catering to tourists. A number of community members are also involved in tourism activities (e.g. river rafting and angling). However, at this stage, it is unclear as to what are the actual or potential numbers of persons or livelihoods supported through these various activities, either directly, or indirectly.

Third, the ‘visioning exercises’ conducted in each basin helped to crystallize some of these ideas and options concerning alternative livelihoods and links to tourism and eco-tourism. In particular, for the Upper Karnali, it is envisaged that

“International and domestic visitor's number to visit Rara area would have been increasing significantly and the economic, social and educational conditions of locals would have been changing

6954 7517 7791 7244

11609

286 321 331 325 523

5734 5369 5426 3069

5827

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

2069/070 2070/071 2071/072 2072/073 2073/074

Fig. 1. Visitor Flow in Bardia NP for last five Fiscal Years (2069/70 to 2073/74 BS)

Domestic SAARC Other Foreigners

36

positively. Fishery would be well managed in Khatyad stream and visitors would be able to enjoying it (eating fish)”. (Appendix 8.3.)

Further details of the ‘vision’ from the Upper Karnali Workshop are shown in Box 11.

Box 11. Upper Karnali - Vision – Tourism over next 10 years

(Appendix 8.3.)

Higher levels of both domestic (1 million) and international tourists (50,000) Increased total receipts (16.5 billion NR) Direct employment in eco-tourism jobs (total of 15,000) Eco-tourism-based enterprises e.g. Nature tour guiding and sight-seeing,

operation of cultural home-stays, nature walks, pony trekking/horse riding, lake boating, commercial fish farming (using water from Khatyad river/stream), operation of a cultural museum, operation of a cable car, operation of paragliding and operation of electric vehicles.

Major eco-tourism infrastructures envisioned included: Visitor Information Center (one at Khatyad River and one near Talcha Airport), Home stays, resorts/hotels in selected sites and Gamgadi, cable car (Murma-Rara-Chuchemara), view towers, circular walking trails, circular biking and electric vehicle road, drainage along the road/trail, cultural museum at Murma village, golf court, resting points, medical centre near Talcha airport, public toilets, and beautification/upgrading Hulaya cave in Khatyad.

Fourth, the realisation of the vision highlighted above would clearly require a dedicated policy and finance. The financing arrangements, as for any sector, would probably consist of a mixture of public and private funds. Public funds are usually targeted at infrastructure and public services (health, education and utilities – electricity, water supply and others). Private funding in near-market activities, under business arrangements through private firms, could be attracted to invest in profitable enterprises.

Fifth, it should be recognised that the development of alternative livelihoods (as an alternative option or as a complementary set of activities to an existing livelihood strategy based on an occupation such as fishing) tend to emerge as part of the dynamic economic development process within many economies. The role of government is not to create alternative livelihoods directly, but rather to facilitate and enable their emergence. This will involve creating the right setting for economic growth and development, through appropriate policy, laws and institutions (governance), sharing the investment responsibility with the private sector (above), and adopting a pro-active approach to economic transformation, for example, by providing appropriate capacity-building to selected stakeholders (to enable them to identify, plan and take up opportunities).

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In this penultimate section, the main findings will be discussed and a set of conclusions presented.

The three hypotheses which underpin under the current study, as outlined in the TOR (Box 12, and Appendix 1), are used to structure the discussion, while also considering the potential contribution of fisheries to sustainable development in Nepal and the main factors involved.

37

Box 12. Study Hypotheses

[A] that river fisheries and biodiversity are threatened by overexploitation, driven by increased fishing overcapacity (too many fishers) and increased fishing effort; [B] that river fisheries have the potential to contribute further to local and national economies, and that a better understanding and interventions in the value chain and markets might help to enable this; [C] that appropriate alternative livelihood options (within and outside fisheries), including eco-tourism, could contribute to a reduction of fishing pressure and an increase in sustainable outcomes (biodiversity, economic and social).

[A] that river fisheries and biodiversity are threatened by overexploitation, driven by increased fishing overcapacity (too many fishers) and increased fishing effort;

Fish stocks, whether in riverine or marine environments, represent a form of natural capital, which can be exploited to generate a range of economic, social and environmental benefits. Under appropriate management, most fisheries can be exploited sustainably, the benefits increased over time, and shared between stakeholders, to contribute to economic growth, livelihoods, poverty reduction and food security.

Recent estimates give a total fish production of 77,000 mt, of which 55,500 mt from aquaculture, 21,500 mt from capture fisheries. Of the 55,500 mt aquaculture, 48,543 mt from pond fish culture - 47,310 mt Terai, 1,205 mt hill regions, 28 mt mountain regions (Ministry of Agricultural Development. 2017. Statistical Information on Nepalese Agriculture, 2072/73, 2015/16) (Box 6). Using these data, total fish production in Nepal could be valued as high as USD 77 million. It should also be noted that wild fish production has declined significantly. It is also estimated that up to half a million people rely on fisheries for their livelihoods (employment and income). Fish also contributes to nutrition at local and national levels.

The results of the current study – based on a series of stakeholder workshops in the River Karnali Basin along with key interviews and secondary data/information – have confirmed that the river fisheries have been subject to increasing and high levels of exploitation since 1960. Along with a general increase in the numbers of fishermen, modern nylon fishing nets, which are cheap and readily available, have penetrated all parts of the river system. The development of infrastructure (roads and bridges) has also made fishing areas accessible and opened up new markets in towns and cities at greater distances, which has incentivised fishing activity and investment.

More worrying for the future of the fish stocks is the increasing use of so-called ‘destructive fishing methods’ including poisons, stone-blasting and electric fishing. Our study has also confirmed that Nepal has a weak fisheries governance framework – there is no national fisheries policy, there are some laws on fish conservation, and there is an absence of effective fisheries management systems (compared to international norms). There is no doubt, as in many other parts of the world, that fisheries overexploitation is a symptom of weak fisheries governance. Unless this is addressed and corrected, while there is still time, Nepal will not realise the full benefits which could be generated by the exploitation (and farming) of its fish resources on a sustainable basis into the future.

38

However, the results of the current study also reveal that the intensity of fishing under the prevailing free and open access conditions is just one part of the problem. Perhaps, more importantly, the riverine environment and ecosystem, which support the fish stocks, are under huge threat from massive environmental disturbance and change. The participants at the stakeholder workshops emphasised that man-made interventions, such as dam construction, irrigation schemes and gravel mining, were changing stream flows, altering habits and affecting water quality. The rapid changes and interventions in the riverine environments, directed by government and the private sector, over the past 50 years, appear to have taken no account of the likely impact on fish resources and fisheries, and no account of the potential valuable benefits foregone, in terms of livelihoods, incomes, food security and contributions to economic growth.

In conclusion, therefore, the current study has found that the river fisheries and biodiversity are threatened by overexploitation, as a result of fishing overcapacity (too many fishers) and increased fishing effort, including the use of destructive fishing methods. This outcome is a symptom of the weak fisheries governance regime in place, as in many other countries. However, this only partly accounts for the perilous status of Nepal’s river fisheries and biodiversity. The impact of recent and widespread development interventions – dams, irrigation schemes and gravel mining – has dramatically changed the riverine environment and continues to do so – with serious and deleterious implications for the long-term viability of fish stocks and other aquatic organisms. Unless, future plans and schemes take account of the potential impact on fisheries, and the high risk to associated benefits (economic, social and environmental), the options for corrective action may be very limited.

[B] that river fisheries have the potential to contribute further to local and national economies, and that a better understanding of, and interventions in the value chain and markets might help to enable this;

The current study has shown riverine fish and fish products are traded throughout Nepal, and that value chains, taking different forms, made up of a variety of stakeholders, are well-established and successful, in terms of generating profits and realising value from the exploited fish stocks.

The value chains operate for both native and farmed fish, although separated and well-defined in some cases. The fish products include fresh (live and preserved) and processed products (e.g. dried fish).

There is limited information available on fish value chains in Nepal, and the current study used both primary and secondary information and data derived from a number of sources (workshops, interviews, available literature). In particular, the fisheries and fish value chains associated with the River Karnali were used as a focus and case-study, along with information gathered about fish market and trade in and around Kathmandu, and along the routes between Kathmandu and the West and the southern border with India.

On the whole, the fish value chains examined tended to focus on local markets, with limited external trade, mainly because distances are far and transportation costs high – there are limited opportunities for profit – except for some types of dried fish – which can be transported at distance and for high prices.

A further constraint is the variable supply of wild fish, which limits the opportunity to build up a critical supply volume and consistent consignment schedule. Although riverine fish catches are subject to natural variability and seasonal effects due changing water flows, the impact of weak (or no

39

management) and massive man-made environmental disruption also limits a consistent supply of fish on which to build an active value chain for the actors involved.

On the whole, most of the fish value chains studied were made up of relatively few actors (4 or 5). Fishermen sold fish to middlemen, who sold to hotels/restaurants and market vendors/shops, and the fish was then purchased by consumers (both fresh and dried). The Middlemen and the Hotels and Restaurants were prominent and in controlling positions, and appear to be able to adapt to changing conditions, such as the availability of fish supply. Margins, gross income and value realisation were relatively high for the hotels and restaurants in particular. Fishermen also appeared to do well in many places (proportion of the value retained).

There is a general consensus among many stakeholders that demand for fish is growing, both locally, and particularly in urban and heavily populated rural areas (in the east and south of Nepal), often far away from supplies of native river fish. However, it appears that fish prices are also rising, and this may create an opportunity to extend the value chain (incentivised by potential profit and greater margins).

Fish value chains associated with fish farming appear to be well-developed, and more elaborate than those based on wild fish supplies, especially in the Lower Karnali. Fish farms can provide a steady and predictable supply of fish, produced to a certain size and standard. Fish farms and their value chains are also supported by a wide range of service and suppliers – which is not the case for many fishermen or fishing communities.

Overall, though, wild fish (unprocessed) tends to command a higher price than farmed fish in both rural and urban markets (many consumers appear to have a preference for wild fish, in terms of local culture and the perception of quality). Fish from Nepal also tends to be more expensive than imports of farmed fish from India. At the same time, fresh and preserved fish is less expensive than meat and chicken.

There is a growing differentiation of fish products, outlets and market segments in Nepal. But overall, wild fish is preferred to farmed fish. Certain traditional products, especially dried fish, also command high prices. There is also a growing tourist market for fish, but the tourists tend to interface with the local value chains (and compete with locals for fish driving up prices in some locations). There is relatively low level of development of Nepalese fish products for the high-end tourist market, largely due to supply constraints and quality issues, although the exception appears to be farmed trout to Kathmandu Hotels (where local entrepreneurs have identified a good market opportunity, and have acquired the technical and management expertise to produce farmed trout).

In conclusion, therefore, fish resources and fisheries in Nepal could make an important contribution to both the local and national economy. The current value of fish production (wild and farmed) is estimated at USD 77 million (first sale, gross financial value). Further added value could be created along the value chain supplying a variety of existing and emerging markets and demand. The current key actors – middle-men and hotels/restaurants – appear to be effective and adaptable (making profits), and there is a wide range of service and supply inputs – which is illustrated by the more elaborate fish farm value chain. None of these elements appear to constraint the current operation of the fish value chain, and there is a strong impression of unrealised potential which could be rolled out. The major constraint is the supply of wild fish – which is probably declining and highly variable – due to the factors discussed above (governance and environmental change). Unfortunately, the high demand for wild fish is also incentivising overfishing. Farmed fish production and value chains

40

appear to be performing better, but it is unclear whether they have the potential to generate the level of value or wealth that could come from wild fisheries (or substitute for wild fish). Fish farming, as a sector, has its own specific challenges, and the development of this sector in Nepal will have to pay close attention to emerging issues (e.g. price changes in relation to increased supply, production costs affected by feed costs, management challenges with scaling up, and fish product quality control). Therefore, there is an important sequencing issue to be addressed urgently – first, improve fisheries management (to stabilise and sustain supply), and consider the challenges faced by scaled-up aquaculture, then, second, enable the supply chain (through services/input supplies) to access existing markets, and develop new ones, in order to increase value and wealth generation on a sustainable basis.

[C] - that appropriate alternative livelihood options (within and outside fisheries), including eco-tourism, could contribute to a reduction of fishing pressure and an increase in sustainable outcomes (biodiversity, economic and social).

The study revealed that there is a great deal of interest in what is termed an “alternative livelihoods approach” to help fishermen and fishing communities in Nepal, and also for rural communities in general. Nepal is not the first country to explore this option, and there are many lessons which can be derived from the experience of others.

In this context, the emergence and growth of tourism in Nepal has raised expectations about what might be achieved. Nepal has a developed a very successful tourist industry in recent years, and visitors will soon reach one million per year. The majority of tourists are attracted by the high mountains and the associated spectacular scenery in the East of Nepal. Fewer tourists travel to the West of Nepal, to areas such as the River Karnali Basin, and certainly only limited numbers of international tourists.

At the same time, the results of the workshops in the River Karnali (Lower, Middle and Upper) have revealed that there has been an increase in tourist numbers in the past 10 years. The tourists include Nepalese, Indian and international visitors from further away. However, the majority are in the first two categories.

Tourists come to the Karnali Basin for many reasons and through a number of routes. There are pilgrims (to monasteries and Mount Kailash), holiday-makers who visit the national parks and stay in modern hotels, and people who are interested in eco-tourism, culture and natural pursuits (walking, angling, rafting) and who enjoy home-stays and small hotels in local communities.

Unfortunately, at present, there are no data or assessments on the impact of this increased tourism activity - the stakeholder workshops also confirmed this.

The workshops and key interviews, in particular, indicated that many stakeholders – from government officials, to business people, to fishermen and fishing communities – were optimistic about the future role and contribution of tourism, and its ability to form the basis of alternative livelihoods.

There was also a sense of realism amongst the stakeholders – who recognised that tourism and eco-tourism could probably in the short term offer a route to livelihood diversification. Tourism activities could be integrated and linked to other exiting activities – as a way of bolstering incomes and reducing risk. So, therefore, tourism might be linked to fishing and fish farming activities e.g. fishermen could act as walking guides or angling guides. Those with education might obtain jobs in

41

hotels and the national parks. And certainly an increase in tourism would expand the market for local fish, leading to increased incomes (potentially).

It was also recognised by stakeholders, across the board, that to capitalise on tourism and to generate alternative livelihoods requires support and capacity-building. The potential impact of tourism in the Upper Karnali (Rara Lake) appears to be significant, but it will require careful planning and coordination by local government, policy development, financing and capacity-building.

Furthermore, government cannot create alternative livelihoods, it can only help to enable a process by which individuals and communities identify opportunities and develop the ideas themselves (a key lesson from other countries is the importance of enabling frameworks e.g. institutions, education, coupled with ownership, to foster entrepreneurial activity, and new activities and businesses).

In conclusion, therefore, the results of our study, and especially the stakeholder workshops, indicate that the potential offered by alternative livelihood options for fishermen and fishing communities, especially through tourism, is both understood and welcomed. However, at present, there is no evidence to suggest that the increase in tourism activities is drawing labour out of fisheries and reducing fishing activity. In fact, many persons view tourism as a way to enhance existing livelihoods – fishing and tourism will be integrated – and more tourists mean a larger market (further incentive to fish). Once again, there is no way of avoiding the inevitable conclusion – riverine fisheries in Nepal must be subject to improved management. An alternative livelihoods approach is not a viable alternative at present, but it has a place in contributing to a diversified approach to economic development which could include well-managed fisheries and well-managed tourism enterprises.

Future Opportunities

Finally, it can also be concluded that, despite the serious threats to Nepal’s fish resources and fisheries identified in this report, there are also a number of opportunities, or entry-points, which might be considered in order to help formulate fisheries policy in the future, as follows:

[1] Adapting international fisheries best practice for Nepal

There is a growing global knowledge and expertise concerning fisheries management and fisheries governance – forming the basis of international best practice for both marine and inland fisheries20, 21. Much of this could be taken up and adapted in the future for Nepal’s fisheries, including strategies for identifying and utilising ‘fisheries champions’ within the political process.

[2] Lessons from Nepal’s forestry sector reforms

The idea of capitalising on ‘best practice’ experiences to address the key issue of open access (weak governance) in Nepal’s fisheries could also consider experiences closer to home and with reference to other natural resource sectors. The development of sustainable natural resource governance enabling mechanisms for the forest resource sector in Nepal has been particularly successful, in terms of frameworks and laws that deal with conservation and sustainable uses of public goods traditionally utilized by local communities.

20 A set of 14 Policy Briefs on ‘Good management practice in sustainable fisheries’ which outline key principles and lessons are available from the World Bank (relevant to both marine and freshwater fisheries) http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/898841468153270025/pdf/832230BRI0KeyC00Box379886B00PUBLIC0.pdf 21 FAO provides a wide range of knowledge products on inland fisheries management http://www.fao.org/fishery/capture/inland/publications/en

42

[3] Harnessing domestic demand for fish

The growing market for fish in Nepal, especially in urban areas, could help to underpin a profitable fishing and aquaculture sector in the future, yielding sustainable benefits for stakeholders at all levels (local and national). The further expansion of the tourism sector could also contribute to the demand for fish – ranging from high-end luxury hotels to local level home-stays within communities – with their own specific requirements in terms of fish products and prices, opening up opportunities to develop new niche markets and value chains.

[4] Developing specialised Nepalese fish products for the international market

Following on from the issues concerning the domestic market (above), there is also potential to develop specialised Nepalese high-value fish products (e.g. an “organic Himalayan rainbow trout” brand) for the international market, which could be exported using air-freight services as opposed to increasingly costly land/sea shipments (a factor likely to continue to impact on regional trade in the future22). The possibility of developing international trade in specialised Nepalese high-value fish products could be explored through a business case approach.

[5] General policy support for fisheries entrepreneurs

In recognising that there are a number of potential business opportunities and entry points in Nepal’s fisheries sector (e.g. high market demand for fish, potential for specialised fish products), government could consider ways to enable and support entrepreneurs through relevant policy interventions. There are two important areas to consider as follows: [a] policy to help business in general; [b] policy to enable business in the fisheries sector. However, government should be cautious in getting directly involved in near-market activities (e.g. providing free or subsidised inputs, such as fuel or ice or feeds, or the provision of commercial facilities, such as cold storage or processing plants). This is normally the role of the private sector (businesses or firms) - making investments in response to business opportunities and incentives (to realise a profit and an acceptable return on capital).

[6] Public-private partnership for fisheries development

A number of countries have invested in long-term innovation programmes to foster the economic potential of primary industries, including fisheries23. These can be structured as a partnership between government and industry to encourage entrepreneurs, develop and test new ideas, and channel investment (through a business case approach) to increase market success. The specific areas of activity and support can include - education and skills development, research and development, product development, commercial development, and technology transfer.

[7] Enhancing existing fish value chains

The existing fish value chains, especially those associated with the River Karnali Basin, are relatively short, uncomplicated and local, and appear to be profitable (dried wild fish especially). Opportunities to enhance fish value chains are likely to come through [a] product differentiate (targeting new markets e.g. trout and other dried fish for growing urban and tourist markets) and through [b] cost reductions (e.g. through improved fisheries management stabilizing fish supply, through decisions to

22 Overview of trade facilitation issues by the ADB https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/linked-documents/44143-01-nep-oth.pdf 23 For an example, see the Primary Growth Partnership in New Zealand, which includes fisheries https://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-and-programmes/primary-growth-partnership/overview/

43

use new roads and new technologies such as modern fish and hygienic fish drying machines). These types of innovations and business decisions can be enabled by new government policy (above).

[8] Creating synergies (fisheries, aquaculture and agriculture)

The options for linking and integrating fisheries and aquaculture, and with agriculture, should be examined. The creation of appropriate synergies could lead to cost savings, revenue increases and increased profitability. This appears to be happening in the value chain already in Nepal, based on the preliminary empirical analysis undertaken within the Karnali Basin by the current study.

[9] Using local finance

The existence of finance at a local level (from foreign remittances) could open up opportunities to invest in pilot fishery and aquaculture, and fish trade activities. In many countries, a lack of finance is a major constraint. Government and NGO could help to build related capacity and mentoring services in business development and management, innovation and entrepreneurship.

[10] Fostering cross-sectoral links for national sustainable development

The possibility of creating positive links between fisheries and other sectors (e.g. hydropower, tourism) based on a clear assessment and understanding of synergies and integration, accommodation and mitigation (rather than conflict), at all scales, with reference to national development outcomes, should be considered. Understanding ‘What is at stake?’ in terms of potential fisheries wealth from Nepal’s fish resources, and the potential for livelihood diversification and enhancement, is a key starting point, as highlighted in the next section.

[11] Champions for Change

A number of ‘stakeholders’ emerged as potential champions (based on the net-mapping exercises – the identification and assessment of the relative power and interest of specific actors). First, the Ministry of Agriculture (Fisheries Department) recognised the need to address fisheries management in general. Second, within the tourism sector, some private companies were keen to promote better environmental conditions in the future, including angling and rafting business, although these are relatively few in number. Third, within the value chain, the hotels and restaurants were considered to be very influential (positively) by many stakeholders. Fourth, the Local Government (Municipality) were also considered to be very influential, although newly formed and untried. It can be claimed that Local Governments (Municipalities and Rural Municipalities) have the opportunity to become the key champions for the conservation and management of wetlands and fisheries outside the protected areas. The Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (recently named as Ministry of Forest and Environment) should also be considered as one of the “champions” for the conservation and management of wetlands and watersheds including river corridors - the functions of District Forest Office, District Agriculture Development Office, District Livestock Service Office have all been put under the jurisdiction of Local Governments (Municipalities and Rural Municipalities).

6. RECOMMENDATIONS – FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

In this final section, on the basis of the findings of the current study, a set of follow-up actions are recommended with specific reference to the Intermediate Results (IR) framework of the Paani Project as shown below.

44

It is proposed that the actions should be organised as a series of inter-related Phases 1-5, which build upon one another, to specifically address the needs identified.

IR1: At the community and watershed levels, Paani increases the knowledge, engagement, and benefits of local water users in target river basins to build local freshwater management capacity.

Fisheries assessment need identified: There is a lack of up-to-date data, information and knowledge concerning the key characteristics of Nepal’s fish stocks and fisheries.

Action - Phase 1: Design and implement a multi-disciplinary and participatory assessment survey of Nepal’s fisheries and aquaculture (to plug the knowledge gap).

IR 2: At the river basin level, Paani’s activities focus on sustainable hydropower, flood prevention, and participatory basin governance.

