Community biodiversity registers in Nepal

The conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are issues that have been high on the policy

agenda since the first Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. As part of efforts to implement in situ

conservation, a methodology referred to as community biodiversity management (CBM) has been

developed by those engaged in this arena. CBM contributes to the empowerment of farming communities

to manage their biological resources and make informed decisions on the conservation and use of

agrobiodiversity.

This book is the first to set out a clear overview of CBM as a methodology for meeting socio-environmental

changes. CBM is shown to be a key strategy that promotes community resilience, and contributes to the

conservation of plant genetic resources. The authors present the underlying concepts and theories of

CBM as well as its methodology and practices, and introduce case studies primarily from Brazil, Ethiopia,

France, India and Nepal. Contributors include farmers, leaders of farmers’ organizations, professionals

from conservation and development organizations, students and scientists.

The book offers inspiration to all those involved in the conservation and use of agrobiodiversity within

livelihood development and presents ideas for the implementation of farmers’ rights. The wide collection

of experiences illustrates the efforts made by communities throughout the world to cope with change

while using diversity and engaging in learning processes. It links these grassroots efforts with debates

in policy arenas as a means to respond to the unpredictable changes, such as climate change, that

communities face in sustaining their livelihoods.

Walter Simon de Boef is Visiting Professor at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Brazil,

and Associate Consultant at the Centre for Development Innovation (CDI) of Wageningen University and

Research Centre (Wageningen UR), the Netherlands.

Abishkar Subedi worked at Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD), Nepal,

until 2012 when he assumed the role of Agrobiodiversity and Seed Sector Development Specialist at

the Centre for Development Innovation (CDI) of Wageningen UR, the Netherlands.

Nivaldo Peroni is Professor at UFSC, Brazil.

Marja Thijssen is Agrobiodiversity and Seed Sector Development Specialist at the Centre for Development

Innovation (CDI) of Wageningen UR, the Netherlands.

Elizabeth O’Keeffe is a freelance copy-editor based in Brazil.

Community Biodiversity Management

promoting resilience and the conservation of plant genetic resources

edited by Walter Simon de Boef, Abishkar Subedi,

Nivaldo Peroni, Marja Thijssen and Elizabeth O’Keeffe

i s s u e s i n a g r i c u l t u r a l b i o d i v e r s i t y

EnvironmEnt & SuStainability/agriculturE & Food/Ecology/conSErvation

Comm

unity Biodiversity Managem

ent

Cover photos: (clockwise from top): Mahesh Shrestha, LI-BIRD; Fetien Abay; Jennifer Kendall, AgroBio Périgord; Sofia Zank

www.routledge.com

Routledge titles are available as eBook editions in a range of digital formats

Edited by Walter Simon de Boef,

Abishkar Subedi, Nivaldo Peroni, M

arja Thijssen and Elizabeth O’Keeffe

Community Biodiversity Management FAW.indd 1,3 13/02/2013 15:31

2.4 Community biodiversity registers in Nepal

Enhancing the capabilities of communities to document, monitor and take control over their genetic resources

Abishkar Subedi, Rachana Devkota, Indra Prasad Poudel and Shreeram Subedi

The need to protect associated traditional knowledge

‘Traditional knowledge’ refers to the body of wisdom, innovations and practices

of indigenous peoples and local communities (CBD, 1992b). We see in the world

that young generations of farming communities are increasingly reluctant to learn

about, or are simply not interested in understanding, plant genetic resources (PGR)

and associated traditional knowledge (ATK), which may result in their loss. The risk

of losing ATK appears either when an owner of ATK does not pass it on to a recipi-

ent (another generation or other interested persons); when the overall situation in

which the knowledge is used changes; or when the material concerned is lost. If the

information passed on is not useful, or if the related resource is no longer there,

the ATK loses its purpose. When any of these conditions or combinations thereof

occur, we need to address this situation with a conservation action. After more

than a decade of work at Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Develop-

ment (LI-BIRD, Nepal), we have learned that a community biodiversity register

(CBR) can contribute to the empowerment of community institutions. Through this

practice of community biodiversity management (CBM), communities gain a better

understanding of their own biological assets and values, and are better able to use

those assets for livelihood development while appreciating and sustaining them for

future generations.

