The case of Yakpugang Community Forest Management group and the Mongar municipality (written in 2014)
1. Introduction
Mongar municipality is located in eastern Bhutan with an estimated population of 6250 people belonging to 136 households (of various villages), a regional hospital, four schools, and a satellite town. For drinking water, all these settlers depend on a single sub-catchment called Yakpugang (Fig.1) which is managed by the people of two villages, Yagpugang and Kilikhar in the name of Yakpugang Community Forest Management Group (CFMG) comprising 113 households. Excluding features such as settlements, agricultural land, and semi-privately owned forests (locally called Sokshing), the size of Yakpugang Community Forest (CF) is 290 hectares. The CF is topographically sloppy and is exposed towards the northern aspects and ranges from 1800 meters to 3200 meters above sea level (CFMP, 2007) touching the east-west national highway. This paper reviews the ecosystem services rendered by this CF through its CFMG for the welfare of the residents of Mongar municipality and adjoining areas.
2. Drivers and environmental pressures relevant to this case
The environmentally pressing issue of the conservation program was the shortage of drinking water in the Mongar municipality with the residents attributing such problems to the destruction of the forest ecosystem by the people living in the sub-catchment of Yakpugang. Some indirect factors the settlers thought were indiscriminate grazing (Fig. 2), felling of trees, and collection of other natural resources by the community that reduced the water volume whereas CFMG thought otherwise. Since its establishment in 2001, Yakpugang CFMG had been looking forward to some kind of compensation from the municipality for caring for the watershed while the municipality has often suffered serious water scarcity though there had been no recorded severe cases of diseases outbreak or other calamities. The study reported here established that more than the indirect factors, the direct factor like lack of proper infrastructures (leaking pipes, improper reservoirs) and lack of monitoring contributed very much to the shortage of water.
Human health-wise, it is a well-known fact what unhealthy waters mean and what type of problems they could give to humanity. A clean water supply to the town can prevent waterborne diseases like diarrhea, dysentery, typhoid, etcetera which are prevalent in the area. As such ensuring proper water supply to the town is paramount. Records of the Mongar Hospital confirm the aforementioned diseases as common in the area although there are no epidemic records due to water problems. Therefore, it was found essential to have a conservation action plan for the catchment area that would address the following problems.
a) Sufficient water supply for the town and adjoining settlers
b) Provide clean water and air
c) Control landslides
d) Make forest products for the community
e) Empower the local people in managing the forest
To address the above issues, the payment for ecosystem services scheme has been used.
3. PES – As a conservation measures
The Royal Government of Bhutan through its Department of Forests and Park Services (DoFPS) conducted a payment for ecosystem services (PES) feasibility assessment that favored putting into test the so-called PES scheme to provide safe drinking water (one of the provisioning ecosystem services that include water, food and various other resources) to Mongar town. With this scheme, the CFMG members who are the stewards of the watershed area are being paid some form of cash through the municipal office on annual basis.
Mongar municipality is located in eastern Bhutan with an estimated population of 6250 people belonging to 136 households (of various villages), a regional hospital, four schools, and a satellite town. For drinking water, all these settlers depend on a single sub-catchment called Yakpugang (Fig.1) which is managed by the people of two villages, Yagpugang and Kilikhar in the name of Yakpugang Community Forest Management Group (CFMG) comprising 113 households. Excluding features such as settlements, agricultural land, and semi-privately owned forests (locally called Sokshing), the size of Yakpugang Community Forest (CF) is 290 hectares. The CF is topographically sloppy and is exposed towards the northern aspects and ranges from 1800 meters to 3200 meters above sea level (CFMP, 2007) touching the east-west national highway. This paper reviews the ecosystem services rendered by this CF through its CFMG for the welfare of the residents of Mongar municipality and adjoining areas.