IR 3: Paani strengthens national policy and the enabling environment and improves coordination among stakeholders at all levels.

Fisheries study need identified: The economic value of fisheries compared to other river resource uses (e.g. dams, irrigation) is unknown, along with the relationship to the value of river ecosystem services.

Action - Phase 2: Design and implement assessment of the economic valuation of ecosystem services (fisheries as one component).

Fisheries development need identified: The potential contribution of fisheries to national sustainable development, and the role and value of ecosystem services in general, have not been considered or discussed, to date, by a meeting of a broad range of stakeholders, resource users and policy-makers in Nepal – a methodology is needed to frame the issues and facilitate dialogue - to enable the evaluation and comparison of policy options. In turn, the results of these analytical studies (above) could be used as a basis for future scenario-based planning (involving a broad range of stakeholders) and the eventual negotiation of the design of development schemes and outcomes (e.g. using a multiple-objective trade-off analysis framework, as highlighted in the link below: <https://global.nature.org/content/improving-hydropower-outcomes-through-system-scale-planning-an-example-from-myanmar> ).

Rationale for scenario based analysis and planning: The rationale for this type of comparative approach (above) is supported by the activities and results of the current study in Nepal (albeit a brief study focused on one river basin), and especially in relation to the interactions and discussions undertaken with a wide range of stakeholders, at different positions, and with different roles, within the policy process.

It was clear, from the interviews and discussions with national level government policy-makers and private sector actors, that many of the currently-held views and analyses are entrenched and underpinned by specific sectoral narratives, often diametrically opposed to the views held by others. In many instances, for example, rivers and water resources in Nepal were considered to have a single potential use (or economic value) – primarily for hydroelectric power generation – with little or no consideration of alternative uses or services (or alternative values).

45

Whereas discussions with other actors, and in particular, those in rural locations (farmers, fishers), facilitated by a visioning exercise, revealed that the significance (or economic value) of rivers and water could be viewed in other ways (e.g. direct and indirect uses, through fishing and farming, and environmental attribute promotion for eco-tourism, as alternative livelihood options).

The use of economic valuation techniques to measure environmental or ecosystem services (potential and actual), combined with scenario-based analyses, and multiple-objective trade-off analysis frameworks – offers up the possibility of creating a mechanism to support river basin planning - involving different stakeholders, building understanding of interventions and impacts, and enabling negotiations and consensus-building over uses and development outcomes.

Action - Phase 3: Design and pilot of policy scenario methodology for the evaluation of the use of watershed/basin ecosystem services (as a basis for dialogue and stakeholder engagement – with a focus on governance and livelihood enabling mechanisms).

Action - Phase 4: Implementation of policy scenario methodology leading to identification and comparison of policy (development) options.

IR 4: Underlying its support across the watershed, river basin, and national levels, Paani also expands the knowledge base and builds Nepal’s capacity for on-going learning on freshwater biodiversity, climate change, and water resources management.

Fisheries development need identified: Knowledge on fisheries is not readily available for policy-makers and their advisors – to include policy options compared and presented for non-specialists, with updates.

Action - Phase 5: Design and implementation of knowledge management strategy and system for fisheries.

46

APPENDIX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE

47

EXHIBIT B

Scope of Work

ASSESSMENT OF AQUATIC RESOURCE BASED LIVELIHOODS, PRACTICES, AND ECOTOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN SELECTED WATERSHEDS ACROSS PAANI TARGET RIVER BASINS.

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:

January 2018 to June 2018

BASE OF OPERATIONS: Kathmandu, Nepal, with field visits to relevant river basins The USAID Paani Program, also known as the , is a 5 year, $25 million project in Nepal. Water is the single most important natural resource underpinning Nepal’s economy and livelihoods. The sustainable management of water resources in Nepal depends on addressing climate change and protecting healthy, biodiverse ecosystems. Paani aims to enhance Nepal’s ability to manage water resources for multiple uses and users through climate change adaptation and the conservation of freshwater biodiversity. Paani focuses at the watershed, basin, and national scales. The project has approximately $5 million in grants and activity procurements. It’s goal will be reached by meeting the following objectives:

• Reduce threats to freshwater biodiversity in the Karnali, Mahakali, and Rapti river basins. • Increase the ability of targeted human and ecological communities to adapt to the adverse

impacts of climate change through improved water management.

This will be accomplished through 11 strategic approaches and supporting activities, as defined in Section C, Statement of Work (SOW) of the Paani Contract and annual work plans, which provide the framework and overall guidance for all Paani team members. The assessment results contribute to improve (a) local management of capture fisheries (b) local capacity for water management and c) characterizing habitats and their carrying capacity for capture fisheries and alternative fish farming opportunity. The assessment informs basin level planning of hydropower, gravel mining, roads and irrigation that affect natural system and mobility of aquatic biodiversity.

Although exact statistics are not available on production and market value of traditional fishing, production estimates and market values are increasingly available. Fisher folk living scattered along lakes and rivers use traditional gear mainly for subsistence fishing. It has been estimated that there are some 395,000 ha of rivers and about 5,000 ha of small and medium sized lakes in the country. Fishing also takes place in irrigated paddy fields and marginal swamp areas, together constituting some 410,000 ha (FAO, 1995/1996). As indicated in the preceding paragraph, the present study will focus mainly on natural fisheries, although it will examine aquaculture to the degree needed to provide relevant context and/or insight for the management of natural fisheries.

Commercial aquaculture has a relatively recent history in Nepal. It first started on a very small scale with imports of fish seed from India in the mid-1940s. However, further development only begun in the 1960s and progress that is more significant only after 1980s. Over years, Nepal has imported various fish species and some indigenous carps are brought under cultivation. In Nepal, fishery sector contributes some 1.5% of the Agriculture GDP. The gross values of fishery outputs estimated to be worth US$ 29.3 million (FAO, 1995/1996).

This survey will help assess capture fishery pressures on key freshwater systems to inform stakeholders help manage through informed decision process without compromising with watershed health.

48

It will also help assess the potential value of alternative livelihood options, e.g., eco-tourism such as rafting, home stay management, sport fishing, restaurants etc.

The results of this assignment contribute to fill the gap and explore opportunity under different strategic approaches. The results contribute to local planning and policy, training and capacity building, improved management of capture fisheries and inform basin level planning.

Purpose:

The overall purpose of this assignment is to develop a strategic approach to promoting local economies and enterprises that are “friendly” to—and help reduce threats to—aquatic biodiversity and sustainable fisheries. The assignment will conduct:

• an analysis of the current “carrying capacity” of the river system in terms of fishing;

• a value chain analysis of fishing industry (in particular in the natural rivers) in the Paani watershed area;

• an examination of existing & alternative livelihood options including ecotourism.

The main focus of this work will be on natural fisheries but will take the existing commercial aquaculture practices into consideration as well. The primary focus will be on the Karnali river basin (where Paani is working in 8 watersheds). The other two river basins may be included if time allows.

Specific objectives include identify and analyze:

• The most important social and/or ecological assets/strengths and weaknesses related to aquatic natural resources including capture fisheries, and

• The most important aquatic biodiversity focal interests, problems/threats, and opportunities, both policy- and market-related elements

• The potential livelihood related interventions including ecotourism • The engagement of potential “champions” individuals or groups. • The information to develop strategic approaches, especially with regard to strengthening

environmentally friendly local economies and enterprises.

Overall Tasks: Assess fishing carrying capacity of the major rivers for fishing Document local market networks and vendors engaged in fish industry and marketing Identify market potential areas and fish market places and restaurants Identify vendors, fisher folks involved in fishing and sales Document market scope and value for potential livelihood and alternative options, farm gate

prices, principal fishery products and existing as well as potential ecotourism products and services (e.g. fly-fishing) from each of the River Basin (e.g. various ecotourism options),

Identify and describe local fishery management practices with particular focus on their impacts in Paani’s first priority watersheds,

Identify governance issues affecting fisheries (including policies, regulations, rules-in-use, and formal and informal institutions), and any gaps in their implementation.

Identify and describe potential champions for improving sustainable capture fisheries Identify the socio-economic status of fisher folks Identify the organization of fisher folks and their voice and concern Identify the women role in fishing, marketing and access over the income (money from fish

selling)

49

Specific Tasks:

Describe, in a general way, the market for fish, including scale, present status, trends, and key drivers of change for each of the major fishery resources, drawing on information on collection or buying points locally used by fishers and any additional information available on in Paani target river basin and watershed areas.

Describe in a general way the relative importance (a) of commercial and subsistence fishing (e.g., related to nutrition), and (b) of capture fisheries and aquaculture.

Identify the different products sold, e.g., by phyla or order (fish, mollusks, etc.), species (for major commercial species), by kind of product (fresh, dried, smoked, etc.), and source (e.g., capture or aquaculture)

Identify existing and potential collection and market places and consumers for fish and related aquatic products.

Supplement the above descriptions with quantitative information on fishery areas, fish, and fishery products, source areas and markets, including volumes and prices for different products, numbers of fishers, types of gear, etc. these data would be captured during the field study and complemented by secondary resource data although few exist.

Gather qualitative estimates of the potential market demand for fish and fishery products captured by local community

Describe the process through which fishers and marketers supply fish and fishery products to end markets, including the costs of such marketing process and any infrastructure or equipment.

Describe the major policies and legal and institutional frameworks, including local structures, licensing, and rules in use, that govern local fisheries.

Describe fisheries management system(s) and measures in place to sustain local fisheries (e.g. closed seasons or areas, gear, other restrictions) and asses their effectiveness.

Explore and analyze current and past experience in promoting ways to operate sustainably, also considering local traditions, customs, and norms.

Explore, and assess the practicality of, new opportunities for achieving sustainable fisheries (e.g., sport fishing, aquaculture, alternative river-based livelihoods [e.g., rafting, river-based home stays, etc.], and alternative livelihoods outside the fisheries sector to reduce fishing pressure, and others.

Assess (a) the market dynamics of supply and demand with regard to fisheries, ecotourism, and other river-based livelihood alternatives, and (b) related issues, including bottlenecks, and irregularities, and other gaps with respect to illegal fishing practices, licensing, conflicts, production problems, and marketing constraints.

Identify potential adverse impacts of the system on the sustainable management of aquatic ecosystem, environment, and social structure, including the vulnerability of particular species to fishing pressure, impacts on habitats, bycatch, and key ecological behaviors (e.g., feeding, spawning, etc.).

Identify potential “champion”, individuals or groups for conservation of river ecosystems and their functions/services and community resilience, including both men and women, and members of traditionally “excluded” groups.

Assess and identify any existing or potential physical safety risks associated with livelihood and alternative potential livelihood options.

Assessment approach:

The Consultant (s) will refer documents available through the Paani project – watershed profile, review of literatures related to aquatic biodiversity, fishery and value chain those published based on the studies carried out in Nepal and western Nepal in particular.

Organize an inception workshop inviting multiple stakeholders for sharing the results of the review of secondary data, proposed concept and methodology and milestones and get feedback

50

in fine-tuning the initial concept, technical approach, identify watershed, sites and target community, local market and information networks and consumers’ preferences.

Develop research methodology, identify watershed and research sites to carry out the study across river basins

Draft community survey formats incorporating forms and logistics, work force, equipment needs and estimate cost involvement; the format will be used for key informant interviews and the like

Devise tools to document local uses and users, champions and local institutions, local market networks and areas with market values.

Carry out rapid assessment of potential areas with reported capture fishery practices which could potentially be linked with eco-tourism and livelihoods of the fishers’ community

Design topical checklists for a quantifiable assessment of the existing capture fishery, local uses and connection with ecotourism

Mapping of the existing and potential capture fishery sites, collection points and market places in the Paani target river basin, watershed areas.

Working and reporting relationships:

The Consultant team will work under the overall guidance of the Paani Chief of Party or his designee and the supervision of (and in close collaboration with) the Freshwater Fisheries Specialist. They will collaborate with other team members and partners as required.

The consultants are expected to work independently under the guidance of the consultant Team Lead and report from time to time on progress to the Paani Chief of Party. Nonetheless, since this assignment requires background information from Paani and consulting teams undertaking different assignments, it is highly recommended that the consultants work closely together to ensure each one’s work complements and avoid overlaps.

Research team:

Socio-economist (Team Lead) 60 days

Ecotourism Expert 39 days

Fisheries Biologist 24 days

Qualifications:

• The Team Lead should have a minimum of Masters’ Degree specialized in Socio-economics or relevant discipline with a minimum of 12 years work experience on value chain assessment. The Fisheries Biologist should have at least a MSc in Fishery Biology or relevant discipline with a minimum of 10 years work experience on fishery research and development; The Ecotourism Expert will have Masters’ Degree in a relevant discipline and considerable experience on the designing and promotion of ecotourism

• Experts with International experience are preferred. • Team members having experience working with multi-stakeholders, communities and private

sectors preferred; • Team members must have demonstrated exploration and analytical skills; • Team members should be in good physical condition, able and willing to walk if necessary for

field confirmation of indications or understandings gathered from background documentation and discussions; able to cope agreeably with field conditions that may include limited amenities and logistic support;

• Excellent spoken and written English.

51

If an international TL is recruited, the project will make available an interpreter for the field work.

Deliverables:

1. Develop and share the inception report that broadly includes:

Proposed conceptual framework for the value chain assessment

Global, national and local experience of value chain analysis relating to the freshwater biodiversity inclusive of local origins

Assessment methodology, process and required supports from the PANI Project

Policy provision and analytical approach to analysis of gaps between national policies and local practices

Analysis of findings relevant to ecotourism development, with preliminary conclusions and recommendations on the potential for ecotourism development. This will include an analytic view and approach and a draft scope of work (terms of reference) to assess potential for ecotourism development linking with freshwater biodiversity and natural water resource management for the future

Table of content of the main document

Clearly outlined deliverable and milestones with time frame

2. Draft assessment report The context, rational and objective Assessment approach and methodology Main findings

Fishing practices, market value of native fish products Local fish production and types of fishery products developed for market sale Fishery and market champions, value chain actor analysis Local norms, standards and values and institutions Impacts of policy provisions, market and non-market factors in production,

livelihoods and incomes and benefit sharing Market networks and mapping of actors involved in marketing Provisional recommendation – market networks, outlets, scope for market

promotion and Barrier analysis on the production, transportation and marketing of fish and

fishery products that demotivate fishing communities and thereby threat to conservation

3. Sharing and dissemination of final report

Local practices Value chains, champions and value chain actors Local norms, values and standard and formal policy Barrier analysis and mitigation measures Recommendation of priority action for the short, medium and longer terms

52

APPENDIX 2: IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

53

Implementation schedule Date Location Activities

13/02/2018 Shangri La Hotel, Lazimpat, Kathmandu Arrival of Arthur Neiland (Team Leader) and Martin van Brakel (Consultant Fishery Biologist)

14/02/2018 USAID PAANI Office, Baluwatar Mission inception meeting 15/02/2018 USAID PAANI Office, Baluwatar Meeting with Dr. Deep Narayan Shah 15/02/2018 ISET-Nepal, Chandol, Manasi Marga Meeting with Ajaya Dixit, Executive Director, ISET-Nepal 16/02/2018 CFMD-Nepal, Prasuti Griha Marga, Thapathali-11 Meeting with Mr. Dibesh Karmacharya, Executive Director, Center For Molecular

Dynamics (CFMD-Nepal) 16/02/2018 Himalayan Café Meeting with Megh Ale, Nepal River Conservation Trust 17/02/2018 Kalimati market; Balkhu live fish market; Lagankhel market Visit to fish markets in Kathmandu 18/02/2018 USAID PAANI Office, Baluwatar Fishery Scoping Workshop Preparatory meeting 18/02/2018 Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Singha Durbar Meeting with Yubak Dhoj, Secretary, Min. of Forests and Soil Conservation 19/02/2018 USAID PAANI Office, Baluwatar Meeting with Prof. Subodh Sharma, Kathmandu University 20/02/2018 Ministry of Agriculture Development (MOAD), Singha Durbar Meeting with Dr. Suroj Pokhrel, Secretary, MOAD 20/02/2018 NTB Office complex, Bhrikutimandap Meeting with senior officials of Nepal Tourism Board (NTB) 20/02/2018 NTB Office complex, Bhrikutimandap Meeting, Executive Members of Nepal Association of Rafting Agencies (NARA) 20/02/2018 ADB, Nepal Resident Mission, Metro Park Building, Lazimpat Mr. Arun Rana, Senior Officer, Asian Development Bank 21/02/2018 Shangri La Hotel, Lazimpat Discussion with Narayan Belbase 21/02/2018 Meeting with Swarnim Wagle, former Vice Chair, National Planning Commission 22/02/2018 Karna Shakya’s residence, Lazimpat Meeting with Karna Shakya, hotelier & forester 22/02/2018 Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Singhadurbar Plaza Meeting with Dr. Tek Bahadur Gurung, Director Livestock & Fisheries, NARC 23/02/2018 Water and Energy Commission Secretariat, Singha Durbar Meeting with Madhav Belbase, Joint Secretary, WECS 24/02/2018 Indra Sarobar reservoir, Kulekhani; Chitwan live fish farm, Bharatpur Observing wild-fish capturing and fish markets 25/02/2018 Lumbini, Bhalubang (Dang), Sikta Dam site (Agaiya) Observing wild-fish capturing and fish markets 26/02/2018 Tharu Home, Bardia Fish Scoping and Value Chain Workshop 27/02/2018 Chisapani, Kohalpur, Chepang, Harre, Chhinchu, Surkhet, Gurase,

Upper Dungeshwor, Dailekh Observing wild-fish capturing and fish markets

28/02/2018 Tara Hotel, Narayani Municipality, Dailekh Fish Scoping and Value Chain Workshop 01/03/2018 Chapiya Fish Village (Siyari-4, Rupandehi Visit to Chapiya Fish Village 02/03/2018 Shangri La Hotel, Lazimpat Arrival back in Kathmandu 03/03/2018 Shangri La Hotel, Lazimpat Meeting with Country Representative, SNV Nepal/Bhutan 04/03/2018 USAID PAANI Office, Baluwatar Field Work Review and Presentation Preview Meeting 05/03/2018 US Embassy, Maharajgunj Field work outcome de-briefing meeting 05/03/2018 Departure of Arthur Neiland and Martin van Brakel

54

APPENDIX 3: INCEPTION REPORT

55

Slide 1

PAANI – NEPALFISHERIES SECTOR

INCEPTION REPORT – 14 February 2018

• Fish Resources and Exploitation

• Value Chain Assessment

• Eco-Tourism Role

Slide 2 Introduction and Objectives

The following presentation forms the Inception Report for the study;

This will be presented by the study team to the Paani Team and SNV team in Kathmandu within the first week of the assignment;

The presentation has a number of objectives as follows:

First, to confirm the overall objectives of the assignment;

Second, to confirm the context and role of the assignment within the Paaniproject;

Third, to set out our preliminary understanding of the key issues (both water and fisheries related);

Fourth, to identify and then discuss some study methodology options;

Fifth, to align our study with the current literature and outputs of the Paaniproject;

Sixth, to discuss implementation options and issues;

And Seventh, to clarify some of the key linkages between the assignment and the Paani project planned outcomes.

Slide 3 Contents

[1] Why are aquatic resources important for Nepal?

[2] What is objective of the Paani project?

[3] What is the status of knowledge of fisheries in Nepal?

[4] What are the key characteristics in fisheries in Nepal?

[5] What are the key issues in fisheries in Nepal?

[6] What are the objectives of the current study?

[6.1.]Fish resources and exploitation

[6.2.]Value Chain Assessment

[6.3.]Eco-tourism Role

[7] What methodologies could be utilised? Choice of models

[8] How could the work be implemented?

[9] What outputs can be realised and contributions to Paani Project?

[10] Summary

56

Slide 4 [1] Why are aquatic resources important for Nepal?

• Water is a key resource (rivers, lakes)

• Fish and aquatic resources (abundant and diverse)

• Nepal is largely agricultural economy (water & AR part of)

• Fisheries support rural livelihoods and employment

• Fisheries production (80Kt/yr)

• Underpins trade ,contributes to GDP (1%)and AGDP (4%)

• Contributes to diet, food supply and food security

• Potential for aquaculture growth

• Potential for eco-tourism earnings and employment

• Indicator of overall aquatic system status (sustainability)

Slide 5 [2] What is objective of the Paani project?

• The Paani Program—also known in Nepali as the “USAID Water Project”, —will enhance Nepal’s ability to manage water resources for multiple uses and users through climate change adaptation and the conservation of freshwater biodiversity.

• Paani employs an integrated, whole-of-basin approach with activities under four “intermediate result” (IR) areas at the watershed, river basin, and national scales, to reduce threats to freshwater biodiversity and increase the ability of targeted human and ecological communities in the Karnali, Mahakali, and Rapti river basins in the Mid-Western and Far Western Development Regions of Nepal to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change through improved water management.

Slide 6 • At the community and watershed levels, Paani increases the knowledge,

engagement, and benefits of local water users in target river basins to build local freshwater management capacity (IR 1).

• At the river basin level, Paani’s activities focus on sustainable hydropower, flood prevention, and participatory basin governance (IR 2).

• Under IR 3, Paani strengthens national policy and the enabling environment and improves coordination among stakeholders at all levels.

• Underlying its support across the watershed, river basin, and national levels, Paani also expands the knowledge base and builds Nepal’s capacity for on-going learning on freshwater biodiversity, climate change, and water resources management (IR 4).

• By demonstrating the value of freshwater biodiversity, strengthening governance and stakeholder relationships at all levels, and increasing the evidence base, Paani will catalyze transformative change in Nepal’s capacity to manage its freshwater resources and enhance community resilience from Nepal’s high mountain slopes to the rich waterways of the Tarai.

57

Slide 7 [3] What is the status of knowledge of fisheries in Nepal?

Biological / Science domain

• Extent and status of fish populations (stocks) (some knowledge)

• Fisheries exploitation patterns (some knowledge)

• Trends and dynamics (some knowledge)

Social domain

• Fisher population features (some knowledge)

• Livelihoods and role of fisheries

• Trends and dynamics (limited knowledge)

Economic domain

• Overall potential value of the fish stocks (limited knowledge)

• Current economic value and contribution (limited knowledge)

• Trends and dynamics (limited knowledge)

Slide 8 [4] What are the key characteristics in fisheries in Nepal?

Proposed framework for characterisation

(one option)

[a] Environment

[b] Fish populations

[c] Fish production

[d] Fishing strategies

[e] Fishing Technology

[f] Economic aspects

[g] Policy and law

[h] Fisheries management

[i] Trends

Slide 9 [5] What are the key issues in fisheries in Nepal?