The CBR is a practice that addresses a range of objectives. A CBR is basically a

farmers’ information database on biodiversity and traditional knowledge. It docu-

ments and monitors ATK and PGR and thereby protects them from bio-piracy (Rijal

et al., 2003; Subedi et al., 2005c). In this chapter, we share our experiences in design-

ing and implementing CBRs in a diversity of situations in Nepal.

The design and implementation of a CBR

We developed a CBR in a process that includes three major steps, as illustrated in the

time line in Figure 2.4.1.

84 Abishkar Subedi et al.

During the piloting stage (1998–2001), we experimented with documenting and

monitoring biodiversity and traditional knowledge in the global agrobiodiversity

project that is described in more detail by Subedi et al. (Chapter 1.2). The need for

CBR emerged after carrying out a crop inventory and monitoring the dynamism of

PGR at household level in three sites that were each cultivating different crops, the

combination of which matched the crops chosen to be addressed by the agrobiodi-

versity project (Rijal et al., 2003; Subedi et al., 2005c). This investigation provided us

with the rationale for documenting and monitoring PGR and ATK; it became the

scientific foundation to the development of CBR.

To fulfil Nepal’s obligations to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),

stakeholders began to explore ways of documenting the national biodiversity and

1998–2001 Piloting:Experimentation with documentation and monitoring(LI-BIRD, NARC and Bioversity International)

Consolidation:Development of national CBR format(MFSC, IUCN & LI-BIRD)

2001–2002

Up-scaling :National Biodiversity Strategy and ABS draft bill recognize CBR as a legal instrument to document and protect TK and PGR (MFSC, ACAP and LI-BIRD)

2002

Refinement:Community empowerment and livelihoods approach(LI-BIRD)

Out-scaling and further piloting:CBR is included in existing programmes and new projects by several stakeholders(MFSC, MOAC, IUCN, NGOs, universities)

2002–2004

Institutional and methodological consolidation:National Stakeholder Workshop on CBR

2005

Institutional out-scalingCBR consolidated in 11 districts(MFSC, IUCN, NGOs)

Community-based out-scaling:CBR in 18 districts (LI-BIRD, MOAC, NARC)

2005–2008

Widening scope:CBR for livestock, poultry and fisheries(MOAC, LI-BIRD, NARC)

2009–2010

Figure 2.4.1 Time line synthesizing the evolution of the community biodiversity register (CBR) as a practice for community biodiversity management in Nepal. ACAP, Annapurna Conservation Area Project; NGO, non-governmental organization; NARC, Nepal Agriculture Research Council; MOAC, Nepalese Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives; LI-BIRD, Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development; MFSC, Nepalese Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation; IUCN, International Union for the Conservation of Nature; TK, traditional knowledge; PGR, plant genetic resources.

Source: Based on Subedi et al. (2005).

Community biodiversity registers in Nepal 85

ATK. The Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MFSC), in collaboration with

the Nepal office of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN-

Nepal), explored ways to study and refine the CBR methodology in the context of

biodiversity, in one of LI-BIRD’s sites. This project constituted the consolidation and

development of the CBR (2001–2002). We moved beyond our original PGR focus,

and included a wide range of biological resources including forests, wetlands and

wildlife.

We used the outcome of this work to out- and up-scale several projects with a

wide range of stakeholders (from 2003 onwards). MFSC, LI-BIRD, IUCN-Nepal,

the Unitarian Service Committee-Nepal (USC-Nepal) and the Ministry of Agricul-

ture and Cooperatives (MOAC) began to out-scale CBR through various projects

or within their regular programmes. Stakeholders used similar or slightly adapted

registers that responded to their objectives. Some established CBRs were managed

by external stakeholders, with documentation as a major goal, but this modality

proved to be unsustainable and was discontinued in 2005. Examples of the other

modality, where community-based organizations (CBOs) themselves managed and

took responsibility for their CBR, are still operational and benefiting the community

and its members.