Figure 1. Yakpugang sub-catchment with the community village in the front (Photo: CFMP)
2. Drivers and environmental pressures relevant to this case
The environmentally pressing issue of the conservation program was the shortage of drinking water in the Mongar municipality with the residents attributing such problems to the destruction of the forest ecosystem by the people living in the sub-catchment of Yakpugang. Some indirect factors the settlers thought were indiscriminate grazing (Fig. 2), felling of trees, and collection of other natural resources by the community that reduced the water volume whereas CFMG thought otherwise. Since its establishment in 2001, Yakpugang CFMG had been looking forward to some kind of compensation from the municipality for caring for the watershed while the municipality has often suffered serious water scarcity though there had been no recorded severe cases of diseases outbreak or other calamities. The study reported here established that more than the indirect factors, the direct factor like lack of proper infrastructures (leaking pipes, improper reservoirs) and lack of monitoring contributed very much to the shortage of water.
Figure 2. Grazing in the catchment is a possible cause of water shortage. (Photo: CFMP)
Human health-wise, it is a well-known fact what unhealthy waters mean and what type of problems they could give to humanity. A clean water supply to the town can prevent waterborne diseases like diarrhea, dysentery, typhoid, etcetera which are prevalent in the area. As such ensuring proper water supply to the town is paramount. Records of the Mongar Hospital confirm the aforementioned diseases as common in the area although there are no epidemic records due to water problems. Therefore, it was found essential to have a conservation action plan for the catchment area that would address the following problems.
a) Sufficient water supply for the town and adjoining settlers
b) Provide clean water and air
c) Control landslides
d) Make forest products for the community
e) Empower the local people in managing the forest
To address the above issues, the payment for ecosystem services scheme has been used.
3. PES – As a conservation measures
The Royal Government of Bhutan through its Department of Forests and Park Services (DoFPS) conducted a payment for ecosystem services (PES) feasibility assessment that favored putting into test the so-called PES scheme to provide safe drinking water (one of the provisioning ecosystem services that include water, food and various other resources) to Mongar town. With this scheme, the CFMG members who are the stewards of the watershed area are being paid some form of cash through the municipal office on annual basis.
The feasibility study found that the people are aware of how important it is for them to conserve their community forest for the ecosystem-provisioning service of supplying enough quantity of water for the towns and villages located around it. They are also aware of how clean waters are important for the health of the people residing in and around the sub-catchment. If the CF and the surrounding lands are not conserved, it means degradation of the catchment which can result in costly long-distance transport of water. As such, the water users of the town know very well how dependent they are on the provisioning services rendered by the CFMG through the conservation of the catchment ecosystem.
Therefore, the PES agreement with technical and financial support from SNV (Netherlands Development Agency) and the DoFPS to ensure water quality and quantity was signed in 2010 which specified added incentives for better forest management practices by the community. But being a CF, many incentives were already in place for the community to encourage them to sustainably manage the forest given to them. The Mongar PES, however, provides additional incentives to ensure the quantitative and qualitative flow of water.
However, the PES scheme as always is applied with certain agreed conditions between the parties, the service-providing group, and the users, which are many times a win-win kind of arrangement. Some of the important considerations that were agreed upon are discussed below.
3.1. Reduced grazing
One of the biggest threats to the catchment was grazing by the cattle population of the Yakpugang and Kilikhar villages. To reduce this, the agreement asserts allowing only 5 cattle quota per household for the CFMG members. They are also supposed to reduce the number of unproductive cattle and start stall feeding of the improved breeds. Another succinct condition related to grazing is allowing the cattle into the forest only during the day. Before signing the PES agreement, the cattle were left in the forest even during the night. The agreement also specifies the removal of the existing cowsheds from the catchment and the ban on new cowshed construction. Actually, the community has grazing rights in the catchment as the area is registered in the name of the community as Tsamdro (a local term for registered grazing land with limited rights). The CFMGs are also given the task of not allowing cattle of other adjoining villages like Drepong into the catchment which the community has agreed. They are also tasked to ensure that there are no illegal collections of resources from the catchment unless specified by the CF management plan including controlling the people coming from outside the community.
