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.
86 Abishkar Subedi et al.
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?
Community biodiversity registers in Nepal 87
• 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
88 Abishkar Subedi et al.
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
Community biodiversity registers in Nepal 89
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
90 Abishkar Subedi et al.
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.