In 2010, we adapted the CBR for documenting and monitoring animal genetic

resources, including fisheries and poultry. As such, the CBR evolved to take a more

integral approach to biodiversity. Most importantly, it gradually began to strengthen

the capacity of local communities to analyse locally available information and design

development and conservation plans to generate social, economic and environmental

benefits (Subedi et al., 2005c).

Key steps in the process of developing the CBR

Our experience with CBRs can be synthesized into eight different but interlinked

steps that we present below. These steps may vary and can be adapted depending

upon the context of any given community and type of biodiversity being addressed.

Step 1: Selecting the area and community

In choosing an area to support the establishment of a CBR, we use the following

criteria:

• There must be an availability and richness of biodiversity and/or PGR.

• The community and engaged stakeholders must recognize that diversity is an

important asset of their livelihood.

• The community must be interested.

• The area should be representative of an atypical agro-ecosystem of the country.

We use secondary information sources or consultations with relevant stakeholders

to gather the information. We form a multidisciplinary team that includes project

staff and local government officials, and conclude with a participatory diagnostic sur-

vey to verify key characteristics and set a basis for the establishment of the CBR.


Step 2: Informing the community on CBR rationale and objectives

We organize a series of village workshops. Participants represent farmers’ groups,

natural resource user groups (e.g. forest user groups), schools, youth clubs, local

administrative bodies, private sectors and local government extension agents. With

the workshop, we start building a common understanding of the CBR, the rationale

behind its establishment and way that it operates. Subsequently, we facilitate a multi-

stakeholder process during which we design the CBR action plan. Guiding questions

in this process are:

• What is the appropriate unit of documentation (household, group, village, or any

specific landscape)?

• What local institution has the capacity and long-term interest to locally coordinate

the CBR?

• What stakeholders should we involve?

• Where should we register the CBR for legal purposes?

• What mechanisms should we use to link the local CBR database with a national

repository?

Step 3: Strengthening institutional capacity

We use several participatory appraisal tools, such as rainbow diagrams, CLIP and

SWOT analysis (De Boef and Thijssen, 2007; Chevalier and Buckles, 2011), to define

the CBR’s institutional set-up. In this way, communities identify local institutions that

they consider interested, skilful and legitimate for coordinating or facilitating their

CBR. The appraisal defines who will be a member of the committee that will provide

strategic support, facilitate collective decision-making, engage in capacity-building

and ensure the overall monitoring of PGR and ATK. As an external supporter, LI-

BIRD trains, guides and coaches the committee in performing these responsibilities.

We also conduct exposure visits that enhance the capacity of committee members

and farmers’ groups.

Step 4: Defining a specific focus and initial requirements for data collection

We start the actual implementation of the CBR with the development of the register’s

format. Even before advancing with this, a minimum set of data is required, for which

we use the following guiding questions:

• What resource (species, variety or other biological resources) do we have and

how do we recognize it?

• How do we utilize it?

• What is its status? Is it abundant or rare? Does this status change over time?

• Why do we need to conserve it?

• Who holds the traditional knowledge associated with the resource, and how is it

transmitted from one generation to another?


• Who (men or women; young or elderly) makes decisions concerning the

management of this resource?

• To what degree and in what way is the resource shared within and outside the

community or beyond?

Once the community has adequately responded to those questions, we can start

to collect an initial set of data on the resources identified. Based on our experience

working with CBRs in Nepal, we collect detailed information concerning the origin,

characteristics, historical background and traditional knowledge of the resource, as

well as site and community descriptors, extent of distribution, name and gender cus-

todians, among many other details.

Step 5: Documenting, compiling and validating CBR information

The institution and/or committee responsible for the CBR strengthen the capacity

of each specific group, to ensure that they are capable of assuming the responsibility

to document their biodiversity and ATK. Committee members coach and monitor

the groups in their activities. They further explore how the CBR can be associated to

other practices that are part of the community’s CBM plan. These include the use of

a diversity fair, during which the information recorded in the CBR can be verified,

and additional, relevant information can be collected, which may lead to follow-up

CBM practices, such as diversity blocks and diversity kits, as described by Shrestha et

al. (Chapter 2.2). This step is crucial but also resource-demanding for the supporting

organization (e.g. LI-BIRD) and the community itself.