3.1. Reduced grazing
One of the biggest threats to the catchment was grazing by the cattle population of the Yakpugang and Kilikhar villages. To reduce this, the agreement asserts allowing only 5 cattle quota per household for the CFMG members. They are also supposed to reduce the number of unproductive cattle and start stall feeding of the improved breeds. Another succinct condition related to grazing is allowing the cattle into the forest only during the day. Before signing the PES agreement, the cattle were left in the forest even during the night. The agreement also specifies the removal of the existing cowsheds from the catchment and the ban on new cowshed construction. Actually, the community has grazing rights in the catchment as the area is registered in the name of the community as Tsamdro (a local term for registered grazing land with limited rights). The CFMGs are also given the task of not allowing cattle of other adjoining villages like Drepong into the catchment which the community has agreed. They are also tasked to ensure that there are no illegal collections of resources from the catchment unless specified by the CF management plan including controlling the people coming from outside the community.
This agreement is interesting in the sense that the CFMG has given up many rights concerning grazing even agreeing to control others (non–CFMGs) entering the catchment. Therefore, the effect of the cattle on the catchment is definitely minimized and the quality of the water should also be definitely improved. With this, the chances of people contracting zoonotic diseases through the sick animals that might roam the catchment are reduced. Thus, the regulating ecosystem service of controlling diseases in humans is assured.
3.2. Water source protection
Another important point considered for ensuring the qualitative and quantitative flow of water is the protection of specific water holes inside the catchment. As per the community forest management plan (CFMP), the community is allowed to harvest timber from the catchment. Unlike grazing, extraction of timber is unavoidable because, people depend on timber from the CF for everything (construction, cooking, etc.) and the PES scheme cannot stop timber extraction. Therefore, the agreement specifies having a buffer area of about 160 meters surrounding the water holes. It means, the community cannot fall trees within 160 meters radius of the actual water holes. Further, it has been agreed that there will be no extraction of resources within 100 meters of the major stream banks to protect the riparian vegetation that is thought to regulate (regulating service the ecosystems give by being regulators e.g. regulating air and soil quality, and controlling flood and diseases) the flow of the stream.
3.2. Water source protection
Another important point considered for ensuring the qualitative and quantitative flow of water is the protection of specific water holes inside the catchment. As per the community forest management plan (CFMP), the community is allowed to harvest timber from the catchment. Unlike grazing, extraction of timber is unavoidable because, people depend on timber from the CF for everything (construction, cooking, etc.) and the PES scheme cannot stop timber extraction. Therefore, the agreement specifies having a buffer area of about 160 meters surrounding the water holes. It means, the community cannot fall trees within 160 meters radius of the actual water holes. Further, it has been agreed that there will be no extraction of resources within 100 meters of the major stream banks to protect the riparian vegetation that is thought to regulate (regulating service the ecosystems give by being regulators e.g. regulating air and soil quality, and controlling flood and diseases) the flow of the stream.
To further ensure the ecosystem’s regulating service (providing quality air), the agreement specifies the plantation of trees in the landslide and barren areas within the CF. They are also mandated to clean and clear the naturally fallen tree or other debris from the streams within the CFMG area excluding those which were there before the signing of the contract. All these activities in the CF are meant for providing good water (provisioning service), regulate the water flow (regulating service), maintain good habitat for the plants growing in the catchment, and support other life forms like birds, wild animals etcetera (supporting service) and to maintain the beauty of the forest by planting trees in the landslide areas (aesthetic/cultural service).
What is not so different from the PES agreement is the CFMG’s forest management plan whose objective besides conserving the water sources is sustainable forest management with specific aims to make money out of the sale of forest products from the CF. The CFMG also has plans to improve the existing tree species and use them sustainably. Keeping in mind the health of the forest, the plan also mentions the stoppage of free grazing inside the CFMG is very much in line with the PES agreement. An additional mention in the plan is not to allow cattle around the regeneration areas even during the day. That way, the CFMG plan is even stronger than the PES agreement. The plan also takes care of avoiding felling around the water holes and mentions that the silvicultural operations like singling, thinning, and cleaning be restricted to those areas whose slopes are less than 60 percent mainly to avoid landslides. The plan does not even favor the dragging of timber and specifies not to fall timber during the monsoon to stop erosion. Like the PES agreement, the plan also has provisions to protect water sources through the fencing of the sources physically as well as socially. Therefore, the ecosystem restoration for the supply of enough clean water is double assured (Fig. 3).