(based the literature)

• Overexploitation

• Destructive fishing methods

• Pollution

• Gravel mining

• Lack of policy and effective laws

• Impact of dams

• Conflict with other sectors

• Lack of baseline knowledge

• Impact of climate change

• Human capacity in government

• Alternative livelihoods limited

58

Slide 10 [6] What are the objectives of the current study?

• To contribute to the Paani project generally

• To assess the current status of fish stock & exploitation

• To characterise and analyse the fish value chain

• To investigate the potential role of eco-tourism

Slide 11 [6.1.] To assess the current status of fish stock & exploitation

• Specific aim: To determine potential size and distribution of fish stocks; to assess impact of fishing (re: MSY), and the current trends;

• Justification: Policy and management requires basic understanding of potential size and yield, current status;

• Possible assessment methods:

(i) Rapid Assessment methods (Participatory workshops with key stakeholders – map fisheries, describe timeline and trends, identify and discuss key issues) within a few weeks;

(ii) Long-term assessment - Scientific stock assessment (e.g. fish population dynamics studies using basic biological parameters, development of fishery (dynamic yield and bio-economic models ) over 3-5 years per key stocks;

Slide 12

[6.2.] To characterise and analyse the fish value chain

• Specific aim: To describe the fish value chain for key products; to identify and understand role of key actors, any current trends, and potential for future development;

• Justification: Better understanding of fish value chain provides policy-makers and key actors (e.g. private sector) with entry-point to address opportunities and constraints, for benefit generation, from fisheries activity;

• Possible assessment methods: (i) Rapid Assessment methods (Participatory workshops with key stakeholders – map fish value chains, describe key actors and roles, identify and discuss key issues and trends) within a few weeks; (ii) Long-term assessment – Economic analysis (e.g. fish product data (quantities and prices) based on large-scale sample surveys, development of economic models for demand-supply relationships, analysis of opportunities and constraints, possible policy interventions and investment scenario) over 3-5 years per key products and value chains;

59

Slide 13 [6.3.] To investigate the potential role of eco-tourism

• Specific aim: To determine potential role of eco-tourism in relation to fisheries exploitation and fisheries management;

• Justification: Policy and management could consider the option of eco-tourism for fisheries exploitation and management (either standalone or combined with conventional fisheries, depending on location and fish stocks).

• Possible assessment methods: (i) Rapid Assessment methods (Participatory workshops with key stakeholders – map fisheries, describe ecotourism opportunities and constraints, and discuss key issues) within a few weeks; (ii) Long-term assessment – Development of economic scenario models for eco-tourism (e.g. fishery-ecotourism exploitation/benefit models, scenario and CBA analysis) over 3-5 years per key stocks;

Slide 14 [7] What methodologies could be utilised?

• Aim: Fisheries assessment, Value Chain Analysis, Ecotourism role

• Entry-points: Work with Paani Team, National Experts, Stakeholder engagement, Use of secondary information

• Constraints: Limited time in field (3 weeks)

• Overall approach: Address three aims in integrated manner

• Specific approach: Three pronged:- Underpinning of secondary information

- Stakeholder workshops

- Key interviews (Other stakeholders + Paani Experts)

• Tools: - Profiling Framework (for fisheries sector)

- Sector Mapping, Time-line (and SWOT), Net-mapping (for Value Chain)

- Visioning Exercise

- Semi-structured interviews

Slide 15

Tools (1) – Profiling Framework

Two examples :(a) FAO Standard (above)(b) Fisheries development scoring framework (below), with a critical focus on

‘sequencing of interventions’ and ‘Benefits’ (goal)

[1] Has the sustainable economic value of the fish stocks has been determined.?

[2] Is there an agreed national vision and strategy for the sector?[3] Is there a well-defined fisheries policy?[4] Does the fisheries law provide an enabling framework?[5] Does a high degree of policy coherence exist?[6] Is there a functioning fisheries management system?[7] A well-defined work programme for policy implementation exists?[8] Sufficient institutional capacity for implementation exists?[9] Appropriate finance and investment is available? [10] Support is in place from national, regional and international

organisations?

60

Slide 16 Tools (2) Sector Mapping, Timeline (and SWOT)

Sector mapping:

– undertaken in small groups within a workshop setting

- Participants draw out a large map using paper and pens

- Highlighting key features of their fisheries

- Presentation in Plenary

- Draws on experience /local knowledge (a good initial exercise)

Timeline:

- Either in small groups or plenary

- Participants highlight key events (fishery and contextual) on a wall chart over 30 years

- A way of drawing out issues (which can be summarised in SWOT)

Slide 17 Tools (3) Net-mapping for value-chain

• Undertaken in groups, workshop setting, with a facilitator

• Using a large sheet of paper and coloured pens

• Participants asked to (i) identify main actors in fishery (e.g. government, private, community, NGO)

• Then (ii) links between actors (product flow, supply, support, mis-understandings /conflict)

• Clarify reasons for choices as session progresses (take notes)

• Option of operating the exercise in whole group (or by specific stakeholders e.g. government or community)

• For product flow – clarify product type and prices along chain

• Also seasonality

• Final exercise – assess ‘level of influence’ (+/-) – using stacked counters

Slide 18

Net-mapping Example

• See References below – Schiffer (2007)

61

Slide 19 [8] How could the work be implemented?

• Focus on Stakeholder Workshops and Key Interviews

• Address all three inquiry areas (exploitation, value chain and ecotourism) at same time

• Discuss with Paani Team – choice of locations, timing

• Option of 2-3 workshops within one week, one week pre-planning (possibility of mini-pilot)

• Who will participate in w/s (impacts on the final results)?

• Experience of w/s in Nepal (it helps implementation)

• Has Paani used stakeholder workshops /tools (check experiences and tools)

• Use of local facilitators / translators

• Validation of outputs (multiple methods, triangulation, use of plenary sessions, use secondary data for checking)

• Follow-up w/s – with key interviews – to explore issues and also to cross-check

Slide 20 [9] What outputs can be realised and contributions to

Paani Project?

In the first instance, the assignment will aim for a better understanding of:

- Fish resources and fisheries exploitation

- Fish value chain characteristics

- Role of alternative livelihoods, especially in eco-tourism

As the assignment progresses, the linkages to the four Paani Intermediate Results (below) will emerge, and the precise contributions from each subject area (above) will be clarified.

IR1: At the community and watershed levels, Paani increases the knowledge, engagement, and benefits of local water users in target river basins to build local freshwater management capacity.

IR 2: At the river basin level, Paani’s activities focus on sustainable hydropower, flood prevention, and participatory basin governance.

IR 3: Paani strengthens national policy and the enabling environment and improves coordination among stakeholders at all levels.

IR 4: Underlying its support across the watershed, river basin, and national levels, Paani also expands the knowledge base and builds Nepal’s capacity for on-going learning on freshwater biodiversity, climate change, and water resources management.

Slide 21 [10] Summary and concluding remarks

The initial meeting between the assignment (study) team and the Paani Project and SNV staff (14 Feb 2018) in Kathmandu proved to be useful and productive;

The Inception Report (powerpoint)(above), and the follow-on discussion, helped to set the scene for the assignment, and to clarify the objectives of the study, and its role within Paani;

It was also confirmed that the study team had a good initial understanding of the key issues involved for both water and fisheries;

The proposed focus on fieldwork, which would help to enhance and elaborate this understanding, was welcomed by the Paani team and SNV;

The proposed study methods were also considered relevant, and the opportunity to refine and adapt these methods in the context of Nepal and the overall Paani project was welcomed;

The study team also welcomed the entry-points and collaboration and support offered by Paani and SNV.

The next steps would involve reviewing further secondary information, carrying out key interviews of relevant stakeholders in Kathmandu, and developing an appropriate implementation plan for the follow-on field studies and analyses as part of ongoing methodology development.

62

Slide 22 Bibliography

• George F. Taylor II, Mark R. Weinhold, Susan B. Adams, Nawa Raj Khatiwada, Tara Nidhi Bhattarai and Sona Shakya.(2014) Assessment of Water Resources Management & Freshwater Biodiversity in Nepal. Final Report.

• PAANI Program for Aquatic Natural Resources Improvement. ANNUAL WORK PLAN: YEAR TWO. JULY 1, 2017 – JUNE 30, 2016

• CHALLENGES OF FRESHWATER FISHERIES IN NEPAL: A SHORT OVERVIEW Nawaraj Gautam (2015)

• SNV (2010) Adding Value to Nepal’s Orthodox Tea Industry.

• ASIAN DEVELOPMENT OUTLOOK 2017.SUSTAINING DEVELOPMENT THROUGH PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

• FIMSUL Project (India) Participatory Methods and Stakeholder Engagement -Link to World Bank/FAO India Project for details on study tools (Report WP1) https://sites.google.com/site/fimsul/home/work-packages/work-package-1

• Schiffer, E. (2007a) Netmap Tool Box. Influence mapping of social networks. https://netmap.wordpress.com/about/ (accessed October 2017)

• Schiffer, E., Birol, E. and Duarte, P. (2007b) Stakeholder mapping DFID HPAI Project Stakeholder Workshop Accra, Ghana June 24-25, 2008. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08bb540f0b652dd000e30/PRE080624_E-Schiffer-E-Birol-P-Duarte_NetMapping.pdf

63

APPENDIX 3(A): WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY (PPT)

64

Slide 1

SCOPING WORKSHOP ON

INLAND FISH AND FISHERIES

March 2018

A Component of the Panni ProjectNepal

Prepared by Arthur Neiland (www.iddra.org)

Slide 2

1. What are the Objectives?

(A) To establish a good understanding of the river fish resources and fisheries, including value chain and alternative livelihoods;

(B) To document key issues in the fisheries sector;

(C) To contribute to the overall work of the PaaniProject

Slide 3

2. What is the approach?

Two (x2) (one day) workshops in the KarnaliRiver Basin (lower and middle watersheds);

Involving a broad range of stakeholders;

Study methods designed to build, review and share knowledge;

Summary workshop reports will feed into the larger Panni programme;

65

Slide 4 3. Workshop Schedule

0800 – 0900 (1) Participants registration0900 – 0930 (2) Introduction and Objectives0930 – 1000 (3) Coffee Break (and group organisation)

1000 – 1015 (4) Exercise 1 (Plenary) Explained1015 – 1100 (5) Exercise 1 (Plenary) Operated1100 – 1200 (6) Exercise 1 Review of results/discussion

1200 – 1300 (7) Lunch

1300 – 1315 (8) Exercises 2,3 Explained (Plenary)1315 - 1400 (9) Exercise 2,3 Operated in parallel (Breakout)1400 - 1500 (10) Exercises 2,3 Presentations/ Discussions 1500 – 1530 (11) Coffee Break

1530 – 1630 (12) Exercise 4 Operated (Breakout)

1630 - 1700 (13) Final discussion and close (Plenary)(14) Group Photo(15) Administration (payments)

Slide 5 Method 1: Historical Time-line

• Using coloured cards, identify the main features (events and issues) of the fishery sector over time (last 60 years); also in your community or region;

• Write a brief summary of each feature on one card (e.g. Introduction of new fishing gears, new fishing regulation, pollution starts to impact etc) OR on another card (new road constructed, electricity supply starts up etc) ;

• Stick each card on a large wall chart according to the time period (1950 – 2014); build up a “big picture” of events in your district;

• Think about major changes (e.g. Fish stocks, fishing activities, fisher communities, infrastructure, markets, organisations, pollution, tourism etc);

Slide 6 Historical Timeline – Example

(Reference: FIMSUL Project (India) Participatory Methods and Stakeholder Engagement - Link to World Bank/FAO India Project for details on study tools (Report

WP1) https://sites.google.com/site/fimsul/home/work-packages/work-package-1

66

Slide 7 4. Group Work

• The participants will be divided into four separate groups (A, B, C, D);

• Each group will assemble at one large table, provided with paper and pens;

• Each group will elect a Chairman and Secretary, who will coordinate the work of the group;

• Each group will complete a ‘Mapping Exercise’ or ‘SWOT ‘ to start

• Each group will also be undertake ONE additional study exercise –net map - to complete in one hour;

• The Chairman and/or Secretary will present the results;

Slide 8 Method 2: Mapping exercise

• Use a large sheet of paper and coloured marker pens;

• Sketch out a map of the district and river; indicate the highland and valleys;

• Show the location of the main towns, villages and settlements; and roads and other features;

• Where are the main fishing areas? And types of fishing gear? And seasons?

• What are the type, volume and value of fish landings in each place?

• Where are the main markets, trade routes ?

Slide 9 Mapping Exercise - Example

67

Slide 10 Method 3: SWOT Analysis

• SWOT = Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

• Using a large sheet of paper and marker pens, produce an overview of the fisheries sector in your district –addressing the question – ‘What features or factors will affect the type and quantity of benefits generated by the fisheries sector in the future?’

• Strengths = Internal features that give the sector an advantage over others (e.g. Productive fish stocks)

• Weaknesses = Internal features of relative disadvantage (e.g. Lack of fishery regulations)

• Opportunities = External features that could be exploited better (e.g. New fish markets, alternative livelihoods?)

• Threats = External features that could cause difficulty (e.g. Pollution)

Slide 11 SWOT - Example

Slide 12 Method 4: Net-mapping with Key Actors

• Undertaken in groups (decide groups – government, NGO, community, private), workshop setting, with a facilitator

• Using a large sheet of paper and coloured pens

[1] Who are the Actors involved with, or connected to, the river fishery sector (e.g. government, private, community, NGO)? What is their objective?

[2] Write names on coloured paper and stick to large base paper;

[3] What are the links between the actors (e.g. product flow, support, mis-understandings, supply)

[4] Clarify the reasons for choices as session progresses (take notes)[5] For product flow – clarify product type and volumes, prices and locations

along value chain[6] Also seasonality

[7] Final exercise – assess ‘level of influence’ (+/-) – using stacked counters -Key question:

“Who can help (or prevent) the community from benefitting more from the river fisheries?”

68

Slide 13 Example – Net Map – Fish Processors

(Reference: Schiffer, E. (2007a) Netmap Tool Box. Influence mapping of social networks. https://netmap.wordpress.com/about/ (accessed October 2017)

Slide 14

Thank You

69

APPENDIX 4: LIST OF KEY INTERVIEWS

70

List of Key Interviews

Name & contact details Organization / locality Date

1. Dr. Deep Narayan Shah aquatic.deep@gmail.com; mobile 9841398083

Himalayan Biodiversity and Climate Change Center

15/02/2018

2. Ajaya Dixit, Executive Director; adbaluwatar@ntc.net.np; mobile 9851036780

Institute for Social and Environmental Transition (ISET-Nepal)

15/02/2018

Jayendra Rimal, COO; jayendra@isetnepal.org.np Mobile 9851079616

Sutra …., in charge of community-based water systems

3. Dibesh Karmacharya, Executive Director; dibesh@cmdn.org; mobile 9851110329

Center For Molecular Dynamics – Nepal (CFMD)

16/02/2018

4. Megh Ale, founder & river guide megharivers@borderlandresorts.com Mobile 9801023111

Nepal River Conservation Trust http://www.nrct.org.np/ /Ultimate Descents Nepal

16/02/2018

5. Bina Khadka (Ms.), dried fish wholesaler Kalimati Association www.kalimatimarket.com.np

17/02/2018

6. Wife of Janja Bahadur Saha, live fish retailer Balkhu live fish market 17/02/2018

Benoy Kumar Singh, fish farmer / live fish retailer

7. Dilip Saha, fresh fish retailer Lagankhel market 17/02/2018

8. Dr. Yubak Dhoj G.C., Secretary; yubakgc@yahoo.com Mobile 9851128129; Mr. Dhananjaya Paudyal, Joint Secretary, dhanan35@gmail.com; Mr. M.B. Khadka, Director General, DNPWC; Mr. K.P. Acharya, Director General, Department of Forest, kpacharya1@hotmail.com; Dr. Prem Kandel, Joint Secretary, Policy and Planning, pkkandelnepal@gmail.com; Mr. Bidya Nath Jha, Regional Director, Karnali/Surkhet, jha.bidyanath@gmail.com

Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation

18/02/2018

9. Prof. Subodh Sharma, Dean, School of Science Subodh.sharma@ku.edu.np; mobile 9841254129

Kathmandu University 19/02/2018

Dr. Ram Devi Tachamo Shah, Ramdevi.env@gmail.com; mobile 9841432283

10. Dr. Suroj Pokhrel, Secretary Ministry of Agriculture Development (MOAD)

20/02/2018

Bhagwat Prasad, Program Chief; mobile 9845186775 Bhagwat.prasad2007@gmail.com

National Inland Fisheries & Aquaculture Program

11. Mr. Sunil Sharma, Director, Planning and National Tourist Board 20/02/2018

71

Monitoring Department; ssharma@ntb.org.np

Mr. Mani Raj Lamichhane, Director, Tourism Product and Resource Department; maniraj@ntb.org.np

12. Shiva Adhikari, Team Leader; adrift@nepalriver.com Mobile 9851004814

Adrift Adventures www.adriftadventure.com

20/02/2018

13. Arun Rana, Senior Programs Officer / angler arunrana@adb.org; mobile 9801231407

Asian Development Bank 20/02/2018

14. Swarnim Wagle, former Vice Chair Swarnim.wagle@gmail.com

National Planning Commission

21/02/2018

15. Karna Shakya, Hotelier & forester 22/02/2018

16. Dr. Tek Bahadur Gurung, Director, Livestock & Fisheries; tek_fisheries@hotmail.com; mobile 9851106175

Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC)

22/02/2018

17. Madhav Belbase, Joint Secretary; mobile 9851103019 belbasem@gmail.com

Water and Energy Commission Secretariat

23/02/2018

72

APPENDIX 5: KEY INTERVIEWS - SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

73

APPENDIX 5: KEY INTERVIEWS - SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Fish resource and fisheries

Our interviews with key stakeholders aimed to provide insights into the following:

1. What is the concept of value of river fisheries in these basins? 2. How does the fisheries sector compare to other sectors?

The main conclusions drawn from these interviews can be summarized as: 1) The value of river resources remains hidden, and 2) perhaps because of this hidden value, and despite the high number of people (estimated around 500,000) who in one way or another are involved in fishing, there seems to be no real consideration for fisheries in the government budget.

Fisheries research in Nepal is fragmented. The last in-depth survey was an expedition in 1985. A number of studies have been done at various faculties / universities, e.g. Central Department of Environmental Science, and Zoology, but not much is known about fishing livelihoods, yields etc., beyond some anecdotal information. There is need for a frame survey of fishing activity.

There are big knowledge gaps on the present status of fish populations. Systematic research is lacking; there are no biomass studies. Some research has been done on fish as indicator of aquatic ecosystem health, but not with respect to the status of fish stocks. There are no time series data for fish in any river. There is no reliable baseline information. There is need for a current, updated overview, on key features and knowledge gaps. Primary data generation and funding for core research and biological monitoring is however lacking, and there is no clear mandate.

There is also lack of information about fish biodiversity in Nepal. There exists no baseline or other information on the fish biodiversity in the Karnali. Based on different studies there are about 186 fish species. The Center For Molecular Dynamics (CFMD-Nepal) compiled a geospatial baseline database to monitor indicator species across the Karnali. A combination of genetic and morphological identification, increased the accuracy of identification to 84% at the genus level and 48% at species level. E-DNA analysis resulted in 43 different Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs).

Aquatic biodiversity, including fish species diversity, is in danger especially in rivers, streams and fresh water lakes located outside the protected areas (PAs). There is a lack of responsible government authorities overseeing the conservation of rivers and aquatic biodiversity. Fishing is essentially open access. Destructive fishing practices, rapid population growth and urbanization, excessive and haphazard extraction of sand and gravel etc. are amongst the key factors responsible for the decline of fish habitat in Nepal. Perhaps the biggest impact on fish abundance is caused by electrofishers. Particular fish habitats and river sections, such as Babai valley and Chisapani-Mohana section of Karnali, as well as basin areas upstream and downstream of hydropower dams, should be declared as Fish Protected Area. The Babai River is inside a protected area and has a resident population of Mahseer right below the dam.

Based on ethnicity and caste hierarchy, it is estimated that ca. 12.5% of the population of Nepal in one way or another is involved in fishing. Capture fish yield nationwide has been estimated at 30,000 to 35,000 mt / year, while total fish production including aquaculture is estimated at 76.000 mt / year. An estimate of wild fish biomass / standing stock is 12 to 18 kg of fish / ha. In the high mountain region there are virtually no fisheries or fish. In the middle hills local traditional marginalized groups are found, but nothing is known about how many people, and their fishing effort. Catch per Unit of

74

Effort (CpUE) research is lacking. Lake catch became a strong backbone of the local fisheries economy in some places. There is a diversity of fish in lower, middle and high Karnali & Kandhaki. At the Chisapani bridge local market, semi-commercial river fish is available. Fishermen in the Karnali catch small amounts of fish, in the order of a few kilos every day. Most fishing is done with set nets & cast nets, or with seine hauls. Hook & lines are used as well. Boats are only used in downstream Karnali. There are about 50 to 100 families who live at river islands who set current nets during the night, operate cast nets during the day, and engage in sun drying of fish. There are however 1000’s of fishing families living on river banks. They all say that catches have declined over the years, which is unlikely to be a result of overfishing given the low catch quantities. There are various ethnic groups who are landless or near-landless and who depend mainly on fishing and wage labor for their livelihood. This is mainly opportunistic fishery.

Lowland river is in the protected area category. No commercial fishery is permitted, but some fishing by resident fishers has been allowed. In the lowland area a high number of women are involved in fishing – the Mahji tribe, who do fish for their own consumption, have indigenous fishing knowledge and do not harvest continuously. Fishing is done both within and outside protected areas in Koshi and Naraini rivers, but it is only allowed within protected areas during certain months. It is not allowed during the monsoon period because of the abundance of juveniles / fingerlings during that period. Fishing is regulated by provision of licenses. Fishermen groups have been formed in the buffer zone of protected areas such as Koshi Tappu wildlife reserve.

Policy environment

The Ministry of Agriculture Development (MOAD) has no fisheries division, and there is no fisheries department. There is only the Directorate of Fish Development, and National Agricultural Research Council (NARC). NARC has about 61 focal sectors, of which fisheries is the smallest component. The Directorate manages a number of fisheries development centers, and provides fingerlings and expertise for aquaculture. A draft fisheries policy is under the process of approval but has now to be customized because it was designed for the previous system. There are only 14 activities proposed under capture fisheries whereas there are about 40 under aquaculture. There is a 1961 law on aquatic animal protection, which later was amended. It is apparently not yet implemented. Given the current governance reform it would be important to create separate aquatic protection laws at the province level. Local governments will also have legislative power, but the local governance budget is limited, which raises questions about implementation, and continuity of personnel.

Alternative livelihoods; eco-tourism

Nepal has huge potential for Himalayan white water fishing and can promote fly-fishing for Himalayan Trout and angling for Golden Mahseer as high-end tourism product. Selected travel and tour companies, including Tiger Tops, already target small niche market segments, but angling has not yet become a sustainable tourism product. Mahseer angling was once big, but died out after independence. Now there is some revival. Nepali’s are increasingly interested in angling, so the industry has potential to get bigger. Golden Mahseer is the most preferred species of fish for fishing in Babai and Karnali rivers. In the Karnali River, rafting companies offer various packages for rafting and fishing ranging from 7 days to one month. For most of the visitors, fishing (angling) is also a part of rafting. About 500 international visitors do rafting and fishing in the Karnali River every year and the number is gradually increasing. Visitors for rafting and fishing in rivers such as Kali Gandaki, Marsyandi and Upper Bhote Koshi have however declined by about 90% after HP dams were constructed on these rivers. Nepal could better promote its white water and Himalayan fishes as

75

unique selling point (USP) but certain conservation policies of the government do not allow for the use of fish and fresh water resources for touristic use including fishing and rafting in protected areas such as Rara National Park which is home to 3 endemic snow trout species.

76

APPENDIX 6: MARKET VISITS – SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

77

APPENDIX 6: MARKET VISITS – SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Value chain

A number of markets and other fish trading outlets including restaurants and hotels were surveyed for this assignment, in order to understand the value chain; 1) where does the fish come from 2) volume and frequency of trade 3) price (wholesale & retail) and 4) how things change – trend analysis

Location Key features & informants Observations Kalimati market, Kathmandu Dried fish wholesale; Ms.

Bina Khadka Generally 13 – 14 species of dried fish are available In 15 years, dried fish retail prices have risen from NR 100 to 650

Fresh market, wholesale, retail

Fresh farmed fish (Rohu, Pangas) cheaper than fresh farmed fish from the Terai Exotic species Clarias gariepinus (live) and Piaractus (red pacu) similarly low priced Captured fish sold at premium price, e.g. Wallago attu from the Koshi river; NR 600 / kg

Balkhu market, Kathmandu Live fish market outlets; 1) wife of Janja Bahadur Saha 2) Benoy Kumar Singh

Common carp, traded live at NR 450/kg; cheaper than broiler chicken

Lagankhel market, Kathmandu Fresh market, retail; Mr. Dilip Saha

Silver carp, and common carp; Eastern Terai

Everest Hotel, Bhairahawa

Mr. Bishnu Gautam, Vice Chairman; Siddhartha Hotel Association of Nepal

Big hotels such as Tiger Resort, Yeti Hotel etc. have a separate menu for fish, prawn and seafood; Tiger Resort purchases ca. 150-300 kg fresh fish / week; Yeti hotel about 5 kg / week. Very few restaurants offer fish on their menu.

Bhairahawa Custom Office Mr. Hari Bamsha Ghimire; Computer and IT Officer

From 2073/04/01to 2074/03/31 ca. 2,217 mt of fresh fish was imported at this point; valued at NR 314,611,572; From 2074/04/01 to 2074/09/30 almost 2170 mt fresh fish at a value of NR 347,341,707

Kanchhi Bazaar (Mayadevi bazaar), Bhairahawa

Mr. Ranjeet Sahani, Fish Seller; Fresh Fish Store, Siddhartha Municipality-8

5 fish selling outlets; 2 selling fresh fish from Chhapiya, Tikulighad and 3 selling frozen/killed fish from India (Andra Pradesh). On an average, about 300 kg fish (60% fresh fish and 40% frozen fish) are sold daily, in Bhairahawa market

Danda Khola, Bhairakawa Mr. Sanjaya Malaha, Fish Seller; Fish market outlet

Demand for fish is higher in the winter season than the summer. This outlet supplies more than 100 kg per day during winter and about

78

70 kg per day during summer Bharatpur Chitwan live fish farm Sells between 50 to 100 kg of fish

per day. Sometimes fish is traded live at NR 300 / 350 per kg to KTM and Pokhara

Bharatpur Fresh- and live fish vending outlets, local market

Mahseer sells at ca. 600 / kg for small, and 800 / kg for large fish. ‘Kanti’ at 600 / kg, and ‘Basali’ at 500 / kg. Cultured fish; pangas (230 / kg), rohu (280 / kg). Margin on culture fish: NR 50 / kg; margin on capture fish is double at NR 100/kg

Chapiya Fish Village, Siyari rural municipality

Mr. Gaurav Gautam, owner / manager

There are 1100 – 1200 ponds in the area, with about 500 to 600 farmers involved. Productivity ranges from 2 to 12 t per ha. Silver carp & bighead carp are traded at NR 200 / kg; 250 NR / kg for other carps, sold at over 150 weekly markets

Siddhartha Hotel, Chisapani Mr. Chakra K. KC, Food & Beverage Manager

The rate of wild fish (fresh) is 400 to 450 NR/kg; the rate of farmed fish is 250 to 300 NR/kg.

Upper Dungeshwor Many small restaurants and teashops collect and sell cooked and dried fish here

Fresh fish @500 NR/kg. and dry fish @3000 NR/kg

Kalimati Market

• Dried and smoked mrigal from the Terai is sold at a retail price of NR 1100 / kg. Ca. 5 kg fresh fish at NR 170 / kg is needed and cooking oil, to derive 1 kg of dried product.

• Bombai duck from India (Marine) at Rp 500/kg is specifically bought by the ethnic Nowari

• Farmed mrigal from Chitwan, fresh price NR 320/kg; • Farmed rohu at NR 260/kg from Andhra Pradesh by road (2000 km) on trucks, packed

and iced in polystyrene boxes • Pangas from Bihar at NR 200/kg • Common carp from Chitwan at NR 450/kg • Clarias gariepinus (live) at NR 250/kg • Piaractus (red pacu) at NR 260/kg • Freshwater snail at NR 120/kg, traditionally consumed by the Tharu community • Wallago attu at NR 600 / kg from the Koshi river (capture) • Catla catla at NR…

There are ca. 50 live fish stores in KTM, mainly because traces of formalin have been found in marketed fish. Common carp is traded live at NR 450/kg including dressing. If mortality is high the price decreases to NR 300/kg. Balkhu live fish market: Benoy Kumar Singh owns a 25 ha fish farm in the Terai, and sells for NR 150,000 to 200,000 per day. A lot of subsidy is given for fish farming, e.g.,

79

for constructing ponds. Middlemen are the ones who benefit most. A network of brokers is engaged in tax offices, supply chains, who all take a cut.

More than 60% of fish sold in Bhairahawa are locally produced; 20% wild fish and 80% aquaculture fish; 60% aquaculture fish are produced and supplied from Chhapiya fish village. Chhapiya also supplies fish to Kapilvastu, Nawalparasi and Kathmandu. After Chhapiya, Tikuligadhi supplies the second largest amount of fish in Rupandehi. There are about 100 fishermen collecting fresh water fish in various rivers/streams in Bhairahawa and surrounding areas. Fish traps, monofilament nets and poisons are used to capture fresh water fish.

Lower Karnali

Sonaha community (about 28 households) in Majhara Tapu totally rely on fishing; sell fish at 500 NR / kg.

Hoteliers and restaurants sell fresh fish at 500 NR/kg, fresh but processed fish at 800 NR/kg and smoked and dried fish at 2200 NR/kg.

Middle Karnali

Fish Rates in Narayani Municipality and surrounding areas: Fishermen to Middlemen/Hoteliers at 500 to 600 NR/kg; Hoteliers/Middlemen to consumers at 600 NR/kg (fresh) or at 2400 to 3000 NR/kg (smoked dried) or at 120 NR/plate of cooked fish (1 kg fresh fish= 8 plates)

Fish Rates in Rakam Karnali: during monsoon: at 400 to 450 NR/kg; for other months: at 300 to 350 NR/kg. Middlemen and Hoteliers sell at 500 NR/kg.

80

APPENDIX 7: SITE VISITS – SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

81

SITE VISITS – SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

A number of river and roadside locations were visited to observe capture fishery and other aquatic resource uses, as well as related economic activities including restaurants selling cooked fish) i. We made a stop at the 8 km cascading Indra Sarobar reservoir , at Kulekhani, Makwanpur

District of Narayani (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulekhani_Dam). The dam is 114 m high and the depth of the headwater is 80 m. It supports the 60 MW Kulekhani I and 32 MW Kulekhani II Hydropower Stations, as well as a third, smaller 14 MW Kulekhani III HP station. The stations are operated during peak hours as a power back-up. Fishing with multi-mesh gillnets and cage culture are done in the reservoir, only allowed for people displaced by the project.

ii. Rapti River, Bhalubang, Dang: At this stop lots of trucks were seen in the river bed

collecting sand and gravel. Fishermen were not found as it was a lunch time. It was told that about 40 fishermen (Majhi and Tharu) collect wild fish in this point of Rapti river. The team also observed cooked fish in the restaurants in Bhalubang.

iii. Rapti River, Sikta Irrigation Canal Dam site, Agaiya, Banke: According to local

restaurant operators, about 30 fishermen and locals are collecting wild fish from Rapti river currently. At least 10 restaurants sell cooked fish to highway travelers. It is forecasted that full operation of Sikta Irrigation channel will negatively impact locals and fishermen in Agaiya and downstream.

iv. Babai River, Babai Irrigation Canal Dam site, Bardia: Flowing through the Bardia

National Park, Chepang-Babai Dam section of Babai River is considered one of the best angling/fishing sites for Golden Mahaseer. Currently, Bheri Babai Diversion Multipurpose Project has started to develop infrastructures to divert the water from Bhari to Babai River. The project will generate 48 MW hydropower and provide round the year irrigation to 51,000 Ha cultivation land in Bardiya and Banke districts. With the diversion of Bheri River water into Babai River, the river water volume will be increased by 40 cum/second (under a head of 150 m using a 15 m tall dam). Local tourism entrepreneurs (safari, rafting and angling operators) are happy with the increment in water volume in Babai River with the diversion of Bheri river water. Conservation biologists are, however, waiting and watching the possible consequences on local aquatic biodiversity with the diversion of snow-fed cold water into the spring-fed (Churia origin) relatively warm water.

v. Chisapani, Karnali River: Located about 27 km north-west from BNP headquarters

Thakurdwara, Chisapani is probably the largest fish selling center throughout the Karnali River. About 500 kg of fresh and dry fish collected from Karnali River is sold to local, regional and national consumers by hoteliers and restaurants in Chisapani, particularly ish captured in the Kuina-Lamki section of Lower Karnali. This is the first and the busiest bridge connecting travelers from Western Nepal and India by road to the capital city Kathmandu and other major cities and places including northern mountain districts. A new Karnali River Corridor road is also being constructed to link Chisapani with Surkhet, Accham and other mountain districts directly. So far, a 26 km long road track (Chisapani-Solta) has already been opened.

82

vi. Chepang, Babai Valley: Chepang is the starting point for rafting and fishing in Babai River. Lying on the Kohalpur-Surkhet road, it is also one of the major stops for travelers for lunch, snacks and short breaks. Every hotelier and restaurant offers fish items on their menu. Upon completion of the Bheri-Babai Diversion Project, Babai River will receive 40 cum/second additional water at this point.

vii. Chhinchu Bazaar, near Bheri River: Chhinchu in the Surkhet Valley is the gateway to Jajarkot, Rukum, Dolpa and other mountain districts. Visitors aiming to do trekking to Dolpo and rafting and fishing in Bheri Karnali start their journey from this point. Bheri Karnali is one of the major tributaries of Karnali River basin and also a popular rafting and fishing destination. Rafting in Bheri River generally starts at the Jajarkot-Rukum border point, Manmai (army post), Nalsingghad etc., and passing through Chhinchu, Tatopani, Ghatbesi, finally joins Main Karnali River just above Solta. Besides the ongoing Bheri Babai Diversion Project (the head the diversion tunnel lies very close to Chhinchu), Nalsingghad Hydro project (410 MG capacity) is under construction. Construction of Nalsinghghad Hudropower project will acquire about 600 Rapani of land and directly affect the local population of 800, belonging to 150 households. Construction of this project might have significant impacts on aquatic biodiversity as well as rafting and fishing tourism activities.

viii. Upper Dungeshwor is the major supplier of fish for the ca. 27,000 residents of

Narayani Municipality (Dailekh). At least 3 small streams (Khola) namely the Katti Khola, Matela Khola and Parajuli Khola contribute to form the Dungeshwor Khola which ultimately meets the Main Karnali at Lower Dungeshwor. Manu small restaurants and teashops collect and sell cooked and dry fish to the locals and travelers at this point. About 20 kg of wild fish is sold on a daily basis at Upper Dungeshwor; Fresh fish @500 NR/kg. and dried fish @3000 NR/kg.

ix. Lower Dungeshwor: Chhamghad River passes through Uppder Dungeshwor and meets the Main Karnali at Chhamghad. The Chhamghad Bridge Bazaar is one of the busiest local markets in the area that also sells fish at restaurants and hotels. About 50 fishermen (including Badi community) collect fish in Chhamghad. The Chhamghad-Karnali River confluence is a religious site as it contains Dungeshwor Mahadev temple; a religious site out of 5 Pancha Koshi sites in Dullu area. Dungeshwor is one of the famous rafting/fishing starting sites in Karnali River. Dungeshwor-Chisapani (about 200km) rafting is probably one of the longest rafting routes in Nepal.

x. Ramghat: Ramghat near the GMR Upper Karnali Office is another fish market in the

corridor. The Paduka Khola meets at Main Karnali at Ramghat. Fish found in Ramghat area is claimed to be the tastiest in the region.

xi. Tuni Bagar: Tuni Bagar is another small fish market in the Karnali River corridor after

Ramghat. A suspension bridge connects Tunibazaar (Dailesk) with Accham. About 20 fishermen collect fish here in Tunibagar. At least 10 small hotels and restaurants offer fish (cooked) in Tunibagar.

xii. Rakam Karnali: Rakam Karnali is the largest fish collection and selling market center in

Middle Karnali. Rakam Karnali is one of the potential urban areas in this region. The

83

Mid-Hill Highway (Lokmarga) crosses Karnali River at Rakam and enters into Accham district. More than 500 kg fish is collected per day in this place during the month of March to May. Rakam Karnali is the gateway to Khaptad and Ramaroshan areas in the west and Rara, Jumla and Dolpa areas in the north. This has the potential to become a beautiful and vibrant tourist spot in the near future.

xiii. Nagma, at the confluence of Tila karnali and Sinja (Hema) River, is the largest bazaar

before reaching Jumla Bazaar (Jumla) and Gamgadi Bazaar (Mugu). Located at the western bank of Tila Karnali, Nagma is also the lunch place for many travelers heading to Rara or Jumla from Kalikot. At least 10 small hotels and 20 restaurants offer cooked (fresh) and and dried fish to travelers. This is probably the highest point in Tila Karnali and Sinja River where a larger volume of fish can be found almost throughout the year. Above this point, both the population and movement of fish decrease gradually as the temperature decreases.

xiv. Gothi Jeula is the last bazaar before entering into the Rara National Park boundary.

This is also the starting point for trekking to Rara. Several restaurants and some hotels offer lunch (including limited capacity of lodging) to the trekkers and travelers to Rara. Fish can be found in Sinja River only after the month of March till September (due to the cold temperature).

xv. Rara: Located at an elevation of 3050 m, Rara is the largest natural lake of Nepal. The

area of Rara Lake is 10.8 square km and its perimeter is 9 km with 5 km length and 3 km width. The maximum depth of water in Rara Lake is 167 m. Rara Lake has been protected by the Government of Nepal under the framework of National Park since 1976. The area of Rara national Park is 106 km2. Rara Lake is the only habitat of 3 endemic Nepalese Snow Trout species. Rara Lake is one of the most promising tourist destinations in western Nepal. Currently about 200 international and 25,000 domestic visitors visit Rara NP annually. The number of domestic visitors has increased significantly since the connection of Rara and Gamgadi the with national road network in 2012. Though fishing is completely banned in Rara Lake, fish and other aquatic are enjoyed by visitors enjoy seeing them in the crystal clear water. Currently two hotels (Danfe and Heritage Hotels, about 18 rooms and 40 beds) and one community homestay in Murma Top offer basic accommodation facilities to the visitors in Rara. Other available tourist attractions include horse riding, local tour guides, boating in Rara Lake (allowed for domestic visitors only), walking and cycling track, rhododendron and sea buckthorn juice etc.

xvi. Gamgadi: Located about 9 km down from Rara Lake, Gamgadi is the district headquarters of Mugu district. Gamgadi is also the gateway to Humla (in the west) and Dolpa (in the east). One of the tributaries of Karnali River basin, Mugu Karnali is located at a closer distance to Mugu. As fishing in Rara Lake is completely banned, only the Mugu Karnali provides fish to the residents of Gamgadi bazaar. About five moderate hotels and three restaurant offers basic accommodation facilities to the domestic and international visitors at Gamgadi.

xvii. Goru Chour, Sinja: Goruchour in Sinja Valley is a small bazaar with home

restaurants. It has potential for tourism as some historical sites including ruins of the historical Birat palace and Tripurasundari Temple are located very close to this place. Fish (maximum 5 kg in size) can be collected in this area only from the beginning of April.

84

xviii. Tatopani located at the bank of Tila Karnali has natural hot spring water, which is

another tourist attraction in Jumla. Currently at least 4 separate chambers have been constructed. However, the sanitation and sewage condition is very poor. A small two chambered hatchery farm has been established at the northern edge of the hot spring, though details could not be taken.

xix. Balighat: This is one of the busiest fish bazaars in Tila Karnali after Nagma. At least

45 households (about 60% of total populations) are involved in collecting and selling fish here . They collect fish using large nets during the nighttime. An individual fisherman can collect up to 15 to 20 kg of fish per day during the peak season (March-May). The fishermen sell at 450-475 NR/kg and the hoteliers sell at 500 NR/kg (Informant: Deb Bahadur Bista, Restaurant operator and fisherman).

85

APPENDIX 8: WORKSHOP FINDINGS

86

8.1. LOWER KARNALI

87

8.1.1. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Timeline (and Vision) Resource Map SWOT Netmap The current status of the fish stock & exploitation

Stable fish resources before 1960s Then rapid decline Intensive fishing and new fishing gear after 1970 Destructive operations (poisons, electric fishing) Rapid environmental changes (man-made dams, gravel mining etc) have altered and threaten fish resources; Add more Re: Vision

Fish resources integral part of changing riverine scene (new dams, irrigation schemes, agriculture) Some definite (well-defined) fishing areas mapped Role of roads, bridges in creating access to fishing and markets

Potential fish resource abundance and diversity in Nepal’s rivers (considered high) (which species?) Severe policy, law and institutional weaknesses Potential for better managed fisheries to generate benefits (e.g. employment, income) Threats from severe environmental change and lack of policy and management coherence

Fish stocks still support fish value chains, but low quantities and erratic supply; Fishermen (on wild stocks) rely on inputs from relatively few suppliers (nets, boats); both local and from India; Fishermen receive some support/services from Local government and others (e.g. ? ); But fishermen also in dispute/conflict with government agencies (e.g. Bardia NP over fishing access, with Min. Water/Energy over development of rivers); Most powerful influencers are Local Government, but not hugely significant (many entities seem to have some influence); _______ Aquaculture production and supply is larger, with more even supply; but low diversity of fish species (mainly carps?); Large number of service and input suppliers; Minimum conflict in aquaculture sector; Most significant influencers are few –hotels/restaurants (market) and Local government (permits and subsidies?);

Characterisation and analysis the fish value chain

From 1993 onwards, increased numbers of bridge and roads have opened up fishing areas and supplies – facilitated growth of value chain From 2010 onwards, demand for fish and fish products seems to have increased, with increased fish prices also;

n.a. Diverse and productive fisheries and aquaculture – could be further enhanced by addressing weak policy and management – to form the basis for a strong value chain;

For wild fisheries, value chain between fishers and consumers is short (4-6 steps); Middlemen, vendors and Hotels/restaurants are important intermediaries; Fish products include fresh fish (of various types) and dried fish (whole or in pieces), mainly smoked;

88

Fish products (both fresh and dried) tend to be sold/traded/consumed locally (not moved nationally to any great extent); Consumers include local, national and international (mainly tourists) Wild fish prices are at a premium (over farmed fish) ________ For Farmed fish, the value chain is slightly longer and more complex than for the wild fish; Farmed fish sold through more outlets, including more shops and outlets on a regular basis; Farmed fish can also be sent to longer distance locations (e.g. Kathmandu); Farmed fish is mainly sold fresh (live) or frozen/chilled; Farmed fish value chain also benefits from inputs and support relating to fish transport and preservation (e.g. poly boxes); There is an integration of farmed and wild fish value chain (to some extent); particularly for Middlemen; Farmed fish also has to compete with farmed fish from India (carps); The price of farmed fish is lower

The potential role of eco-tourism, as an alternative livelihood

From 2010 onwards, the level of tourism-related activity has increased (e.g. river rafting, national parks visits and home-stays) – the extent to which fishing communities have benefitted is unclear;

n.a. Opportunity to link livelihoods with well-managed fisheries (income and employment); Link between fisheries and aquaculture also to tourism in region and alternative livelihoods;

Possibility of more tourists providing an enhanced market for both wild and farmed fish;

89

8.1.2. Timeline

The Timeline exercise for the Lower Karnali was undertaken as one large participatory exercise by the workshop participants. The starting point was 1950 extending up to the present day, with the identification of major events and the impact and consequences for fish resources and fisheries. In the period before 1973, fishing was undertaken by locally dispersed communities using nets and traps., and some boats. The level of fishing effort was probably relatively low. After 1973, the introduction of bigger nets witnessd larger catches. Large sized fish and catches (up to 50 kg of one species) were landed regularly, but there were also signs of change (with less indigenous fish). With the establishment of Bardia National Park (1973), some of the fishing areas became more regulated (banning of fishing completely inside the park), and fish stocks were better protected and conserved. But soon after, from 1976, the change in the fisheries started to intensify. Both the size and quanity of fish landed were reduced. A number of factors are important – the use of poisons to kill fish, disappearane of selective gears (e.g. hook lines), and the construction of a major dam (Nepal-India border in 1983) which limited fish movements. However, despite river modification downstream (damming), the year 1983 witnessed a massive river flood in the Lower Karnali, with a huge loss of life and property, and large-scale erosion. The flood not only inundated farmland but also prevented fishing, and many communities had a reduced food supply. From 1985 onwards, blasting and poisoning were used increasingly to catch fish, whereas more traditional methods (e.g. fences and dams) fell into disuse. The leasing out of natural wetlands by the DDC also reduced natural fishing areas. The construction of the Chisapani Bridge (1993) (linking east and west Nepal) also coincides with increased fish prices (possibly as new markets were opened up). But further indiscriminate fishing metods (e.g. stone hammering) also increased. A fishermen’s cooperative as established at the time of the Maoist conflict (1995), along with use of huge nets for fishing. Further river modification occurred (1996) with the Babai irrigation dam and channel. This coincided with more intensive fishing (large nets), reduction of fish sizes and number of species (diversity), increase in fish demand (linked to greater accessibility using new bridges), and higher fish prices (inflation?). There have also been questions about the quality of the water and links to the reduction of river dolphin movements. Gravel mining in river beds also increased rapidly (demands from infrastructure construction projects), and this is linked to flow changes also (reduction). More recently, flood events (2014) have had serious impacts on humans and wildlife. Other trends, since 2010, include changes in local fishing communities (displaced by outsiders), the use of electric pumps for fishing, the continued increased demand for fish, and the emergence of more tourism (homestay and national park and rafting). Overall, it is evident that a number of major natural events (e.g. floods) have taken place, as well as the emergence of various long term changes in the riverine environment brought about by human interventions (e.g. dam construction and gravel mining). All of these have impacted the fish stocks and fisheries, to varying degrees, although the precise links and relationships remain unknown. Fish resource exploitation, outside the NP, has not been regulated, and intensive and destructive practices appear to have increased over time.

90

HISTORICAL TIMELINE-THAKURDWARA AREA, LOWER KARNALI WATERSHED

Year in BS Year in AD

Major Event (s) Major Impacts/Consequences on Fish and Fisheries

2011 BS 1955 AD Using Jal (Net) and trap (Panso) for collecting fishes from the river

2013 BS 1957 AD Wooden Boat was used to catch fish. Raft and Tube were introduced to catch fish after 2058.

2017 BS 1960 AD The biggest flood occurred

2029 BS 1973 AD Establishment of Bardia Wildlife Reserve (present day Bardia National Park)

BNP offered banning on fishing in rivers inside NP

Only very less natural fish found compared to before

The use of Mahajal (Big Net?) was introduced.

Controlled fishing helped to conserve natural fishes.

2030 BS 1974 AD Large sized fish availed by that time. People started using poisonings to kill fish.

2032/2033 BS

1976/77 AD

There was a practice of hook fishing (Bachhi). Now it disappeared.

Around 2040 BS

1983 AD Construction of Girijapuri Dam in Nepal-India Border

Fisherman could not be able to find large sized fish after the construction of Kailashi Dam (in Nepal-India border)

The number of fish reduced after the construction of dam.

The upward movement of fishes was stopped/reduced with the construction of Dam.

2040 BS 1983 AD Big Flood occurred in Karnali (1+1+1)

River bed cutting

Huge loss of human and physical property

36 human casualty occurred due to Karnali flood

Jungle wild animals and fishes were found inside the houses of community due to Karnali flood.

Up to 50 kg of single fish could be catched before 2040. Then the size of fish has been declining.

At the time when the agricultural land was covered by the Karnali flood, there was nobody in Kothiaghat area and fisherman had to live without food for 2 full days.

People used blasting method to kill fish

2042 BS 1985 AD People used blasting to kill fish

2042 BS 1985 AD Badhaiyatal (natural wetland) was leased out through tender by the District Development Committee. The consequences (of the leasing out of lake) is that there are no natural fish now.

2044/45 BS

1987/88 AD

Blasting and electric current fishing was common

2046 BS 1989 AD Political Revolution (Re-establishment of Democracy)

Poisoning method was used to kill fish (2). People started using Khirro plan as poison.

2048 BS 1991 AD Duwali (killing fish by constructing a temporary/loose dam) fishing was common for catching/trapping fish. But this practice is not existed now.

Fisherman used to kill fish by using Mahajal and Chiudi plan.

2050 BS 1993 AD Construction of Bridge in Chisapani, Karnali

Areas north of the East West Highway started to be submerging by the floods

91

Year in BS Year in AD

Major Event (s) Major Impacts/Consequences on Fish and Fisheries

Before 2050 there were large sized fish in the river but can't be seen now.

Price of fish and fish products increased with the construction of bridge over Karnali River.

2050 BS 1993 AD Fisherman used to use stone hammering, rice plate and bowl for collecting fishes

2052 BS 1995 AD Maoist War/Conflict started

2052 BS 1995 AD Establishment of Fish Cooperative

2053 BS 1996 AD Started using Mahajal (Huge Net) for fishing

2053 BS 1996 AD Construction of Babai Water Irrigation Dam and Canal

2054 BS 1997 AD Asia's largest Elephant, Raja Gaj, was living in Bardia

Minimizing in number the poisoning method of fish collection from the river.

2055 BS 1998 AD Extraction of gravel and sand affected the fish production

2056 BS 1999 AD The monsoon rain used to bring fishes into the villages (through cannel?)

2060 BS 2003 AD 121 species of fishes were recorded in Bardia. Now the fish species is reduced.

2062 BS 2005 AD Massive use of Mahajal and Balchi (trap)

Number and sightings of Dolphin has been reduced severely due to the decreasing state of water level and degrading state of water quality (2)

2064 BS 2007 AD Many animals died in Bardia National Park

2065 BS 2008 AD Fish price reached to Nepalese Rupees 500 in 2064 BS which was NRs. 50 only in 2050 BS

2066 BS 2009 AD Consumption of fish increased due to the construction of bridge in Karnali and Geruwa rivers

2067 BS 2010 AD Establishment of Dalla Homestay

Started offering fish and Ghongi to the visitors (domestic and international) (?)

2067 BS 2010 AD Electric motor pumping started gradually replacing the traditional method of water pumping while collecting fishes from the natural lakes and streams

2068 BS 2011 AD Magar Crocodile started attacking the human due to the destruction of habitat caused by the construction of Dam and other physical infrastructures

2068 BS 2011 AD Dudemajhi Event Local were displaced

2069 BS 2012 AD Rafting started in Karnali by local Karnali Rafting Company

2070 BS 2013 AD Water level in Geruwa River was reduced to almost zero during winter season due to the heavy exploitation of gravel and sand in the western bank of Karnali as well as the construction of irrigation cannels in the western banks.

2071 BS 2014 AD Flood in Babai River Human casualty and loss of physical property (settlement swept away); damage of agriculture farmland, forest and biodiversity (2).

92

Year in BS Year in AD

Major Event (s) Major Impacts/Consequences on Fish and Fisheries

Many Black Buck and fishes were swept away by flood in Krishnasar Conservation Area.

Flood in Darchula Many houses were swept away by flood.

2071 BS 2014 AD Local Government bodies organized workshops and training on fish and fisheries.

2072 BS 2015 AD Wild Elephant killed two people (aged 12 and 50)

Increased demand and supply in local market (10 Quintal per day) caused the declining in fish population in natural rivers.

2072 BS 2015 AD Earth Quake 2072 Huge human casualty and property loss in central and western region of Nepal

2072 BS 2015 AD Traditional fishing communities are gradually being displaced by other communities in recent years.

Use of chemical pesticides and chemical fertilizer has impacted the health of water ecosystem and eventually the population of fish.

93

VISION FOR FISH AND FISHERIES IN LOWER KARNALI

1. Develop Fishery Policy giving due focus on commercial aspect of fishery.

2. Create awareness on fish and biodiversity

3. There is an urgent need to conserve fish during the breeding time and avail alternative

management solution during the breeding season.

4. Construction of aquaculture biodiversity friendly infrastructure.

5. Adequate fishes in the area.

6. Complete band on fishing during fish breeding period (3). It helps to increase the fish production.

7. Strict enforcement of policy with the provision of ban in fishing during breeding season.

8. Girijapuri Dam (constructed by India in Nepal-India Border) must be corrected as fish friendly dam

so as to allowing the free movement of fishes (2).

9. Maintenance of wetland areas.

10. Promotion of fish farming in private land

11. Aquatic biodiversity and natural landscape conservation has to be given due consideration while

extracting stone, gravel and sand from the river and river banks (2)

12. Construction of irrigation and transport related infrastructures without disturbing biodiversity

13. Awareness programme on fish and fisheries for local communities. Give priority on traditional

research methods.

14. Provision of alternative livelihood options for the fish/fishing dependent communities.

15. Provision of river environment friendly cremation facilities to reduce river water pollution.

16. Promote Karnali River as Fish Tourism Destination.

17. Conserve and manage birdlife and fish diversity in Badhaiya Lake, Bardia.

18. Provision of water diversion facility for Geruwa branch of Karnali to ensure the year round flow of

water in Geruwa branch.

19. Study on possible impacts on fish ecosystem and aquatic biodiversity due to the diversion of Bheri

River into Babai River.

20. Provision of fixed fishing season to allow the safe breeding for fishes.

21. Plastic is polluting the river and lakes and eventually affecting the fish.

94

8.1.3. Resource mapping

The resource mapping exercise was undertaken in two groups.

The results (maps) which emerged are, by and large, very similar.

The series of channels and tributaries which make up the Lower Karnali are well-illustrated and provide a good overview of the rivers and riverine environment within the local environment and geographic setting.

The rivers are shown located and passing through various types of land-use areas including natural swamps (and islands), farmland and forest.

The important position of the Bardia National Park in relation to the rivers is also evident – an area where more stringent regulation of fishing is supposed to take place.

The maps also illustrate the locations of towns and villages and the position of more recent modern developments including roads and bridges.

The location of fishing areas – which was problematic for most of the groups – who are not practising fishermen – was evident during the course of the exercise. Although one of the groups (fishermen) did have good knowledge, and were willing to locate some good areas (but probably not all) – in particular adjacent to the Bardia National Park, and close to the Chisapani Bridge.

To better understand the distribution and size of riverine fish stocks in the River Karnali would undoubtedly requirement a dedicated and more detailed survey (approaches and techniques for riverine fisheries are well-developed internationally).

The most striking part of the maps, in relation to the rivers and fish stocks, is the level of human activity in the Lower Karnali region – from farming and urban development to new roads, bridges and infrastructure.

All of this development and activity has taken emerged in the past 50 years, at a rapid pace – with many impacts on the fisheries. There is undoubtedly a growing demand for fish, and fishing activity has increased – while the regulation of this activity (and fisheries management) has not kept pace. More seriously, the riverine environment is subject to massive and rapid changes – through damming, gravel mining and channelization – with unknown (unstudied) and probably serious (negative) impacts on fish resources.

95

96

97

8.1.4. SWOT

The Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis, undertaken by one of the breakout groups in the workshop, focused on the future development potential for the fisheries sector in Nepal – and mainly for wild fisheries (rather than aquaculture).

In terms of Strengths, the group recognised the abundant and underlying natural resources involved – in terms of water and fish stocks. The fact that fishing and fish-farming activities are already in operation, along with fisheries cooperatives, were considered positive attributes. This could be interpreted as familiarisation with production systems and the existence of relevant institutional arrangements. Finally, the fact that the Lower Karnali is a tourist destination was also included as a strength (probably in terms of alternative livelihoods and a market for fish).

Regarding Weaknesses, the main focus is on institutions and management arrangements (or the lack of them). Most fundamentally, it is recognised that laws and policies are not being enforced (for fish conservation). This also relates to uncontrolled fishing practices (and particularly those that are indiscriminate and destructive e.g. poisoning), which are also illegal. There also appears to be no regulation with respect to fish breeding seasons and fishing activity. Furthermore, other river uses (e.g. cremation) are not managed or regulated, with respect to fisheries – representing a lack of policy and institutional coherence.

For Opportunities, the working group considered that fish and fisheries offered a range of potential benefits, particularly in terms of employment and income. There is increasing demand for fish and fish products (leading to income generation opportunities), with potential for self-employment (e.g. rural households). Fish also represents a source of food (with a market demand). Furthermore, fishing might be related to eco-tourism as another income source. Finally, government has shown willingness to provide incentives and training for the establishment of fish farms, which might be taken up by individuals or firms.

Finally, in terms of Threats, the main aspects concerned environmental damage and impacts relating to both natural and man-made interventions in the river system. There was concern about frequent floods damaging fish habitat and production (although this might also be considered a natural process). But there was also a focus on water resource depletion, unplanned development in general (e.g. dams, gravel mining), and also with specific reference to wetlands and their use (e.g. new land plots).

98

STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS (SWOT) ANALYSIS : FISH AND FISHERY- LOWER KARNALI

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Huge water resources (Karnali River, Geruwa River, Babai River, Bhagraiya Lake)

Un-controlled fishing practices (Poisoning, using electric current, bombing etc.)

Increasing demand for fish and fish products

Water source (s) being depleted

A promising tourism destination

Illegal fishing Opportunity for income generation as the fish price is going up

Un-planned and uncontrolled excavation of river based products (gravel, sand etc.)

Varieties of fish species (Sahar, Bhaikha, Thed, Naini, Bhakur, Carp etc.)

Cremation practices are not river environment friendly and causing river pollution

Incentives from the government agencies on private and community fish farming/aquaculture

Unplanned development of river dam, bridge etc.

Locals already attracted and engaged in commercial fish farming/production

Severe negligence on the breeding season of fishes while undertaking fishing activities

Self-employment opportunity

Frequent floods damaging fish habitat and production

Establishment of fish cooperatives

Laws and policies not being enforced effectively (Regarding to conservation of fish)

Eco-tourism development

Natural wetlands and small irrigation cannels being vanished/encroached due to unplanned land plotting (resl state)

Provision of food for the aquatic animals/fishes

Provision of training, commercial fish farming for fish conservation

99

8.1.5. Netmapping

The netmapping exercise focused on understanding the fishery system and its post-harvest value chain(s). Starting at the landing point for fish (with the fisherman as the key actor), the value chain was described (from actor to actor), ending up at the consumer. The relationships with other actors (in terms of inputs (supply), services (support) and misunderstandings were also identified. Finally, the relative power to influence the value chain for fish (or the sector) by key actors was determined.

Three working groups focused on – wild fisheries, fish farming and both fisheries/aquaculture (combined) in the Lower Karnali.

For the Wild Fisheries – the Value Chain is relatively simple (few actors) with a local focus (it does not extend far geographically). Fishermen sell their catch (mainly fresh) to Middlemen/Vendors, who in turn sell the catch onto other Vendors, Hotels/ Restaurants, Local Baazar Retailers and Shops/Retail Outlet Owners. In turn, they all sell onto Consumers (Local, National, Visitors, International Visitors). The Hotels/Restaurants appear to be the most active and largest outlets, and they also tend to process fresh fish (by smoking/drying, either as whole fish or in pieces). Overall, the value chain for fish consists of 3-4 steps, and tends to remain local. Some fish is sent to Kathmandu, for example, but this tends to be a low volume.

For prices along the value chain for native fish, it was recorded that:

Fishermen sell to the Hoteliers and Middlemen:

@350 to 400 NR/kg (small fishes <1Kg)

@400 to 500 NR/Kg (Big fishes >1 Kg)

Hoteliers (after processing, removing scales etc.) sell to consumers:

@800 NR/Kg.(fresh)

@2,200 to 2,500 NR/Kg (dried). Farmed Fish: Farmers sell to all consumers @220 NRs/kg. Middlemen sell it @ 250-270 NRs/kg to the end users.

The fishermen (within the community) obtain Inputs from the private sector (local and Indian net and other gear suppliers), but no others. For Support (Services) (e.g.?), they rely on the Local Government, Bardia National Park and USAID (Paani Project). There is a weaker relationship with others (e.g. District Agriculture Development Office and a number of NGOs). The fishermen are thought to have some Mis-understandings (conflict) with the Ministry of Water Resources, Energy and Irrigation (over dams and irrigation channels), the Bardia National Park (over illegal fishing) and the District Forest Service (a weak dispute over wood supplies).

In general, in terms of the Power to influence the current and future development of fisheries, a summary is shown below (Table X). A total of 13 entities (organisations, individuals) with influence were identified spread across government, the private sector and NGOs. Local Government was considered to be most powerful with respect to fisheries development (score 4), but this could be either a positive or negative influence. Followed by Bardia NP (+/- 3). All the others scored 2. The

100

distribution of influence was quite even, and with likely positive or negative outcomes depending on the issue concerned (For example:?)

Table X. Level of Influence (+/-) over fisheries development (with score) Government Score Private Sector Score NGO Score Local Government (Municipalities)

(+)4 Net/boat suppliers (local) +2 Sonaha Dev. Committee +2

Bardia National Park (+/-)3 Net suppliers (India) +2 USAID (Paani) +2 Ministry Water, Energy (+/-) 2 Vendors +2 Fiann Nepal +2 District Agric. Dev. Office (+/-) 2 Hotels (Homestays),

Restaurants +2

District Forest Office (+/-) 2 Local Bazaars +2

For Aquaculture, in the Lower Karnali, both the production system and the value chain appear to be more developed and complex than for the wild fisheries. The Value Chain, starting at the farm-gate (fish farm), extends to both local and external markets (nationally), via both fish-catchers (who harvest an agreed quantity of farmed fish) and then sell these onto middlemen, who in turn, sell onto fish sellers in the markets (mainly retail). The local market sellers then supply fish to hotels/restaurants, who supply local consumers, and also national consumers and external markets (to a limited extent), and to tourists (consumers). Some fish is also supplied directly to local consumers by the fish catchers. The value chain mainly focuses on fresh farmed fish (carp spp.). An interesting aspect of the farmed fish market and value chain is the supply (and competition from) of fish from India (mainly iced, and transported from as far away as Andra Pradesh), to local markets, and also directly to local consumers in some situations.

Prices along the value chain for farmed fish were recorded as follows:

Farm-gate to Middlemen (via fish catchers): NR 240/Kg

Middlemen to Local Markets: NR 300-350/Kg

Local Markets to Consumers (also via Hotels): NR 600/Kg

Local Markets to National Markets: NR 1200-1500/Kg (dried fish, also wild fish included?)

At least 13 private sector entities (firms, organisations) provide Inputs (Supplies) to the fish farming sector, including fishing gear, feeds and medicines. This is a much larger and more complex set of arrangements than for the wild fisheries (or fishermen). Support (Services) is also provided by a large number of both government and NGO organisations (at least 8), although Local Government and DADO Agriculture have the strongest relationships.

In general, in terms of the Power to influence the current and future development of aquaculture, a summary is shown below (Table X). A relatively low number (5) of entities (organisations, individuals) with influence were identified spread across government, the private sector and NGOs. Local Government was considered to be powerful with respect to aquaculture development (score 10), with a positive influence. However, hotels/restaurants (score 12) were considered most powerful – probably because they have a pivotal position in the value chain, and represent a major part of market demand. Input suppliers scored less (+/-4) followed by cooperatives, and various NGO (+1).

101

Table X. Level of Influence (+/-) over aquaculture development (with score) Government Score Private Sector Score NGO Score Local Government (Municipalities)

(+)10 Hotels/Restaurants +12 NGO (FECOFUN, NTNC, CFCC)

+1

Input (supply companies) (+/-)4 Cooperatives +1

Finally, a third group completed a net-mapping exercise which examined Both Wild Fisheries and Aquaculture production in the Lower Karnali.

In terms of the Value Chain, this group confirmed the earlier findings of both the wild fisheries and aquaculture netmapping results. First, that fish is sold from the landing sites and farm-gate into a value chain which centres on Middlemen and also on Hotels/Restaurants. The value chain, which appears to integrate and share fish supplies from both wild fish ad farm sources, is relatively limited in length and in geographical extent. The end consumers are mainly local, but with some fish supplies also reaching national consumers. Besides Hotels/Restaurants, other outlets are also important (e.g. retailers, dry fish shops), but to a lesser extent, and mainly for farmed fish.

For prices along the value chains, the results were considered to be consistent with the earlier results for fish products (dried and fresh) from both fish farms and wild fisheries.

For Inputs, the fish farmers draw upon a wider range of private sector suppliers (e.g. feed suppliers, agro-vet shops, net suppliers), whereas the wild fishermen appear to use only gear and boat suppliers.

For Support (Services) fish farmers are linked with at least four with government organisations (e.g. Nepal Agriculture Research Centre, District Agriculture Development Office, Ministry of Agriculture), along with Cooperatives (Community) and Chamber of Commerce/Industries (Private Sector). The wild fishermen also share many of these government links (but to a weaker extent), and are also linked to various NGO (e.g. BAFAR, TAL, Paani), along with some community organisations (e.g. FEDWASON), which is not the case for fish farmers.

For Misunderstandings (conflict), both fish farmers and wild fishermen interacted with the Ministry of Water, Energy and Irrigation. For wild fishermen alone, there were some issues of dispute with Ministry of Forestry and Bardia National Park.

102

103

104

105

8.2. MIDDLE KARNALI

106

8.2.1. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS, MIDDLE KARNALI

Timeline (and Vision) Resource Map SWOT Netmap The current status of the fish stock & exploitation

Large-scale floods affecting livelihoods and fish stocks in 1951 and 1971. Famine triggers migration to Terai. Fish stocks rebound Destructive fishing since 1978 affecting river environment; decreased fish stocks after introducing monofilament nets in 1983 Another large-scale flood in 1985 displaces settlements Fish stock decline since 1990s Present: fishery policies not yet formulated and tax on fish not clarified Vision: Formulation and implementation of policy, strategy and fish masterplan Registration of fishery groups at municipal level and promotion of traditional net- and hook & line fishery Ban on mahajal. Skills, knowledge development and infrastructure support for traditional fishermen Policy for conservation of fish habitat and clean river environment Training and employment in fish farming. Organize entrepreneurs for profitable business

Two very distinct maps were presented; One emphasizing the local context (fisheries and aquaculture established locally at Rakam Karnali near local markets along the river and highway) The other providing a regional overview with fishing locations dispersed across tributaries

Focused on the future development potential for wild fisheries and aquaculture Strengths; plenty of fish and water resources, increasing demand for fish and fish products, and availability of youth and skilled manpower Weaknesses; increasing trend of destructive and uncontrolled fishing, lack of knowledge and training on appropriate fishing techniques, low capture volume relative to ‘huge’ manpower invested Opportunities in demand, employment and income; Benefits to local economy, self-sufficiency, nutrition; Threats; environmental impacts in relation to man-made interventions (HP, deforestation). Threats of excavation by heavy equipment (bulldozers) singled out by both groups

Local government and private sector (hotels, restaurants) attributed most influence (+) GMR (hydropower) and destructive fishing attributed most influence (-) Complex web of other government and NGO actors but mostly with negligible influence Aquaculture production is emerging but small, based on one single group (carp)

Characterisation and analysis of the fish value chain

1990s: fishers barter fish against food grains. Introduction of aquaculture since 2004

Opportunities to cover wider market segments, including dried fish and sales of fish to visitors

Capture fish still dominates fish value chains, both in terms of quantity and higher value (per kg) for local supply Hotels and restaurants dominate value chain through value addition (dried fish, prepared meals)

The potential role of eco-tourism, as an alternative livelihood

To be completed

107

8.2.2. Timeline

Equal to the Lower Karnali, the timeline exercise for the Middle Karnali was undertaken as one large participatory exercise by the workshop participants. The starting point was 1950, the end of the Rana regime when a leasing system was in place, extending up to the present day, with the identification of major events and their impacts and consequences for fish resources and fisheries. In 1951, a large flood affected fish and other aquatic animals severely and resulted in damage to fish habitat. Nevertheless, the quantity of fish remained high in the river, with large sized fish being found in Rakam Karnali, at least into the early 1960s. In 1971, another large flood event took place, causing large scale erosion, fish kills and fish habitat destruction, after which the fish population declined sharply. People faced famine due to the loss of agricultural crops and fish, and started searching for alternative foods. Some people started migrating to other areas, particularly the Terai. From 1978, destructive fishing (blasting and trapping) started in the river and streams. Destructive fishing (blasting) continued to pollute the river environment affecting aquatic life throughout the 1980s. The fish population remained high in the river till around 1983, when the introduction of monofilament net fishing resulted in decreasing fish population in the river. Traditional fishermen started feeling that their livelihood was being threatened. The year 1985 witnessed another large flood and erosion event in the Middle Karnali, with a huge loss of fertile agricultural land. Settlements in Turmakhad Rural Municipality (ward No. 3 to 6) and Narayani Municipality (ward no. 1 to 4) were displaced by the heavy flood and erosion. In 1988, an earthquake caused damage to physical property. During the (late) 1990s fishermen used to exchange fish for food grains. Around 2004, one fisherman still used to harvest ca. 300 kg of fish in one fishing season, but the population of natural fish in the Karnali evidently had declined. Locals started aquaculture (fish farming) in private farms, and local entrepreneurs benefited from commercial fish farming. At present, fishery policies have not yet been formulated. Local governments are also not clear about taxes on fish products. Overall, it is evident that a number of major natural events (particularly floods) have taken their toll on natural fish production, as well as on agriculture, particularly through habitat destruction. However, despite temporary declines, fish stocks appear generally to have rebounded from these events. The emergence of destructive fishing and introduction of monofilament nets appears to have impacted fish stocks over time, but the magnitude of reported declines remain unclear. Exploitation of natural fish stocks has never been regulated, and even today fishery policies have not yet been formulated. Aquaculture only recently emergenced during the last decade (since ca. 2004) possibly in response to increased demand for fish and low and erratic supply from capture fisheries.

108

HISTORICAL TIMELINE-THAKURDWARA AREA, MIDDLE KARNALI WATERSHED (28/02/2018)

Year in BS

Year in AD

Major Event (s) Major Impacts/Consequences on Fish and Fisheries

2007 BS 1950 AD End of Rana regime and starting of democratic system in Nepal

Rana rulers used to collect tax from the fishermen (3) – fish

collectors paid tax to the district HQ

2008 BS 1951 AD Big Flood in Karnali Aquatic animals and fishes were severely affected by flood (2)

Fish habitat was damaged as the flooding ingredients covered the habitat.

2010 to 2015 BS

1953 to 1958 AD

The quantity of fish in the river/stream was high during that period

2018 BS 1961 AD Large sized fishes, as high as 100 kg in weight, were found in Rakam Karnali. Now there are only very small sized fish available in the river

2028 BS (Bhadra 26)

1971 AD Big flood and erosion in the region (3)

River fishes died due to big river flood and erosion

People faced famine due to the loss of agriculture crop in the farmland and fishes in the river/stream (3)

Fish habitats were severely destroyed and fish population declined sharply.

People started searching for alternative foods. Some people started migrating to other areas (Terai)

2035 BS 1978 AD Destructive fishing (blasting and trapping) started in the river and streams (3)

2040 BS 1983 AD Fish population was high in the river till 2040 BS. The introduction of plastic net fishing resulted decreasing in the fish population in the river.

Traditional fishermen started being threatened (feeling unsecured).

2040 BS 1983 AD Flood and erosion in the area

2042 BS 1985 AD Big flood and erosion Many fertile agriculture lands were lost due to river bed cutting.

Settlements in Turmakhad Rural Municipality (ward No. 3 to 6) and Narayani Municipality (Ward no. 1 to 4) were displaced by the heavy flood and erosion.

2045 BS 1988 AD Earth quake Earth quake caused partial damage to physical property

Destructive fishing (blasting) polluted river environment. Other aquatic animals were also affected.

2054/055 BS

1997/98 AD

Fishermen used to exchange fishes with the food grains.

2061 BS 2004 AD The population of natural fish in Karnali started declining.

One fisherman used to collect 300 kg of fishes in one fishing season.

Locals started aquaculture (fish farming) in private farm.

Local entrepreneurs were started benefiting through commercial fish farming

2062/063 BS

2005/06 AD

Political Revolution

2072 to 2074 BS

2015 to 2017 AD

Fishery policies not yet been formulated. Local governments are also not clear about tax on fish products.

109

VISION FOR FISH AND FISHERIES IN THE MIDDLE KARNALI WATERSHED (28/02/2018)

1. Natural resources should be conserved while constructing the physical infrastructures.

2. Formulation and execution of policy, strategy and action plan for fish management at local level (2).

3. Band on all forms of destructive fishing practices can be a helpful for the conservation of fish (2).

4. Formulation of district or provincial level fish/fishery masterplan.

5. Provision of hatchery in the district to solve the problem of fish fry (?) (Bhura).

6. Formulation of fishery policy by synthesizing traditional and modern methods of fish farming so as

to addressing the concerns of the traditional fishermen.

7. Provision for registration of fishery groups at the respective Rural Municipality and Municipalities.

8. Fish entrepreneurs should be more organized to ensure profitable business.

9. Traditional net fishing is a good method.

10. Formulation of policy to achieve a healthy life and better economic prosperity through the promotion

of fishery in healthy and clean water.

11. Use of traditional hooks to catch fish.

12. Policy for the conservation of fish habitat and achieving pollution free river environment.

13. Band on use of Mahajal (Big Net).

14. Widening the fishery related enterprises by selecting suitable climate (and site?)

15. Need for awareness programme on importance of fish at local level.

16. Provision of skills training on fish and fishery.

17. Give high focus on operation of fish friendly (fish) enterprises.

18. Efforts to increase the fish farming groups.

19. Employment creation through fish farming.

20. Fishermen to set the price of fish by themselves.

21. Provision of appropriate training to make fishermen more professional and competitive.

22. Provision of knowledge, skills development and infrastructure support for the traditional fishermen.

23. Provision of hooks and rope. Leasing out of endemic (wild) fish areas.

110

8.2.3. Resource mapping

The resource mapping exercise was undertaken in two groups.

The results (maps) which emerged are quite different in scale, with the map of group one focusing on the river and its tributaries. The map of group two has a larger scale, and is partially based on a Google map drawn from a hand-held device.

The two maps are complementary, with the map drawn by group one illustrating where various tributaries join the main Karnali River, and the map drawn by group two providing a good overview of the river and its tributaries within the wider geographic setting.

The map drawn by group one shows in some detail where the various population- and market centres are located. The map also depicts some fish farms near Rakam Karnali that were not captured in the map by group 2. The location of capture fisheries appears is depicted to be at the various tributaries, but not on the main stream of the river.

Group two depicts the river and its various tributaries passing through forest areas. The map also illustrates locations of towns and villages and road network. It shows also a hydropower station located at Naumule. Settlements and fishing activities are mostly at the confluence of streams and rivers. Fishing areas are indicated throughout the area, notably downstream Naumule, Katti Khola, Chupra, Lower- and Upper Dungeshwar, Ramghat, and near Rakam Karnali.

111

112

8.2.4. SWOT

The Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis, undertaken by two of the breakout groups in the workshop, focused on the future development potential for wild fisheries and aquaculture in the Middle Karnali.

Both groups identified similar Strengths; plenty of fish and water resources, increasing demand for fish and fish products, and availability of youth and skilled manpower. Group one also emphasized the health of the cold water resources, and group two the fact that fish-farming activities are already in operation. The local market for fish was also considered adequate, with growing local demand.

The Weaknesses focused on the increasing trend of destructive and uncontrolled fishing, lack of knowledge and training on appropriate fishing techniques, and, therefore, low quantities of fish captured relative to the ‘huge’ manpower invested. It was also recognized that poorly planned physical infrastructures and natural disasters are degrading the fish habitat institutions and laws (for fish conservation) are poorly enforced. A supply deficit of fish products was also identified, as well as a lack of local feed supplies to feed imported fish fry.

Both groups identified a range of Opportunities, particularly in terms of demand, employment and income. Benefits to local communities in terms of local economy, self-sufficiency and nutrition are clearly perceived. The increasing demand for fish and fish products is considered to offer opportunities to cover wider market segments, including dried fish and sales of fish to visitors coming to places such as Khaptad, Ramaroshan, Jwala, and Tatirou. One group also mentioned increased awareness and the right of Local Governments (Rural Municipalities/Municipalities) to conservation, utilization and management of fish resources as opportunities.

The main Threats pertained to environmental impacts such as soil erosion, landslides and depletion of water resources, in relation to man-made interventions such as hydropower development and deforestation. It deserves mention that both groups singled out the use of heavy equipment (bulldozers) for excavation as a threat. One group also mentioned the lack of appropriate policy on production and supply of fish products as a threat. This group also identified a lack of knowledge and skills on market expansion, fish farming and difficulties in identifying the fish habitat due to lack of fish experts as ‘threats’, although it can be argued that these are weaknesses rather than threats.

Summary

The pace of fisheries and rural development in the Middle Karnali over the last 60 years has been less rapid than in the Lower Karnali, but impacts on the fisheries have become evident since the last two decades. The demand for fish is increasing but the production of river fisheries is declining. To better understand the distribution and importance of local fishing areas and fish stocks in the River Karnali requires a dedicated and more detailed survey using internationally accepted and available approaches and techniques for the assessment of river fisheries. A fact missed by all 3 groups is that there are no government regulations for aquatic native species. The fishery is completely open access. Because of the diversity in ecology & climate, mixed farming is popular, and fish culture can be integrated. There is scope for trout because of the cold climate. Aquaculture is emerging as a potential business opportunity to satisfy locally increasing demand. However, the Local Government in power is not ‘adequately’ creating an investment environment. There is competition for subsidies to build ponds.

113

STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS ANALYSIS : FISH AND FISHERY- MIDDLE KARNALI WATERSHED (28/02/2018)

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Plenty of river and streams

Increasing trend of destructive (and uncontrolled) fishing

Opportunity to cover wider market segments

Lack of knowledge on market expansion

Healthy and cold water resources

Lack of knowledge on identifying the improved varieties of fishes

Economic prosperity through fishery

Lack of knowledge and skills on fish farming

Skilled manpower for fishing

Traditional fishing practices resulting lesser quantity of fishes captured by huge manpower

Commercial production of different varieties/species of fishes

Difficulties in identifying the fish habitat due to lack of fish experts

Adequate fish population of different species

Unplanned physical infrastructures and natural disasters degrading the fish habitat

Fish can be a good source of nutrition (food)

Deforestation and soil erosion

Increasing demand for fish products

Supply deficit of fish products

Self-dependency in fish products

Lack of appropriate policy on production and supply of fish products

Proposed hydro power dam may affect fishery negatively

Use of bulldozer (for excavation); water sources being depleted; increasing population

Group Members (#1)

1. Khadga Raj Upadhyaya 2. Padma Yogi 3. Dhir Bahadur Shahi 4. Maniram Sharma 5. Prem Bahadur Budha 6. Tara Shahi

114

STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS ANALYSIS : FISH AND FISHERY- MIDDLE KARNALI WATERSHED (28/02/2018)

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Plenty of fishes found in our river and streams

Destructive fishing (using poison)

Increasing demand for fish products

Water sources being dried/depleted

Aquaculture (pond fish farming) already started in the area

Lack of training on appropriate fishing

Opportunity for dried fish selling

Uncontrolled use of bull-dozer

Experienced manpower in fishing

Use of poisons, bomb, electric current etc. for fishing

Opportunity for selling fish to the visitors coming to Khaptad, Ramaroshan, Jwala, Tatirou etc.

Landslides

Adequate local market for fish

Lack of feed supplies (in local area) to feed the imported fish fry (Bhura)

Employment opportunity Lack of clear policy and regulatory frameworks

Increasing demand for fish at local level

Poor enforcement of laws

Benefits through fish/fishery to local communities

Plenty of youth manpower

Increase in awareness level

Local Governments (Rural Municipalities/Municipalities) have right for conservation, utilization and management of fish resources

Group Members (#2)

7. Tanka Bhandari 8. Amrita Budha 9. Devraj Devkota 10. Dharma Raj Thapa 11. Prem Bdr. Rana 12. Durga Shrestha

115

8.2.5. Netmapping

The netmapping exercise focused on understanding the fishery system and its post-harvest value chain(s). The value chain (product flow) was described starting at the landing point for fish (with the fisherman as the key actor) and ending up at the consumer. The relationships with other actors in terms of inputs (supply), services (support) and misunderstandings were also identified. Finally, the relative power to influence the value chain for fish (or the sector) by key actors was determined.

Two working groups focused on the wild fisheries value chain, and one group focused on fish farming and fisheries combined in the Middle Karnali.

Similar to the Lower Karnali, the Value Chain for the Wild Fisheries in the Middle Karnali has mainly a local focus. Fishermen from various communities (Badi, Chettri, Dalith, Gandarva, Magar, Majhi, Royi and other) sell their catch directly to local consumers or to middlemen, who in turn sell to local wholesalers, local markets or hotels and restaurants. Two groups indicated that fishermen also sell fresh fish directly to hotels and restaurants. Some fishing households are involved in fish drying and selling to local wholesalers. Hotels, restaurants and local traders, in turn, sell some of the catch to external markets and regional and international visitors. Overall, however, the value chain for fish tends to remain local and only low volumes of fish are sold to external markets and consumers.

The netmapping exercise yielded useful information in terms of prices along the value chain. One group indicated that fishermen sell fresh fish at about 400 to 500 NPR / kg to middlemen, hotels and restaurants. Middlemen, in turn, sell the fresh fish on to consumers at 600 to 700 NPR / kg. The second group estimates that middlemen buy fish from fishermen at NPR 350 / kg, and sell it on to local retailers and markets at NPR 500 / kg. Local traders would sell fresh fish (in small quantities) to external markets / consumers, including from Kathmandu, at NPR 1000 / kg. The group that focused on aquaculture and fisheries combined, estimate that fish farmers sell their fish at an average of NPR 350 /kg to middlemen, hotels and restaurants, or directly to local consumers, while fishermen sell their catch on average at NPR 400 / kg to the same clients. According to this group, middlemen sell the fresh fish on to hotels and restaurants at NPR 450 / kg on average, who in turn sell at NPR 500 / kg to consumers. This may indicate that cultured fish is sold at higher volume and lower profit margin of ca. 50 NPR / kg than capture fish, which is sold at a margin of ca. 100 NPR / kg. Dried fish fetches higher prices, and is sold by fishermen directly at NPR 2000 / kg. Dried fish is sold in external markets, including Kathmandu, at NPR 2400 – 3000 / kg. Hotels and restaurants have a significant margin in processing and selling dried fish at NPR 2500 – 3000 / kg, and serving cooked or fried fish to customers at NPR 120 per serving. One kg of fresh fish on average provides 8 servings (plates).

The group focusing on both aquaculture and capture fisheries provided a rough but insightful comparison of capture fisheries and aquaculture in Dailekh. About 1200 households are fully dependent, and another 2000 to 2500 households are partially dependent on capture fisheries. The daily yield from fishing was estimated to be 1200 – 1300 kg in peak months (February till April) and ca. 300 to 400 kg during other months. The monthly fishing income was estimated to be on average NPR 12,500 per month. Fresh fish prices range between NPR 400 to 800 / kg, and dried fish fetches between NPR 2400 – 3000 per kg. The major species caught are Ashla (snow trout), Bam (freshwater eel), Buduna (garra), Katle (Copper mahseer), Kavre and Sahar (Golden mahseer). Declines in production of river fish are estimated at 60 to 70 percent, while the market demand for fish is estimated to have increased by 70 to 80 percent.

116

The group estimated the total number of households involved in aquaculture at 50 to 55. The total aquaculture area is estimated to be 60 ropani (ca. 3 ha.), with a production of ca. 80 – 90 quintal (8 – 9 t). Production consists entirely of carp. The major aquaculture locations are Rakam Karnali, Mukaha and Kashi.

The same group also provided a forecast of the possible consequences of taxation on fish and fishing. Fish stocks and leisure consumption of fish were forecasted to decrease, while subsistence- and commercial use, supply, and fish price were all forecasted to increase.

Fishermen obtain their Inputs (mostly fishing gear) from local traders and vendors (Agro-vets, local retail shops). Fish farmers receive fish seeds from private hatcheries and feeds from local mills. The Fishery Development Center is an important supplier of training and also supplies fish seeds.

Local governments, particularly municipalities, and, as identified by one group, the District Agriculture Development Office play an important role in Support to fishermen. There is also a service relationship, but weak, with a range of other government entities such as the District Administration Office and the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies, as well as with a number of NGOs.

Misunderstandings (or conflicts) were identified between fishermen and the District Coordination Committee (in relation to contracts, taxes) and local municipalities, and between local governments and contractors (‘Thekedar’). There is also misunderstanding between the fishermen and the GMR Company, and between fishermen themselves (traditional vs. destructive fishing). One group identified also misunderstanding between the Ministry of Water Resources, Energy and Irrigation, and the Ministry of Forest, Environment and Livestock.

In terms of the power to influence the current and future development of fisheries, with likely positive or negative outcomes depending on the issue concerned, the results are summarized below (Table X). Overall, government entities are identified by most groups to have the power to influence toward positive outcomes, with Local Government (Municipalities) identified by two groups as having most power to influence. One group perceived the influence of local government to be negative. Two groups perceived hotels, lodges and restaurants to be the most influential private sector players in terms of positive outcomes for the sector, followed by middlemen, whose power to influence can be positive or negative. The influence of NGOs and CSOs was perceived to be limited. However, fishermen using destructive methods were perceived to have the most power to influence the sector toward negative outcomes, followed by the GMR Company, holding the license to construct the hydropower station.

Table X. Level of Influence (+/-) over fisheries development (with score1) Government Score Private Sector Score NGOs, CSOs Score Local Government (Municipalities)

(+) 7 (+) 5 (-) 2

GMR Company (-) 5 Destructive Fishermen2 (-) 6

Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies

(+) 3 Hotels, Lodges, Restaurants (+) 5 (+) 4

USAID PAANI (+) 1

District Agriculture Development Office

(+) 3 Middlemen (+/-) 4 (+/-) 3

MDI, SAEWCC, Helvetas (+) 1

State Government (+) 2 Fishery Centers (Nepalgunj)

(+) 3 SOCEC, Everest Club (+) 1

Federal Government (+) 2 Fishery Research Center (+) 1 NGOs (+) 1

1 3 scores if identified by all groups, 2 scores if identified by 2 groups, 1 score if identified by only one group

2 Placed by one group under the header “NGOs, CSOs”, but not necessarily organized as such

117

(Govt., Nepalgunj) Ministry of Water Resources, Energy & Irrigation

(+/-) 2 Fish Hatchery (Govt., Nepalgunj)

(+) 1

District Administrative Office

(+) 2 Local Vendors (+) 1

District Coordination Committee

(-) 2

Ministry of Agriculture (+) 1 River Control Sub-Division office (Surkhet)

(+) 1

District Forest Office (+) 1 Soil Conservation Office (+) 1

The Government’s Fishery Development Center was perceived to hold most power to influence the development of the aquaculture sector, together with the private sector; hotels, lodges and restaurants. Local feed mills were also perceived to have some influence.

Table Y. Level of Influence (+/-) over aquaculture development (with score) Government Score Private Sector Score NGOs, CSOs Score Fishery Development Center (+) 4 Hotels, Lodges, Restaurants (+) 4 District Coordination Committee

(+) 1 Local Mills (+) 2

118

119

120

8.1. UPPER KARNALI

121

Karnali River Basin is the longest river basin of Nepal and Upper Karnali is the head of the entire Karnali River basin. Upper Karnali is composed by several snow- fed tributaries originated from the higher Himalayas and Tibetan plateau. Major tributaries in Upper Karnali include Humla Karnali (one of the tributaries originated from Kailash, Tibet), Mugu Karnali, Khatyad River (from Rara), Tila Karnali (including Sinja/Hema River) etc.