Step 6: Analysing and sharing information

We supported communities in their organization of a regular series of village-level

stakeholder workshops to discuss and analyse the status and trends of biological

resources that can be interpreted from the CBR. Four-cell analysis is an effective

participatory discussion tool for identifying abundant and rare crops or varieties in a

participatory manner (Subedi et al., 2005c). Through the use of four-cell analysis, the

communities can also learn about how many households cultivate certain crops or

varieties in large or small areas. The outcome of this discussion is crucial in identifying

follow-up CBM practices. Various communication tools, such as posters, pamphlets

or radio programmes, as well as other CBM practices, can be used to share the out-

comes of this analysis with an audience beyond those households directly engaged in

the CBR.

Step 7: Designing and implementing conservation and development plans

During the analysis and sharing of CBR information, committee members facili-

tate a participatory process to identify priorities for conservation and livelihood

improvement. It is crucial that the priorities are based on evidence in the CBR and


are endorsed through a participatory and transparent process of decision-making.

We have found that for the effective implementation of such CBM plans, the com-

mittee needs to take on a role beyond that of managing the CBR. Their role should

gradually evolve into one of leadership, where they take a responsibility for facilitat-

ing the CBM process and practices; for guiding the community towards collective

action; and for ensuring partnerships and collaboration with stakeholders, includ-

ing local government. Once the institutional responsibilities and social organization

have been defined, the successive component is the establishment of the CBM fund,

as described by Shrestha et al. (Chapter 2.9).

Step 8: Local registration and linkage with a national repository

We learned that in order to make the CBR a legal document, it needs to be for-

mally registered at both village and national levels of government. The committee

is responsible for its registration at village level, something that is achieved through

the Village-level Biodiversity Conservation and Development Committee (VBCDC).

We have also invested in the development of a practical mechanism that links com-

munity-based CBR registration to an instrument for documentation at national level.

Our argument is that the compilation of information from the various community-

based CBRs, managed through VBCDCs, and their linkage to national level, forms

a basis for claiming ownership over the use of genetic resources. Such a repository

is required for sharing the benefits from any commercial use of the biodiversity and

ATK originating from communities. Vernooy and Ruiz (Chapter 6.4) further elabo-

rate on ABS, while also addressing specific aspects of the situation in Nepal.

Success stories of CBR

In Begnas, one of our CBM sites, we observed that CBR is an effective tool for locat-

ing unique and rich PGR at both household and community level. Through the

CBR, the community were able to identify a single household that maintains more

than 20 rice landraces. This information became more relevant when it was known

that the community itself was maintaining over 40 rice landraces. When the CBR

committee members shared this information in their village, it had an immediate

impact. Custodian farmers and farmers’ groups that had been conserving unique or

abundant diversity were publicly recognized and were awarded with specific grants

from the CBM fund.

Farmers realized that only a few households are responsible for the conservation

of a large number of local varieties. The material in their hands is thus considered

highly vulnerable to genetic erosion. Upon recognizing this situation in the CBM site

in Bara, the leadership encouraged 22 farmers’ groups to form a CBO, which in turn

established a community seed bank (CSB). The CBOs were able to access funds from

both local government and other developmental organizations for the construction of

their CSBs, using information from the CBR as evidence (Singh et al., 2006).

In Begnas, the community identified unique traits in rice, finger millet, taro and

sponge gourd from the CBR, sharing this information with relevant stakeholders.

The information was also used in participatory crop improvement, value-addition


and market linkage programmes, as a means to create incentives for farmers to con-

tinue cultivating these species and varieties.