With two action plans with various strategies (some of which are overlapping but definitely in favor of conservation for human welfare) for restoring one ecosystem, there are no doubts about the ecosystem being restored. As such nothing gets missed as one of the two strategic documents covers all. But there is no disagreement that there is no specific mention of the ecosystem services. As a matter of fact, the concern for ecosystem restoration has come up only for solving the water shortage problem of the town which is why no specific mention of the term ecosystem service is mentioned.
3.3. Benefits to local communities
So far the discussions have been on fulfilling the agreed conditions put forth by the users in a quest to have sufficient clean drinking water which the CFMGs have agreed to. Two strategic documents have separate benefits list for the community in return for the demands set forth that include taking away grazing rights of the people with the addition of making the community guard their catchment. As such, there are two parts of benefits, one given through the forest management plan by the state and the other paid by the PES Mongar.
What is not so different from the PES agreement is the CFMG’s forest management plan whose objective besides conserving the water sources is sustainable forest management with specific aims to make money out of the sale of forest products from the CF. The CFMG also has plans to improve the existing tree species and use them sustainably. Keeping in mind the health of the forest, the plan also mentions the stoppage of free grazing inside the CFMG is very much in line with the PES agreement. An additional mention in the plan is not to allow cattle around the regeneration areas even during the day. That way, the CFMG plan is even stronger than the PES agreement. The plan also takes care of avoiding felling around the water holes and mentions that the silvicultural operations like singling, thinning, and cleaning be restricted to those areas whose slopes are less than 60 percent mainly to avoid landslides. The plan does not even favor the dragging of timber and specifies not to fall timber during the monsoon to stop erosion. Like the PES agreement, the plan also has provisions to protect water sources through the fencing of the sources physically as well as socially. Therefore, the ecosystem restoration for the supply of enough clean water is double assured (Fig. 3).
Figure 3. The reviving forest ecosystem of Yakpugang Community Forest (Picture: CFMP)
With two action plans with various strategies (some of which are overlapping but definitely in favor of conservation for human welfare) for restoring one ecosystem, there are no doubts about the ecosystem being restored. As such nothing gets missed as one of the two strategic documents covers all. But there is no disagreement that there is no specific mention of the ecosystem services. As a matter of fact, the concern for ecosystem restoration has come up only for solving the water shortage problem of the town which is why no specific mention of the term ecosystem service is mentioned.
3.3. Benefits to local communities
So far the discussions have been on fulfilling the agreed conditions put forth by the users in a quest to have sufficient clean drinking water which the CFMGs have agreed to. Two strategic documents have separate benefits list for the community in return for the demands set forth that include taking away grazing rights of the people with the addition of making the community guard their catchment. As such, there are two parts of benefits, one given through the forest management plan by the state and the other paid by the PES Mongar.
The CFMP empowers the CFMG to collect natural resources and realize royalties for the resources extracted from the CF for themselves which otherwise would go to the state treasury and encourages them to make some income within the management prescriptions. Therefore, this has strengthened conservation vis-à-vis social bonding and has fulfilled all the criteria of the gross national happiness (GNH) based development paradigm. CFMGs have a set of office bearers of people’s choice voted by a majority in the name of Chairman, Secretary, and Treasurer, thus fulfilling one of the pillars of GNH which experts call good governance. A group such as this aims for equitable distribution of benefits derived from nature amongst the people which supports another pillar of equal and sustainable development. They have mandates to conserve the environment and respect the traditional rights of the users that strengthen the preservation of culture. Thus, the benefit to people is enormous.
PES Mongar through the Mongar municipality pays an annual fee of Nu. 74,000.00 (Ngultrums Seventy Four Thousands) only equals about US $ 1200.00 which the community for their uses. Thus, the situation here is win-win and many of their needs have been addressed through the money paid through the PES scheme and the prescriptions of the CFMP. Thus, with this scheme, there are three beneficiaries namely, the forest ecosystem, the CFMG, and the Users.