Rara Watershed, one of the current working watershed of USAID PAANI programme was selected as a sample study site from the Upper Karnali Watershed primarily due to the (i) existence of Rara Lake, the largest natural fresh water lake in Nepal that harbor 3 Nepalese Snow Trout species endemic to Nepal, (ii) the high potentials of Rara area to be developed as a premier ecotourism destination, and (iii) High potential of tourism to create several other livelihood options including promotion of fish and fish products in the entire Karnali River corridor

122

8.3.1. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Timeline (and Vision) Resource Map SWOT Netmap The current status of the fish stock & exploitation

Almost stable fish resources till the beginning of 21st century. Gradual decline and relative intensive fishing after 2001. Destructive operations (poisons, electric fishing, hammer fishing) Rapid environmental changes (deforestation, road construction etc.) have threaten fish resources; Add more Re: Vision

Fish resources integral part of ecotourism. changing riverine scene (new dams, irrigation schemes, agriculture) Fish stock in Rara Lake is still unknown, though it is the only habitat of 3 endemic Nepalese Snow Troup species. Some definite (well-defined) fishing areas mapped particularly along the Khatyad River and Humla Karnali. Role of roads and technology (e.g. electric current) in creating access to fishing and markets

Rara Lake is the only habitat of 3 endemic Nepalese Snow Troup species (Schizothorax macrophthalmus,….) Fishes in Rara watershed has a high ecotourism value. Although fish cannot be used for commercial purposes. Poor access and inadequacy of other infrastructures are the major weakness for connecting fishes in Rara and Upper karnali with ecotourism. Potential for better managed fisheries to generate benefits (e.g. employment, income) Threats from severe environmental change and lack of policy and management coherence

Wild fish stocks still support fish value chains, but low quantities and local supply; Fishermen (on wild stocks) rely on inputs from relatively few suppliers (nets, boats) Fishermen receive indirect support/services from Local government and other government agencies especially for the conservation of watershed and protection of river beds. But fishermen also in dispute/conflict with government agencies (e.g. Local Governments, District Administration office, Contractors over fishing access and tax ); Most powerful influencers are Hoteliers and Restaurants and Local Governments, but not hugely significant (many entities seem to have some influence);

Characterisation and analysis the fish value chain

From 2001 onwards, demand for fish and fish products seems to have increased, with increased in tourist number in Rara; From 2012 onwards, increased numbers of bridge and roads have created markets for fish and fish products

n.a. Productive fisheries and aquaculture – could be further enhanced by supporting locals with infrastructure and investment fund – to form the basis for a strong value chain;

For wild fisheries, value chain between fishers and consumers is short (3-4 steps); Middlemen, vendors and Hotels/restaurants are important intermediaries; Fish products include fresh fish (of various types) and dried fish (whole or in pieces), mainly smoked; Fish products (both fresh and dried) tend to be sold/traded/consumed locally (not moved nationally to any great extent); Consumers include local, regional national and international (mainly tourists) Wild fish prices are at a

123

premium and under supplied

The potential role of eco-tourism, as an alternative livelihood

Rara Lake started becoming popular for ecotourism with the organization of Rara Festival in 2001, successful operation of first air flight to Talcha Airport in 2003 and connection of road to Rara/Gamgadi in 2012.

Rara Lake harbors the habitat for 3 endemic Nepalese Snow Trout. Fish in Rara is as like a jewel though it cannot be captured. Khatyad River in the west and Sinja/Hema River in the east/south are the two major access corridors to Rara Lake with plenty of fishes.

Opportunity to link fish with ecotourism. In Rara, fish products are the integral part of tourism attraction. Along the Karnali River corridor, fish can be a part of gastronomy and sports (rafting and fishing) tourism. Other various livelihood options can be linked with fish and ecotourism including river grass made handicrafts, production and selling juices, commercialization of apple, high-altitude rice, soybean etc.

Possibility of more tourists providing an enhanced market for fish in Rara and along the Karnali River corridor.

124

8.3.2. Timeline

The fishery scoping workshop started with the organization of the Timeline exercise by all workshop participants for the Rara Watershed area of Upper Karnali. The starting point was 1950 extending up to the present day, guided by two key questions (i) the identification of major events and (ii) the impact and consequences for fish resources and fisheries. The area remained a safe heaven for collecting wild fish from Lake Rara and Khatyad River till the year 1963 when the late king Mahendra Bir Bikram Shah visited Rara and initiated efforts for the conservation of Rara Lake area including gradual control in fishing in Rara. The translocation of district headquarters from Rara to Gamgadi (current location) in 1965 further supported the further conservation of fish and other aquatic ecosystem in Rara Lake. In 1953, locals experienced a volcano like event happened in Rara Lake causing the outward movement of water (upto 15m high) and killing tons of fishes in Rara Lake. A big flood and erosion occurred in 1971 severely resulted the sharp decline in population of fish and other aquatic species in Rara lake and Khatyad river. Moreover, the flood also damaged many physical assets and infrastructures including total collapse of 35 houses in Sheri village. Fish conservation effort in Rara lake got further intensified with the establishment of Rara National Park in 1976. Fishing was completed band in Rara lake and watershed area conservation efforts started immediately. In 1978, 2 rural settlements from rara area (Rara and Chharpu) were re-settled in Banke district in Terai area near Bardia National Park, further sttengthen the conservation of Rara lake including fish ecoststem. However, fishing in the Katyad River, areas outside the boundry of national park, remained continued even after the establishment of Rara NP. Rara Lake has now become safe breeding center for the cold water trout fish species and tons of fishes from Rara lake move to the downstream through Khatyad river during the summer. Locals used to ccpture fish manually by hand and stone hammering. Again, the periodic floods occurred in 1985, 2006 in 2014 severely damaged fish population in Rara lake, Khatyad River and Mugu Karnali. In 1985, 3 fishermen flooded away in Rara lake and remained out of contact for 2 days. Many water sources closed due to heavy landslide. Rara Lake started becoming popular among the domestic and international tourist markets with the organization of Rara Festival in 2001. Boating and fish observation has been one of the prime attractions in Rara lake for the visitors. Operation of air flight in Talcha Airport, near Rara in 2003 and connection of Rara and Gamgadi with other parts of the country through road network in 2012 further strengthened the scope of Rara for tourism and other business activities intensifying threats to the lake ecosystem and fish population with increased human disturbances and pollution including increased waste/sewage in Rara. Airport and road construction has also jeoparadize the future of Rara lake as many landslides are occurred with the formation of permanent gulleys. Locals have suspected that the Rara lake water is being leaked from many unseen points resulting the sharp decrease water level. In recent years, Rara area is also experiencing a severral consequences of the impacts of changing climate including severe drough (in 2015) and drying of water sources. In 2016, many fished died in Mugu Karnali, the nearby river and one of the tributeries of Karnali, through the real cause of death is still unknown. In 2017, the centrally controlled local polital units were restructured as Municipal and Rural Municipal governments, with some level of autonomous. However, the newly elected local

125

governments are yet to formulate policies and guidelines on use of water and water resources including fish. Overall, it is evident that the fish population in Rara watershed is still entact, despite experiencing several natural events including floods, primarily due to the conservation of area under the framework of protected area. However, fish resources outside the NP are under the continuous threats of over fishing, destructive fishing and other anthropogenic activities including constuction of road networks. Within NP, the unplanned tourism may pose threats to the fish in Rara in the coming days.

126

HISTORICAL TIMELINE-UPPER KARNALI (RARA SUB-WATERSHED) Year in BS

Year in AD

Major Event (s) Major Impacts/Consequences on Fish and Fisheries

2007 BS 1950 AD Rara area declared as wetland area (?)

2015 BS 1953 AD Volcano like event was occurred in Rara Lake surface. Water blown out into the air (2).

Tons of fishes died. Fish population declined sharply.

2020 BS 1963 AD His Majesty of King Mahendra BB Shahdev visited Rara area

2022 BS 1965 AD District Headquarters was shifted from Rara to Gamgadi (present HQ)

Rara area started being protected Free and uncontrolled fishing in Rara Lake was

stopped gradually. Fish population started growing.

2028 BS 1971 AD Big flood and erosion in the region (2)

35 houses in Sheri village were damaged severely by the flood.

Fish habitat in Khatyad stream was totally covered with flood mass and fishes in Khatyad stream died (2). Fish population declined sharply.

Loss of physical assets and infrastructures occurred.

2032 BS 1976 AD Establishment of Rara National Park

Establishment of Rara NP helped stopping illegal and over exploitation of natural resources

Forest area became more protected. Watershed area became more healthy.

2035 BS 1978 AD 2 settlements of Rara NP (Rara and Chharpu) were re-settled to Chisapani area of Banke (Terai area)

Many of them died due to the changing climate (extreme hot) and Malayria in Terai.

2041 BS 1984 AD There was the rumor that Rara Lake would be collapsed

2042 BS 1985 AD Big flood and erosion Some fisherman were flooded away by the flood Fertile land in the area was washed away by the

flood. Many water sources were dried or closed due to

flood. There was a problem of clean drinking water.

Many people got sick and affected by water related hazards.

2056 BS 1999 AD Peripheral areas of Rara NP was declared as Buffer Zone area

2058 BS 2001 AD Organization of Rara Festival

Rara Lake started becoming more popular in domestic and international market

127

Year in BS

Year in AD

Major Event (s) Major Impacts/Consequences on Fish and Fisheries

2058 BS 2001 AD Helicopter crash in

Rara Lake 2 people were rescued; at least one royal member

(2) Lake water became polluted. Lake fish died due to sound and pollution

2060 BS 2003 AD First Aircraft landed in Talcha Airport on 16th of April 2003

Visitors started flying to Talcha/Rara from Nepalgunj and Surkhet

Number of domestic visitors started increasing 2062/063 BS

2005/06 AD

Political Revolution Maoist party came into the mainstream political system

Increasing in over grazing and trampling by animals deteriorating the park vegetation

2063 BS 2006 AD Flood occurred in the area

At least 3 houses were damaged. At least 43 houses were displaced.

2067 BS 2010 AD Landslide in Jhyari Village, Rara

Severely affected the agricultural production Landslide problem existed in the area till now.

2069 BS 2012 AD Gamgadi was connected with the national road networks

First vehicle reached at Gamgadi on 16 December 2012

Locals experienced relief with the better supply of basic goods at a cheaper rate

Number of domestic visitors started increasing Comparatively less number of wild animals are

being sighted in the jungle, especially along the road corridor

Volume of waste (solid) has increased drastically in Gamgadi Bazaar

Mosquitoes are now seen in Gamgadi Bazaar with the arrival of vehicles

2071 BS 2014 AD Flood and landslide occurred in the area

At least 5 houses were damaged in Gadekhola (stream)

Dalit settlement in Dobato area was put at risk due to landslide

Trekking trails were damaged by the landslide. 2072 BS 2015 AD Earth quake 2015 2072 BS 2015 AD Landslide in

Lamalekh Sheri Malika Buffer Zone area and Tum area

2072 BS 2015 AD Hailstorm occurred in October 2015

Hailstorm severely damaged agriculture and farm products throughout the Mugu district

Famine occurred throughout the district 2072 BS 2015 AD Rara area

experienced severe drought due to the changing climate

2072 BS 2015 AD Landslide in Talcha Airport area

Settlement located just below the airport experienced high risk due to landslide

About 20 Hac. agricultural farmland still remained uncultivated due to landslide

2073 BS 2016 AD Fish in Mugu Karnali died in huge number

128

Year in BS

Year in AD

Major Event (s) Major Impacts/Consequences on Fish and Fisheries

2074 BS 2017 AD Surya Devi Malla's house in Newroad was damaged by fire

2074 BS 2017 AD Completion of historic election

People elected representatives at Local Governments, Provincial Government and Federal Government

129

VISION FOR FISH AND FISHERIES IN UPPER KARNALI (RARA SUB-WATERSHED) 1. By 20 years period, one of the nearest villages, Murma, would have been developed as an

established homestay tourism village. 2. By 20 years period, hotel business would have been flourished around the Lake Rara. 3. Rara watershed area would have been protected well with adequate greenery and the

water level in Rara Lake would have been increased and more water would be drained from the outlet.

4. International and domestic visitor's number to visit Rara area would have been increasing significantly and the economic, social and educational conditions of locals would have been changing positively (2).

5. Fishery would be well managed in Khatyad stream and visitors would be able to enjoying it (eating fish).

6. A cable car would be in operation in Rara Lake area (Rara-Murma Top-Chuchemara Peak) (2).

7. At least 10 ugly waste filled dumping sites would have been emerged/existed in the Rara lake area with the arrival of more international visitors.

8. Economic condition of the locals of Mugu district would have been improved. 9. One can see the paragliders flying from Murma Top to Rara Lake (2). 10. Skiing (sport tourism) would have been started in Rara area. 11. Sound proof and environmental friendly electric vehicle would have been carrying

visitors along the ring road in Rara Lake. 12. By 2038, every household would have better clean drinking water facilities. 13. Rara area would have better waste management facilities. 14. Khatyad stream would be better protected; locals would be able to earn more from

fishery. 15. More and well managed hotel business would have been flourished; number of both

international and domestic visitors would have been increased and local livelihood condition and income would have been improved.

16. Rara National Park would have been able to constitute and enforce adequate eco-tourism and conservation friendly policy and regulations.

10 YEARS TOURISM VISIONING MAPPING FOR RARA WATERSHED (20/03/2018) 1. Annual Visitor Arrivals:

- Domestic: 1,000,000 annually - International: 50,000 annually

2. Annual Tourist Receipt (excluding cost for transportation and expenditure made while staying outside Rara watershed) - Domestic: 100,000*3 days@5000= 15,000 million Nepalese rupees - International: 50,000*3 days@10,000= 1,500 million Nepalese rupees

3. Direct Employment through eco-tourism: - Tourist Guides: 80 - Homestay Operators: 75 - Employment in hotel and resorts: 500 - Employment in restaurants: 300 - Pony trekking/horse riding: 100 - Tourist police: 20 - Others: 500

4. Ecotourism based enterprises

130

- Nature tour guiding and sight-seeing - Operation of cultural homestay - Nature walk - Pony trekking/Horse riding - Lake Boating - Commercial fish farming (using water from Khatyad river/stream) - Operation of cultural museum - Operation of cable car - Operation of paragliding - Operation of electric vehicle

5. Major Eco-tourism Infrastructures envisioned - Visitor Information Center (one at Khatyad River and one near Talcha Airport) - Homestays - Resorts/Hotels in selected sites and Gamgadi - Cable Car (Murma-Rara-Chuchemara) - View Towers - Circular walking trails (wooden?) - Circular biking and electric vehicle road - Drainage along the road/trail - Cultural museum at Murma village - Golf court - Resting points - Medical center near Talcha airport - Public toilets - Beautification/upgrading Hulaya cave in Khatyad

131

8.3.23. Resource mapping

The resource mapping exercise of Rara watershed in Upper Karnali was undertaken in two groups. The results (maps) which emerged are more or less similar as both group focused on Rara Lake and Khatyad river.

The entire catchment of Rara Lake and various channels of Khartad River including the outlet of Rara Lake are well-illustrated in the maps providing a good overview of the lake, river and riverine environment within the local environment and geographic setting.

The Khatyad River primarily starts at the elevation of 3050 m as an outlet of Rara Lake passes through various types of land-use and vegetation including alpine evergreen forest, alpine grassland, farmland and forest. Khatyad River ultimately meets at Jhugla bridge in Humla Karnali (main Karnali).

Besides Rara Lake which contributes as a major source of water to the Khatyad River, other channels/small tributaries contributing to the river include Chuchemara Khola, Bijaya Khola, Chimangri Khola, Baratu Khola, Bihani Khola etc.

Throughout the watershed, fish, however, is mainly found in Rara Lake and Khatyad River. Though, fishing is strictly prohibited in Rara Lake, as it falls under the domain of National Park, it has been serving both as a breeding center as well as a reservoir for at least 3 species of Nepalese snow-trout. During the monsoon, the large sized fishes moves downward into Khatyad River and ultimately to the Karnali River.

The maps also partly show the location of Mugu Karnali and Humla Karnali. Mugu Karnali which originates in Tibet and northern part of Mugu district meets Humla Karnali at Kawadi. Kawadi (the confluence of Mugu and Humla Karnali), Jhungla (the confluence of Humla Karnali and Khatyad River) and Kolti are the popular sites for capturing the wild fishes.

Due to the popularity of Rara lake and surrounding areas as one of the popular tourist destination for domestic and international visitors, the group members also nicely illustrated the major tourism features of Rara area in the maps including beautiful peaks, viewpoints, forest/grassland areas, major road and trail networks, airport, tourist accommodations, army security posts, cultural villages etc.

To better understand the distribution and size of fish stocks in Rara, Khatyad River, Mugu Karnali and Humla Karnali would undoubtedly requirement a dedicated and more detailed survey.

The most striking part of the maps, in relation to the rivers and fish stocks, is the construction of approach road to Rara from Jumla side (which already reached Rara) and from Kolti/Bajura side (which has already crossed Jhungla Bridge) which can bring substantial changes in the area in terms of tourism development.

All of this development and activity has taken emerged in the past 15 years, at a rapid pace – with many potential impacts on the fisheries and tourism. There is undoubtedly a growing demand for ecotourism in Rara, and the sustainable ecotourism development in Rara area is only possible with the even better conservation of Rara lake and watershed area.

132

133

8.3.4. SWOT

The Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis, undertaken by two breakout groups in the workshop, focused on the future development potential for the water based ecotourism in general and fisheries (wild fish) in particular.

In terms of Strengths, both group identified the largest natural lake, Rara, as a prime tourist attraction and fishes as one of the beautiful jewels of the lake area. The strengths of Rara watershed is particularly attributed to the presence of 3 out of 7 endemic fish species to Nepal found only in Rara Lake. In fact, the entire watershed and aquatic biodiversity including fishes have been perceived as an integral part of ecotourism in Rara Lake area. The strengths of Rara watershed in terms of ecotourism is stronger as the also harbors diverse and beautiful floral and faunal species including beautiful forest and grassland with at least 102 species of flowering plants, endangered Red Panda, Musk Deer, Clouded Leopard, many species of birds including Impeyan pheasant (national bird Danfe) etc. The area is also rich in beautiful rhododendron forest and Seabok thorn. The area is also the home some Khash and Chhetri people that portrays Mugali culture. The strengths of Rara watershed in terms of fisheries is also linked with its connection with Humla Karnali as Jhungla (the confluence of Khatrad and Humla Karnali), Kawadi and Kolti areas still have the large stock of Himalayan white water fish population. Construction of access road to Rara lake via Tila Karnali (including Hema Karnali) in the west and Humla Karnali in the west has also been taken as the strengths of the area as tourism in Rara can also raise fish demand in these river corridors.

Regarding Weaknesses, the restriction in commercial use (collection, angling etc.) of fish in Rara Lake has been perceived as a major weakness by the locals. In contrast, the overfishing and destructive fishing that have been practicing in the Khatyad, Mugu Karnali and Humla Karnali rivers in the recent years has also been seen as a major weakness. There also appears to be no regulation with respect to fish breeding seasons and fishing activity. As the entire watershed area including fish habitats has been projected to be developed as a premier ecotourism destination, the current lack of infrastructures including quality road, tourist accommodation, information, tourism related human resources, promotion etc. has also been taken as a key weakness of the area.

For Opportunities, the working group considered that fish and fisheries in Rara Lake and surrounding rivers offered a range of employment and income opportunities through ecotourism. With the increase in visitor number in Rara, there has been an increasing demand for fish and fish products along the Karnali river corridor (Surkhet, Dullu, Rakam Karnali, Manma, Nagma, Sinja, Jhingla Bridge, Kolti etc.). Fish also represents a source of food for locals living along the bank of Khatyad, Mugu Karnali and Humla Karnali. Locals along these river corridors can even establish Himalayan Snow Trout farming by using running fresh water from small channels and connecting it with eco-tourism. With planned ecotourism, locals can establish simple cultural homestays to high-end tourist resorts and can create employment and income generation opportunities at local level. As the proposed Karnali road also reach the Chinese border at HIlsa, the Kailash and Mansarobar area, there is a huge potentials for this area for promoting ecotourism and connecting fish products with ecotourism.

Finally, in terms of Threats, the ongoing human activities including the haphazard construction of road and deforestation are the major threats for the area, as locals suspect that the lake water is being leaked from unknown points. Several cracks and gulley can be even seen now in the peripheral areas of Talcha airport. Equally important threats considered by the group members is the possible negative impacts of mass tourism that can degrade the lake water and fish habitat with increased solid waste, sewage, over boating and other associated environmental pollution. Protecting 3 endemic fish species

134

and restricting other invasive fish species is another challenge for the area especially in the context of changing climate (increased temperature).

135

STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS (SWOT) ANALYSIS : FISH AND FISHERY- UPPER KARNALI (RARA SUB-WATERSHED) Group#1 Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Pleasant natural

environment Lack of

promotional efforts (for tourism)

Establishment of standard hotels and homestays

Landslide in Gamgadi-Shreenagar and Kakobada areas threatening the existence of Rara lake

Temple and shrines Degrading state of temple and shrines

Opportunity for employment through tourism at local level

Uncontrolled forest tree cutting (deforestation)

Beautiful forest with at least 102 species of flowering plants

Rara National Park lacks its own regulation

Tourism benefits can be a better source of income for investment on conservation of Rara lake

Forest fire

Habitat of 3 out of 7 species of fish endemic to Nepal (three endemic snowtrout species)

Legal barrier in commercial use of fish in Rara Lake

Opportunity for promoting Rara-Humla-Mansarobar trekking

Poor state of solid waste and sludge management in Rara Lake area

Habitat of endangered Red Panda, Musk Deer etc.

Restriction on boating for foreign visitors

Threats of lake water being polluted due to contaminated water, flood and sludge. Threats of water level being reduced due to the flooded soil mass

Habitat of many aquatic and terrestrial bird species

Poor conditions of access road

Over grazing and trampling by domestic animals

Connected with the national road links

Lack of standard and adequate tourist accommodation facilities

Establishment of homestay (one homestay)

Lack of electricity in Rara

Availability of boating, Horse riding, camping facilities

Lack of Wi Fi

Herbal tea, Seabok Thorn juice, Wild Mushroom (Guchhi)

Lack of trained manpower to offer quality tourist service and facilities

3G facility available Uncontrolled

136

fishing practices (blasting, using poisons, water diverting) in Khatyad stream

Local cultural programme

Inscribed on Ramsar list of wetland

Good provision of visitor's security

Free of cost entry provision to Nepalese visitors

Note: Three species of Nepalese snowtrout Schizothorax nepalensis. Nepalese snowtrout (Schizothorax macrophthalmus) is a cyprinid fish species of the genus Schizothorax STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS ANALYSIS : FISH AND ECO-TOURISM, GAMGADI, RARA SUB-WATERSHER, UPPER KARNALI WATERSHED (20/03/2018) Group #2 Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Presence of tourist

view points for including Murma Top, Mili Chour, Chuchemara Peak, Kheshma Malika etc.)

Lack of law enforcement on illegal fishing at local government level. Lack of awareness on fish and fishery.

Operating Cable Car from Murma Top to Rara lake

Local government bodies not cooperating adequately

Presence of various types of flora (including several flowering plants) and fauna (Including Red Panda, Musk Deer, Himalayan Thar etc.)

Lack of adequate and standard hotels for tourist

Establishment of local Cultural/Ethnic museum portraying local costumes, music, jewelries, rituals and food

Poor access to information for local community

Presence of 3 endemic fish species

Lack of provision for commercial fish farming

Commercial fish farming

Lack of business knowledge and training. Inadequate financial support to locals.

High stock of fish in Khaptyad Stream and Rara Lake

Inadequate research on population dynamics and growing stock of

Production of local resource based products such as Rhododendron juice, Seabok Thorn juice,

Inadequacy of water for commercial fish farming

137

fish and other wild animals in Rara lake

Allo cloth, traditional blanket (Radi) etc.

Tourist facilities and services including Hotel, Horse riding, trekking trail, air access, local food, view tower, resting place, homestay etc.

Lack of trained nature tour guides. Lack of information center. Poor information on fish.

Operation of special hotels offering Himalayan trout fish items to the visitors

Possible threats of wastes (solid and liquid) and environmental pollution

Lack of electricity in Rara Lake area

Fishery training and nature tour guide training at local level

Inadequate and poor state of trekking trails

Lack of public toilets (with proper sanitation facilities)

Inadequacy of tourist information board and signage

Group Members (#2)

13. Dan Bahadur Shahi 14. Sonam Chhiring Lama 15. Dan Bahadur Budha 16. Bolmati Rokaya 17. Himraj Bishwakarma 18. Gorkhe Budha

138

8. 3.5. Netmapping

The net mapping exercise focused on understanding the fishery system and its post-harvest value chain (s). Starting at the landing point for fish (with the fisherman as the key actor), the value chain was described (from actor to actor), ending up at the consumer. The relationships with other actors (in terms of inputs (supply), services (support) and misunderstandings were also identified. Finally, the relative power to influence the value chain for fish (or the sector) by key actors was determined.

Unlike Middle and Lower Karnali, Upper Karnali has only the wild fish products to offer at present. Accordingly, only one breakout group produced the fish net map for Rara watershed area focusing only on wild fisheries.

For the Upper Karnali, the Fish Value Chain is relatively simple (few actors) with a local focus (it does not extend far geographically).

Currently the fishermen (no traditional fishing community) residing alongside the major junctions of Khatyad River collect wild fish from rivers at Man Ghatta, Srikot, Majhchour, Bira Bagar, Ratapani, Riga and finally at Jhugla bridge (at the confluence of Khatyad and Humla Karnali).

The fishermen sell their catch (mainly fresh) to Vendors, Hotels/ Restaurants, Local Baazar Retailers and end users (individuals) mostly at the small village markets and teashops. The Hotels/Restaurants appear to be the most active and largest outlets, and they also tend to process fresh fish (by smoking/drying, either as whole fish or in pieces). Overall, the value chain for fish consists of 2-3 steps, and tends to remain local. Very negligible amount of dry fish is also sent to Terai areas where their migrant relatives are living.

For prices along the value chain for native fish, it was recorded that:

Fishermen or Middlemen sell to the Hoteliers:

@450 NR/kg. (fresh)

Hoteliers sell the fish to following consumers:

Local individuals @500 NR/Kg. (fresh)

Local, regional, national and international visitors @150 NR/plate (cooked)

Relatives and friends at Terai region @2,200 NR/Kg (dried).

Due to the reasons that the local demand for wild fish in Gamgadi, the district headquarters, cannot be fulfilled from the fish captured from the Mugu Karnali, and (ii) the wild fish is not affordable to all consumers, one of the Fresh House operators who sells mutton, chicken and other meat products also sells aquaculture fish (iced) in small amount to the urban residents. He buys Mokur species of fish from Nelakgunj @270 to 280 NR/kg, pays @15 NR/kg for air cargo and sells @ NR 480 to 500/kg to consumers in Gamgadi.

The fishermen (within the community) obtain Inputs (Services) from the local retail shops (local and Indian net, hooks and other gear suppliers), but no others. Local retailers purchase these items from Nepalgunj.

139

For Support (e.g. water source conservation, river bed protection, training etc.), they rely on the District Agriculture Development Office (DADO) and Local Governments (Municipality and Rural Municipalities). There is a weaker relationship with other stakeholders such as Rara National Park, District Forest Office, District Livestock Service Office (DLSO), Community Forest User Groups etc.

The fishermen are thought to have some Mis-understandings (conflict) with the Rural Municipalities (over tax and tendering process), District Administration Office (fixing rates and controlling illegal fishing), Chamber of Commerce and Industry (collection of fish through tendering process) etc. There is also a serious conflict between the traditional fishermen and the destructive fishers.

In general, in terms of the Power to influence the current and future development of fisheries, a summary is shown below (Table X). A total of 14 entities (organisations, individuals) with influence were identified spread across government, the private sector and NGOs. Hoteliers were considered to be most powerful with respect to fisheries development (score 5), but this could be either a positive or negative influence followed by Municipality and other Rural Municipalities (+-3) and District Livestock Service Office (+2). All the others scored 1. The distribution of influence was quite even, and with likely positive outcomes.

Table X. Level of Influence (+/-) over fisheries development (with score) Government Score Private Sector Score NGO Score Local Government (Municipalities)

(+/-) 3 Hoteliers/Restaurants +5 Community Forest User Groups

+1

District Livestock Service Office

(+) 2 Net/boat suppliers (local) +1

Rara National Park (+/-) 1 Chamber of Commerce and Industries

(+/-) 1

District Agric. Dev. Office (+/-) 1 Fish Vendors/Producers (Nepalgunj)

+1

District Forest Office (+/-) 1 Middlemen +1 District Administration Office

(+/-) 1 Local retailers (Net, Hook suppliers)

+1

(+/-) 2 Destructive Fishers -1

To better understand the distribution and size of fish stocks in the Rara Lake, Mugu Karnali and Humla Karnali would undoubtedly requirement a dedicated and more detailed survey.

140

141

Tourist Service Flow Mapping

As Rara Lake has long been considered as a promising premier ecotourism destination with Karnali River corridor being the most vibrant road access with mesmerizing landscape, colorful culture and fish resources; a separate tourist service flow map has also been prepared during the workshop covering the major services occurred along the tourism value chain while travelling to Rara from Kathmandu and Nepalgunj.

Key markets and visitors: Domestic, international visitors

Key services/value chains: Promotion/marketing, travel, accommodation, excursion, shopping….

Key actors/service providers: Tour operators, travel/ticket operators, hoteliers, airline operators….

Supplies: promotion, web., digital promotion, booking, rental services, maintenance, tour guides…

Supports: promotion by NTB, security, infrastructure…..

Services/activities and price: Transportation to hotel, to Nepalgunj and to Rara, lodging, food, beverage, entry fees, ………………….

142

Tourist Service Flow Mapping

143

APPENDIX 8 (A) FISH VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS

(CONSOLIDATED FOR RIVER KARNALI BASIN)

144

Table 8(A). Nepal – Fish Value Chain Analysis – River Karnali Basin and Beyond (February 2018) Actor - Type of Business

- Source of finance - Scale

- Constraints - Opportunities - Investment

Main relations (suppliers, services)

Prices, Margins, Value Shares Quality Issues

Purchase Price (NR/Kg)

Selling Price (NR/Kg)

Gross income (NR)

Gross margin

Value share (Hotel))

Value share (Shops)

Fishermen Full-time or part-time fishers, Private finance, Catching/ Selling fish; small-scale individuals

Availability of fishing opportunities; New market access with new roads; New gears main investment priority;

Gear suppliers; Permits from Local Government; Some NGO contacts livelihoods training;

Fresh fish is sold readily for premium price, but many fisheries are remote, fish is smoked or sundried; limited road access may improve in future;

Fish Farmers

Fish farmers (small-scale to large-scale), often integrated with agriculture, Private finance, with government support (subsidy)

Access to land and water; Steady supply to local markets, own outlet shops; Investment in new technology; development of links to tourism;

Many relationships with input suppliers and support services; support and technical advice from government;

Fish farmers in Terai have benefitted from capacity-building and technical support; quality control and market requirements, and product differentiation recognised; less impact for smaller farms in more remote locations;

Products Small fish 400 400 100% 50% 67% Large fish (Fresh) 500 500 100% 56% 63% Fish (Processed) 450 450 100% 18% - Farmed fish 220 220 100% - 79%

Middlemen Full-time or part-time, Collecting, transporting, selling fish, Private finance, small-medium scale.

Access to wild fish supplies is unpredictable, but market demand is increasing and trade is

Many relations with other stakeholders up and down the value chain; use of service and suppliers to

Understand the demands of the market and particular client and segments; balance of cost and profit in relation to quality is

145

profitable; investment in transport and storage facilities and technology to facilitate trade;

transport, store, preserve and market fish; There is no centralised market or auction system for fish, and relations are important to sustain trade, and profitability.

central to their operations; possibilities for new strategies to develop trade along the value chain (new roads, technology for transporting and storing fish are recognised)

Products Small Fish 400 500 100 25% 12% 17% Large fish (Fresh) 500 600 100 20% 11% 13% Fish (Processed) 450 550 100 22% 4% - Farmed fish 220 250 30 14% - 11%

Retailers (1)

Local Hotels/with restaurants Commercial hotels, also selling food, meals; Plus processing storing fish; Private finance

Availability of steady supplies of quality fresh fish are a constraint; but recognise opportunity of growing market, especially from tourists; have developed niche markets and differentiated products, with dried traditional fish products very profitable.

Use and access a full range of suppliers and services to operate and sustain commercial business; located at centre of many fish value chains in Nepal, controlling value chain.

Strong awareness of the importance of fish quality and price relationship. Tourist market will demand high quality fish, at good prices, but should be a profitable. Differentiation of wild and farmed fish for price and quality an option. International tourism in Karnali yet to really take off.

Products Small Fish 500 800 300 38% 38% - Large fish (Fresh) 600 900 300 50% 33% - Fish (Processed) 550 2500 1950 355% 78% - Farmed fish - - - - - -

Retailers (2)

Fish shops, stalls, local market

Supplies of wild fish are a

Using many suppliers and

Successful outlets have dovetailed fish sales

146

constraint for some outlets, although low supply justifies high prices. Supplemented by farmed fish and imports from India. Market and prices increasingly favourable and recognised.

services, but does vary between outlets and locations, Some well-established businesses with wide network.

and quality to their niche market. Others have recognised opportunities for better quality control – linked to increasing demand and consumer awareness especially in large cities. Wild and farmed fish differences. Poor reputation of Indian farmed fish (formalin). Possibility of increasing government rules in future.

Products Small Fish 500 600 100 20% - 17% Large fish (Fresh) 600 800 200 33% 25% Fish (Processed) - - - - - Farmed fish 250 280 30 12% 11%

Consumers A wide range with differ demands:

- Local consumers - National consumers - National tourists - Regional tourists - International tourists

Market offers wide Range of consumers, Differing quality Requirements.

Products Small Fish 600 Large fish (Fresh) 800 Fish (Processed) 2500 Farmed fish 280

Notes: Fish Value Chain – Methodology designed with reference to the following key studies and manuals: EU (2012), FAO (2013), Kaplinsky and Morris (2000), Schiffer (2007a and b), World Bank (2005)

147

APPENDIX 9: PRELIMINARY RESULTS – USAID PRESENTATION

148

Slide 1

USAID PAANI PROJECT – NEPALFISHERIES SECTOR - 2018

• Fish Resources and Exploitation

• Value Chain Assessment

• Eco-Tourism Role

Slide 2 Study Team

• Dr. Arthur Neiland (Team Leader & Consultant, IDDRA Ltd)

• Dr. Martin Van Brakel (Consultant, WorldFish Center)

• Mr. Ram Chandra Sedai (Tourism Consultant, Mountain Heritage Pvt Ltd)

Slide 3

Contents

[1] What is objective of the Paani project?

[2] What are the objectives of the current study?

[3] What is the conceptual framework & methodology?

[4] What are some of the key results?

[5] How can the results be interpreted?

[6] What follow-up could be envisaged? (in the context of the Paani Project)

149

Slide 4 [1] What is objective of the Paani project?

• The Paani Program—also known in Nepali as the “USAID Water Project”, —will enhance Nepal’s ability to manage water resources for multiple uses and users through climate change adaptation and the conservation of freshwater biodiversity.

• Paani employs an integrated, whole-of-basin approach with activities under four “intermediate result” (IR) areas at the watershed, river basin, and national scales.

Slide 5 [2] What are the objectives of the current study?

• To contribute to the Paani project generally

• To contribute to Paani specifically concerning fisheries:

- To assess the current status of fish populations and their exploitation

- To characterise and analyse the fish value chain

- To investigate the potential of alternative livelihoods, and especially eco-tourism

Slide 6 [3] What is the Conceptual Framework & Methodology?

Underpinning Themes:

• Multi-disciplinary analyses (economic, social, environmental)

• Fisheries as part of the aquatic & hydrological system

• Inter-related scales (local, regional, national, international)

• Economic valuation ,policy scenario analysis & decision-making

• Stakeholder engagement and participatory analyses

• Social inclusiveness and gender

• Knowledge sharing and livelihoods

• Paani project context, goals and links

150

Slide 7 [3a] Methodology implementation

A set of inter-related and complementary activities (between February and June 2018):

[a] Review of secondary information and data (e.g. Watershed profiles)[b] Key stakeholder interviews (Public and Private sectors, Civil

Society), Kathmandu[c] Stakeholder interviews and observations (fish producing and

marketing centres between Kathmandu and Karnali River)[d] Stakeholder interviews and observations with tourism sector

(Kathmandu to Karnali River)[e] Stakeholder participatory workshops (x2) – Lower and Middle

Karnali River Watersheds;[f] Analysis and interpretation of data and information[g] Reporting and dissemination

Slide 8 Nepal – River Karnali

Main Channel – Lower Basin Golden Mahseer

Slide 9

Middle River Karnali – Timeline Exercise with Stakeholders:History, Present Situation and Visioning

151

Slide 10 Lower Karnali – Net-mapping with stakeholders:Product flow, Services, Support and Mis-understandings

Slide 11 [4a] What are some of the key results?

Mapping

- Fish resources, fisheries

- Value chain

- Alternative livelihoods (ecotourism)

Slide 12

152

Slide 13 [4b] What are some of the key results?

SWOT:

- Fish resources, fisheries

- Value chain

- Alternative livelihoods (ecotourism)

Slide 14 SWOT – Lower Karnali River

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

Huge water resources (Karnali River, Geruwa River, Babai River, Bhagraiya Lake)

Un-controlled fishing practices (Poisoning, using electric current, bombing etc.)

Increasing demand for fish and fish products

Water source (s) being depleted

A promising tourism destination Illegal fishing Opportunity for income generation as the fish price is going up

Un planned and uncontrolled excavation of river based products (gravel, sand etc.)

Varieties of fish species (Sahar, Bhaikha, Thed, Naini, Bhakur, Carp etc.)

Cremation practices are not river environment friendly and causing river pollution

Incentives from the government agencies on private and community fish farming/aquaculture

Unplanned development of river dam, bridge etc.

Locals already attracted and engaged in commercial fish farming/production

Severe negligence on the breeding season of fishes while undertaking fishing activities

Self-employment opportunity Frequent floods damaging fish habitat and production

Establishment of fish cooperatives Laws and policies not being enforced effectively (Regarding to conservation of fish)

Eco-tourism development Natural wetlands and small irrigation cannels being vanished/encroached due to unplanned land plotting (resl state)

Provision of food for the aquatic animals/fishes

Provision of training, commercial fish farming for fish conservation

Slide 15 [4c] What are some of the key results?

Netmapping

- Fish resources, fisheries

- Value chain

- Alternative livelihoods (ecotourism)

153

Slide 16

Slide 17 [5] How can the results be interpreted?

Question:

In the context of Nepal’s water resources, and likely development policy, what contribution can fish and fisheries make to national sustainable development?

Answer:

First, Scope out the likely SWOT, based on the results of this study;

Second, Identify possible future linkages between fish/fisheries and Paani strategies and activities

Slide 18

SWOT – Strengths – Nepal’s Fish and Fisheries

• Diverse fish populations (natural and genetic capital)

• Fish distributed across many habitats (development options)

• Fisheries are integrated into livelihood strategies

• Fishing provides income and employment

• Fish and aquatic resources underpin local aquaculture

• Many fish value chains are adapted to serve local markets

• Fish provide an affordable, nutritious food source

154

Slide 19 SWOT – Weaknesses – Nepal’s Fish and Fisheries

• Baseline data are limited (planning is constrained)

• Fish production data are uncertain

• Economic value of fish is unknown (potential or actual)

• There is no national fisheries policy or strategic plan

• Fisheries management and regulation are uncertain

• Fisheries overexploitation is increasing

• Destructive fishing practices

• There are few stakeholder organisations

• Many fisheries are remote and lack access to national markets

Slide 20 SWOT – Threats – Nepal’s Fish and Fisheries

• Rapid environmental change and habitat loss

• Gravel and sand extraction, pollution, sedimentation, landslides, irrigation channels and dams

• Lack of policy coherence (e.g. conservation, dam development, tourism)

• Inadequate investment (institutional and human capacity)

• Invasive fish species (aquaculture)

• Foreign fish imports (potential to undercut local produce)

• Policy interventions based on untested assumptions

Slide 21

SWOT – Opportunities – Nepal’s Fish & Fisheries

• Fisheries management (International Best Practice) (adapted to Nepal)

• Growing market for fish in urban areas

• Potential market for special Nepal fish products (e.g. “organic Himalayan rainbow trout” brand?)

• Better integration, especially, with agriculture and aquaculture

• Availability of investment capital at local level (remittances)

• Creation of positive links to other sectors (e.g. hydropower, tourism)based on a clear assessment and understanding of synergies and integration, accommodation and mitigation (rather than conflict), at all scales, with reference to national development outcomes;

155

Slide 22 [6] What follow-up could be envisaged? (context of Paani Project) IR1: At the community and watershed levels, Paani increases the knowledge,

engagement, and benefits of local water users in target river basins to build local freshwater management capacity.Phase 1: Design and implement multi-disciplinary and participatory assessment survey of Nepal’s fisheries and aquaculture (to plug a major gap).

IR 2: At the river basin level, Paani’s activities focus on sustainable hydropower, flood prevention, and participatory basin governance.

IR 3: Paani strengthens national policy and the enabling environment and improves coordination among stakeholders at all levels. Phase 2: Design and implement assessment of the economic valuation of ecosystem services (fisheries as one component).Phase 3: Design and pilot of policy scenario methodology for the evaluation of the use of watershed/basin ecosystem services (as a basis for dialogue and stakeholder engagement – with a focus on goverance and livelihood enabling mechanisms).Phase 4: Implementation of policy scenario methodology leading to identification and comparison of policy (development) options.

IR 4: Underlying its support across the watershed, river basin, and national levels, Paanialso expands the knowledge base and builds Nepal’s capacity for on-going learning on freshwater biodiversity, climate change, and water resources management.Phase 5: Design and implementation of knowledge management strategy and system for fisheries.

156

APPENDIX 10: BIBLIOGRAPHY

157

ADB (2017) Asian Development Outlook 2017. Sustaining development through public–private partnership.

EU-ACP Fish II. (2012) Manual on Value Chain Analysis and Promotion. http://www.acpfish2-eu.org/uploads/projects/id278/Manual%20SA-4.1-B20.1-39.pdf

FAO (2011) FIMSUL Project (India) Participatory Methods and Stakeholder Engagement - Link to World Bank/FAO India Project for details on study tools (Report WP1) https://sites.google.com/site/fimsul/home/work-packages/work-package-1

FAO (2013) A value-chain analysis of international fish trade and food security with an impact assessment of the small-scale sector. NORAD-FAO Project. (www.fao.org/valuechaininsmallscalefisheries)

FAO 2005-2018. National Aquaculture Sector Overview. Nepal. National Aquaculture Sector Overview Fact Sheets. Text by Pradhan, G. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 10 October 2005. [Cited 30 April 2018].

Gauttam, N. (2015) CHALLENGES OF FRESHWATER FISHERIES IN NEPAL: A SHORT OVERVIEW.

GoN Ministry of Agricultural Development. 2017. Statistical Information on Nepalese Agriculture, 2072/73 (2015/16) http://moad.gov.np/public/uploads/1142453195-STATISTIC%20AGRICULTURE%20BOOK_2016.pdf

GoN National Planning Commission. 2017. National Population and Housing Census 2011 http://cbs.gov.np/sectoral_statistics/population/populationprojection2011_2031

GoN National Planning Commission. 2017. Population projection 2011-2031 http://cbs.gov.np/sectoral_statistics/population/Population%20of%20753%20Local%20Units

GoN (2017) Ministry of Agricultural Development. 2017. Statistical Information on Nepalese Agriculture, 2072/73 (2015/16) http://moad.gov.np/public/uploads/1142453195-STATISTIC%20AGRICULTURE%20BOOK_2016.pdf

Gurung, T.B. 2014. Harnessing Fisheries Innovation for Transformational Impact in Nepal. HYDRO Nepal Journal 15:53-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/hn.v15i0.11295

Kaplinsky, R., and Morris, M. 2000. A Handbook for Value Chain Research, International Development research Center (IDRC), Canada.

Mishra, R.N. 2015. Status of Aquaculture in Nepal. Nepalese Journal of Aquaculture and Fisheries.

Schiffer, E. (2007a) Netmap Tool Box. Influence mapping of social networks. https://netmap.wordpress.com/about/ (accessed October 2017)

Schiffer, E., Birol, E. and Duarte, P. (2007b) Stakeholder mapping DFID HPAI Project Stakeholder Workshop Accra, Ghana June 24-25, 2008. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08bb540f0b652dd000e30/PRE080624_E-Schiffer-E-Birol-P-Duarte_NetMapping.pdf

158

Shrestha, M.K. and R.N. Mishra. 2014. Fish Production Systems in Nepal. Annual Innovation Lab Council Partners Workshop; March 10-12, 2014; Shangri-La Hotel Kathmandu

SNV (2010) Adding Value to Nepal’s Orthodox Tea Industry.

Taylor II, George, F., Mark R. Weinhold, Susan B. Adams, Nawa Raj Khatiwada, Tara Nidhi Bhattarai and Sona Shakya.(2014) Assessment of Water Resources Management & Freshwater Biodiversity in Nepal. Final Report.

USAID (2016) PAANI Program for Aquatic Natural Resources Improvement. ANNUAL WORK PLAN: YEAR TWO. July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2016

World Bank (2009) Analysis of 5 value chains – Yemen - Fish, Honey, Coffee, Wheat and Qat. Washington DC: World Bank.