Within another CBR project, we supported the establishment of the Rupa Lake

Conservation and Rehabilitation Cooperative, from 2002 until 2006. An analysis of

information in the CBR showed that many wetland resources, such as native fishes,

white lotus and freshwater otters, were endangered due to illegal hunting or over

use by local communities, particularly by those living upstream. With this insight,

the cooperative began a CBM-guided commercial fish-farming venture. Within eight

years, the annual income of the cooperative had increased from US$4200 to US$98

000. Each year, the cooperative allocates 25% of the income to conservation actions

and ecological services, including the conservation of local fish diversity, the protec-

tion of breeding habitats for wetland birds, the conservation block of wild rice spe-

cies, and other conservation activities targeting species and varieties identified as rare

in the CBR and therefore requiring special attention. The cooperative expanded

its membership to include households from upstream communities that also benefit

from its actions. It promotes the management of local PGR, organic farming and

reforestation, has created a scholarship programme for schoolchildren, and provides

employment to indigenous fishing communities. In 2010, four years after the conclu-

sion of the project, the cooperative had over 700 shareholders. The CBR experience

in Rupa Lake became an important reference for LI-BIRD and other biodiversity

stakeholders in Nepal. It showcases how CBR can provide social, economic and envi-

ronmental benefits, also referred to as payment for ecosystem services.

The CBR has been important in many of our agrobiodiversity sites in supporting

and providing crucial inputs to several other CBM practices, including:

• recognizing custodians by providing awards and other means of social recognition

during diversity fairs;

• increasing the competitiveness of local varieties through the improvement of

specific traits, as illustrated by the case of rice landrace, Jethobudho Pokhareli

(discussed by Silwal et al. in Chapter 5.5);

• increasing the demand for local diversity by value addition through better

processing, packaging and market linkages, and through the establishment of

small-scale enterprises (Bhandari et al. in Chapter 4.2 provide an example of this,

showing how the unique diversity of the citrus species was conserved through a

process of value addition and market promotion);

• establishing and supporting the CSB activities (as further described by Shrestha

et al. in Chapter 2.8 in their global overview of this practice);

• promoting the use of diversity kits and the distribution of seed of rare or unique

varieties (as described by Shrestha et al. in Chapter 2.2).

Lessons learned and future challenges

The recording of information at household level can be very resource and time con-

suming, which may deter communities and their partners from sustaining this prac-

tice. In order to create a high degree of ownership over, as well as the motivation to

sustain the CBR, while ensuring an adequate critical mass of contributing member


households, we learned that one CBR per community or village is the most practical

and most viable. Biodiversity projects often organize diversity fairs as part of their

regular activities. Another way to optimize resources and time is to link the documen-

tation and monitoring activities of the CBR with such events. This will increase the

visibility and the use of the CBR practice among members, and will further motivate

community members to contribute. A digital database system is an efficient option

if the necessary resources and capacities are available. Such an investment ensures

the efficient management of the CBR and makes it more attractive to younger com-

munity members. Unique PGR and ATK can be documented through video clips,

which would maximize their future use. One opportunity is to integrate CBR within

digital rural inclusion programmes that are currently being implemented. Another

important lesson learned from working with both the institutional and community-

based CBR is that the latter modality is not only more appropriate from a develop-

ment perspective, but is also more sustainable institutionally.

We learned to ensure the legal status of the CBR and to support the development

of a framework with national systems for biodiversity conservation. This includes

the exchange of PGR for research and development purposes, and the development

of mechanisms for access and benefit-sharing (ABS). In Nepal, although provisions

have been made for such a mechanism in a draft ABS bill, the practical mechanisms

still need to be developed. Our experiences in different contexts of biodiversity man-

agement show that the CBR is an experimental ground for developing such ABS

mechanisms; stakeholders in charge of this important and difficult task do not need

to start from scratch.

In conclusion, we learned that strong socio-political and economic incentives

encourage community members to continuously engage in CBM, in which CBR is a

rewarding but also demanding practice. We therefore have been able, and will con-

tinue, to seek ways to link the CBR to community well-being and welfare. Its associa-

tion with mechanisms that deal with access to financial or market services is a priority.

It is unlikely that biodiversity registration alone is a viable and sustainable strategy for

protecting PGR and ATK, whether the government or local institution supports its

implementation, or if a CBO is autonomous in managing its CBR. It is only sustain-

able when the community takes responsibility for the registration and monitoring of

its resources, which in turn creates direct and visible benefits for their livelihood.

Community biodiversity registers in Nepal

Documents

Transcript of Community biodiversity registers in Nepal