4. Managerial and Policies initiatives concerning such conservation issues
Forest, nature conservation, and environment management are enshrined in the constitution of the Kingdom Bhutan under several articles including the health and safety of the people. . Article five of the constitution highlights the importance of the environment and it states that “Bhutan is endowed with rich natural resources and biodiversity. This Article outlines the responsibilities of the people and the Government to protect and conserve the pristine environment and safeguard Bhutan’s wildlife. Environmental conservation is safeguarded by the Constitution as an integral part of the nation’s policies as no generation has the right to destroy the agreed and inherited rich natural environment.” Two provisions, “(a) it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to contribute to the protection of natural environment and prevention of ecological degradation” and “(b) the Government shall ensure that a minimum of sixty percent of Bhutan’s total land is maintained under forest cover for all time’ under this article ensure the safety of the environment.” Concerns for the safety of human health are mentioned in the constitution in all the articles covered ensuring the total safety of the people. Therefore, the people are legally safe and free with basic rights to living meaningful life.
4. Managerial and Policies initiatives concerning such conservation issues
Forest, nature conservation, and environment management are enshrined in the constitution of the Kingdom Bhutan under several articles including the health and safety of the people. . Article five of the constitution highlights the importance of the environment and it states that “Bhutan is endowed with rich natural resources and biodiversity. This Article outlines the responsibilities of the people and the Government to protect and conserve the pristine environment and safeguard Bhutan’s wildlife. Environmental conservation is safeguarded by the Constitution as an integral part of the nation’s policies as no generation has the right to destroy the agreed and inherited rich natural environment.” Two provisions, “(a) it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to contribute to the protection of natural environment and prevention of ecological degradation” and “(b) the Government shall ensure that a minimum of sixty percent of Bhutan’s total land is maintained under forest cover for all time’ under this article ensure the safety of the environment.” Concerns for the safety of human health are mentioned in the constitution in all the articles covered ensuring the total safety of the people. Therefore, the people are legally safe and free with basic rights to living meaningful life.
Based on the constitution, allowing communities to take up critical areas for management for themselves is covered in the Forest and Nature Conservation Act of Bhutan 1995 which is being implemented through a technical regulation called the Forest and Nature Conservation Rules of Bhutan 2006. Both the legislative documents are guided by what we in Bhutan call National Forest Policy documents which get amended with changing time to adjust better conservation ideas and ideologies. All three legislative documents support joining all sorts of international conservation bodies that concern forests, wildlife, and the conservation of any kind of nature-based resources. It is because of this very reason that Bhutan is a party to many international organizations like ADB, FAO, IBRD, IDA, UNFCCC, IFC, CBD, IPPC, IFAD, IMF, IUCN, UN, UN-REDD, Colombo Plan, etcetera to name a few. Therefore, the implementation of schemes like PES in Bhutan is not a problem at all. Instead, such programs are welcomed.
Legislative documents that support all activities related to ecosystem restoration, nature conservation, and the environment including human welfare are Biodiversity Act 2003, Environment Assessment Act 2000, Forest Act 1969, National Environment Act 2007, Plant Quarantine Act 1993, Waste Management Act 2009, and Water Act 2013. Therefore, human safety is guaranteed.
5. Conclusion
The case study highlights the benefit sharing from a forest ecosystem with CFMG as service providers and the Mongar municipality as service users. While the CFMG assured the cleanliness of the catchment from where the water for the town is tapped, the users agreed to pay in cash some amount for allowing clean water flow to the places where they stay. Such an agreement has been reached between the two parties for the welfare of people as well as the ecosystem. But the sacrifices are interesting because the CFMG even gave up their grazing right which is part and parcel of the largest section of Bhutanese farmers. The main objective of ecosystem restoration for the supply of sufficient and quality water to Mongar municipality and the adjoining settlements has been achieved while ensuring a good ecosystem. Further, it also provided ground to test a conservation scheme called PES which has proven successful.
6. Bibliography
Bhutan Forest Act (1969). Royal Government of Bhutan, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Forest. Thimphu, Bhutan.
Bhutan Water Act (2013). Royal Government of Bhutan, National Environment Commission, Thimphu, Bhutan.
District Forest Sector, Mongar (2007). Revised Community Forest Management Plan of Yakpukang Community Forest Management Group. Mongar, Bhutan.
Forest and Nature Conservation Act of Bhutan. (1995). Royal Government of Bhutan. Thimphu
Forest and Nature Conservation Rules of Bhutan (2006). Royal Government of Bhutan. Thimphu.
Neves, B. (2011). Mongar PES Pilot Site summary report: PES agreement between Yakpugang Community Forest- Mongar town water supply. Building capacity for PES in Bhutan with technical assistance from FAO and financial support from IFAD.
National Environment Assessment Act (2000). National Environment Commission Secretariat, Thimphu, Bhutan.
National Environment Act (2007). National Environment Commission Secretariat, Thimphu, Bhutan.
Plant Quarantine Act of Bhutan (1993). Royal Government of Bhutan, Ministry of Agriculture, Thimphu, Bhutan.
The Biodiversity Act of Bhutan (2003). National Biodiversity Centre, Royal Government of Bhutan, Thimphu. Bhutan.
The Constitution of the Kingdom of Bhutan (2008). Royal Government of Bhutan. Thimphu, Bhutan.
Waste Management Act (2009). Royal Government of Bhutan, National Environment Commission, Thimphu, Bhutan.
5. Conclusion
The case study highlights the benefit sharing from a forest ecosystem with CFMG as service providers and the Mongar municipality as service users. While the CFMG assured the cleanliness of the catchment from where the water for the town is tapped, the users agreed to pay in cash some amount for allowing clean water flow to the places where they stay. Such an agreement has been reached between the two parties for the welfare of people as well as the ecosystem. But the sacrifices are interesting because the CFMG even gave up their grazing right which is part and parcel of the largest section of Bhutanese farmers. The main objective of ecosystem restoration for the supply of sufficient and quality water to Mongar municipality and the adjoining settlements has been achieved while ensuring a good ecosystem. Further, it also provided ground to test a conservation scheme called PES which has proven successful.
6. Bibliography
Bhutan Forest Act (1969). Royal Government of Bhutan, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Forest. Thimphu, Bhutan.
Bhutan Water Act (2013). Royal Government of Bhutan, National Environment Commission, Thimphu, Bhutan.
District Forest Sector, Mongar (2007). Revised Community Forest Management Plan of Yakpukang Community Forest Management Group. Mongar, Bhutan.
Forest and Nature Conservation Act of Bhutan. (1995). Royal Government of Bhutan. Thimphu
Forest and Nature Conservation Rules of Bhutan (2006). Royal Government of Bhutan. Thimphu.
Neves, B. (2011). Mongar PES Pilot Site summary report: PES agreement between Yakpugang Community Forest- Mongar town water supply. Building capacity for PES in Bhutan with technical assistance from FAO and financial support from IFAD.
National Environment Assessment Act (2000). National Environment Commission Secretariat, Thimphu, Bhutan.
National Environment Act (2007). National Environment Commission Secretariat, Thimphu, Bhutan.
Plant Quarantine Act of Bhutan (1993). Royal Government of Bhutan, Ministry of Agriculture, Thimphu, Bhutan.
The Biodiversity Act of Bhutan (2003). National Biodiversity Centre, Royal Government of Bhutan, Thimphu. Bhutan.
The Constitution of the Kingdom of Bhutan (2008). Royal Government of Bhutan. Thimphu, Bhutan.
Waste Management Act (2009). Royal Government of Bhutan, National Environment Commission, Thimphu, Bhutan.
Disclaimer
This
is my personal thought and anything written here is not intended to
harm or promote people or things mentioned here. No one is authorized to
use the content of this blog for either personal or private purposes.
People mentioned here are fictitious characters and any resemblance
to anyone with some characters or more is purely coincidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment