SOO Annex 4 - Paani PEA.pdf

POLITICAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Political Economy Analysis to Identify Champions for Freshwater Policy Change and Conservation of Aquatic Biodiversity

Disclaimer This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by ISET Nepal, NEF and Niti Foundation. The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Ajaya Dixit, Ashutosh Shukla, Anustha Shrestha, Binod Bhattarai, Kopila Wagle, Deep Narayan Shah (PhD), Hari Dhungana (PhD), Bijita Thapa, Anurag Pokharel, Sawar Basnet Thapa, Srimanjari Tamrakar, Yogendra Subedi, Ananta Tamang, Mohan Das Manandhar, Niraj K.C, Prakash Dev Pant (PhD), Rajan Karna, Rojen Bajracharya, Sreya Gyawali, Silanath Jha, Sudip Bhaju, Sujeev Shakya and Rabi Wenju.

Political Economy Analysis to Identify Champions for Freshwater Policy Change and Conservation of Aquatic Biodiversity

Submitted to PAANI Programme DAI International

USAID

By

ISET NEPAL, NEF, NITI FOUNDATION

February 2020

FINAL DRAFT

Political Economy Analysis to Identify Champions for Freshwater Policy Change and

Conservation of Aquatic Biodiversity

Ajaya Dixit, Ashutosh Shukla, Anustha Shrestha, Deep Narayan Shah, Kopila Wagle, Hari Dhungana, Bijita Thapa, Anurag Pokharel, Binod Bhattarai, Sawar Basnet Thapa, Srimanjari Tamrakar, Yogendra Subedi, Ananta Tamang, Mohan Das Manandhar, Niraj K.C, Prakash Dev Pant, Rajan Karna, Rojen Bajracharya, Sreya Gyawali, Silanath Jha, Sudip Bhaju, Sujeev Shakya and Rabi Wenju.

Acknowledgement

This study has been conducted by the consortium of the Institute for Social and Environmental Transition-Nepal, Nepal Economic Forum and NITI Foundation.

We express our thanks to DAI International for supporting this study. We also express our deep thanks to Ms Nilu Basnyat, Dr. Narayan Belbase, Dr. Allen Turner, Mr Jeremy Keeton, Dr. Deepak Rijal, Mr Bhaskar Bhattarai and Mr Sanjog Sriwastav for their support throughout this study. This study would not have been possible without the support of river basin team leaders, watershed management specialists, citizen scientists of the 12 priority watersheds. We offer our appreciation to everyone participating in the FGDs, KIIs and other interactions. We express gratitude towards the participants from the 12 watersheds for taking part in the validation workshops in Surkhet, Nepalgunj, Dhangadi and Kathmandu and for providing useful suggestions. Finally, we would like to thank Mr Mukesh Sharma, Mr Akendra Joshi, and Mr Narayan Ghimire, for their support during the field visits.

Table of Contents

1. The Political Economic Analysis

The Political Economic Analysis The MKWR Basins The Waterscape Groundwater Climatic Context Climate Change Water Development Context Hydropower Projects Development Programs Government-Run Programs Final Observation

2. The Conceptual Framework

Preamble Framework Study Methodology Methodological Tools Champions

3. River basins: State of art and Stresses

West Seti Watershed Rara-Khatyad Watershed Phoksundo-Suligaad Watershed Tila Watershed Middle Karnali Watershed Jhimruk Watershed Rangun Watershed Thuligaad Watershed Bogatan Lagam Karnali Watershed Middle Rapti Watershed Lower Mahakali Lower Karnali Watershed Stresses and Pressures Concluding Remarks

4. Aquatic Ecosystem Analysis and Management

Introduction Freshwater Ecosystems and Aquatic Diversity Ecosystem Services Conserving Aquatic Ecosystems

5. Local Knowledge and Practices on Conservation and Management and Use of Aquatic Resources

Introduction Identification and Relevance of ILKPs in the 12 Sub-watersheds of the MKWR Basins

6. Identification of Indicators of Freshwater Biodiversity and Freshwater Habitats

Background Objectives Approach Monitoring System: Proposed

7. Stakeholders and Champions

Background Mapping of Tasks Ecosystem Balance Actors and their Influence and Outcomes Stakeholder Mapping Position of Stakeholders Freshwater Biodiversity Champions Capacity Assessment Preliminary Capacity-building Outcomes Conclusion

8. Methods and Practices of IWRM, for Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation from Local to Basin Scale

Challenges to Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation Challenges of Integration Experiences with IWRM Processes in Nepal Position of Water Sector Agencies vis-à-vis IWRMs Way Forward : Operating an Integrative Practice Recapping the Intellectual Context

9. Process and Pathways for Addressing Existing and Impending Threats to Freshwater Biodiversity for Resilience Building

Introduction Application to Freshwater Biodiversity Gaps Final Observation

10. Freshwater Biodiversity in Nepal: A Review of Related Policies, Acts, and Regulations

Background Policy Formulation: Context Thematic Focus: Policies and Legislation Aggregate Mining Wetlands and Wetland Biodiversity Terrestrial Biodiversity Conservation Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation Water Resources Irrigation Drinking Water and Sanitation Hydropower Road-Building Disaster Risk Reduction Climate Change Political-Economic Questions and Policy Implementation Final Observation

11. Impact Pathways to Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation

Impacts Rivers as a Source of Construction Aggregrates Revenue vs Cost Fresh Water Biodiversity Conservation

12. Conclusion and Recommended Methods and Practices for Conservation and Management of Freshwater Biodiversity

Conclusions Recommendations Final Observation

13. Policy and Institutional Arrangements to Facilitate Engagements of Champions in Paani’s Program

Desirable Future Multiplicit of Views Policy and Instituional Arragement Facilitating Champions and CSOs Engagement Final Observation

14. Approaches, Methods and Practices to Build Capacity of Champions and CSOs to Support Paani’s Program

Introduction Champions Approach and Methods: Engagement Platforms Building Capacity of the Champions and CSOs

15. Outreach and Media Engagement Plan for Champions Introduction and Context Analysis of the Media Environment Analysis of the Local Media Environment Recommended Outreach and Media Engagement Approach

16. Annexes

Abbreviation

References

Executive Summary

Context This political economic analysis (PEA) examines the challenges facing freshwater biodiversity in Nepal’s Mahakali, Karnali and West Rapti (MKWR) river basins. It locates these concerns within the prevailing paradigm of water development and management highlighting the context of natural resources use in a fluid political and institutional processes in the region. In particular, the fact that the aspirations of the people in the basins for socio-economic development are rising at the very time that their exposure to climatic change is increasing leaves them vulnerable to a multitude of risks. The prevailing paradigm has influenced the narrative of Nepal’s hydropower development and is intertwined with the complexities emerging in the MKWR river basins, especially in those areas where plans have been made to invest in the development of large-scale hydropower projects. Because these projects are largely still in the planning, design and initial phases of construction, within the MKWR river basins themselves, many rivers and their tributaries are still flowing free. The planned hydropower and inter-basin water transfer projects in Nepal, however, are likely to change this context and will have implications for the MKWR river basins’ freshwater biodiversity.

Methodology The research team reviewed three literatures: those related to PEA, to indicators of freshwater biodiversity and to monitoring systems of that biodiversity. It also reviewed ongoing and past policies regarding natural resource management and interventions in the basins to understand the nature of the government’s focus. These reviews also helped explain issues related to freshwater biodiversity conservation, wetland biodiversity, capture fishery, aggregate mining, hydropower, irrigation, road development, disaster risk reduction, and climate change adaptation.

Consultations with stakeholders in the 12 sub-watersheds of the basins helped researchers generate an overview of the use and management of natural resources.

These consultations were key to understanding impact pathways on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. Focused group discussions held at the community level in each watershed revealed community-specific dynamics pertaining to natural resource use and management. Information related to communities’ perceptions of changes in terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity, climate change, the effects of development interventions, and local-level initiatives in conserving and promoting freshwater biodiversity were documented, as were the roles of local knowledge, practices and institutional arrangements were assembled. This information were then used to identify those social groups that were excluded as well as the disadvantages (or advantages) to current natural resource use and management. Further inquiries helped us to unearth the reasons behind those advantages and disadvantages.

A total of 71 FGDs were held across the 12 watersheds; these, in addition to interviews with 114 key informants, helped us to expand the thematic issues and to substantiate the information on freshwater biodiversity obtained from the FGDs.

Key informants included civil society leaders, functionaries of users’ organizations, elected representatives and officials in local government agencies. The findings were presented for feedback during validation workshops held in Nepalgunj, Surkhet and Dhangadi. About 150 local representatives from the 12 watersheds participated.

The PEA also identified “champions,” local-level individuals from formal and informal organizations at the local level who had contributed to or are engaged in furthering policies and practices in freshwater biodiversity conservation at the local, provincial/river basin scales. The identified champions were provided with capacity-building training on aquatic biodiversity conservation within the PEA framework.

A draft resource book on freshwater biodiversity was presented and suggestions for improvement sought from the participants.

Findings Physical and Social Context: The sub-basins of the MKWR basins are spread across Nepal’s five climatic-physiographic regions, which range in elevation from the low-lying Tarai to the High Himal. The region is historically food-insecure and characterized by a low economic status and a rudimentary market system. The hills and mountain of the basins depend more on food imports than on local production.

This dependence, some analysts argue, is more political than natural. It is attributed to poorly designed development and to the asymmetric relation between the Nepali state and the region. The significant social stratification and gender inequality pervasive in the region add to the developmental deficit and to food insecurity.

Climatic and non-climatic hazards regularly cause disasters in the region and responses to those disasters are generally relief-oriented. For generations, seasonal and temporary migration has been the livelihood strategy of the inhabitants. The region’s full economic potential, including that which lies in tourism and terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity has not been fully explored. However, in the last few years, touristic development around parks and natural and wildlife reserves has gained momentum, especially in the form of homestays and rafting expeditions. Rara, Shey Phoksundo and Khaphtad national parks offer touristic attractions. The numbers of hotels and restaurants, the amount of vehicular traffic, the consumption of fossil fuel, and consumerism have gradually increased in recent times.

Waterscape: The MKWR river basins are characterized by high climate variability.

The basins experience four distinct seasons. Spring, which runs from March to May, is warm, dusty, and dry. There are occasional rain showers in the late afternoons and early evenings. The summer, or monsoon, season is rainy, hot and humid, and lasts from June to August. Autumn, from September to November, is cool and skies are clear. Winter, which lasts from November to February, is cold, and westerly-induced precipitation brings rain and, at high elevations, snow.

The basins receive an average annual rainfall of about 1,500 mm, 70% or so of which falls between June and September. Winter westerlies and pre-monsoon rainfall together account for the other 30%. Even in the lower Karnali and Mahakali basins, where the topography is flat, spatial differences in rainfall are noticeable. It is not uncommon, for example, for 10% of the annual precipitation to take place in a single day or for the bulk of three months of monsoon rainfall to fall in just 10 days. A storm of high intensity usually lasts for a short time and covers a small area, while low-intensity rainfall often covers a large area and lasts for several days.

This historic weather pattern, however, is changing. Days and nights are becoming hotter and dry periods are getting longer than they were in the past. The onset of the monsoon is latter, and, at high elevations, the amount of snowfall has decreased. The frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased, and so has the number of both hailstorms and thunderstorms. These changes are likely to affect regional hydrology as a whole and hydrology in the MKWR basins in particular, and the impacts of these changes are likely to cascade through water-based ecosystems. The changes can have serious social and economic consequences because they threaten food security, biodiversity, wildlife habitats, water and tourism, and will probably affect the agriculture, forest, livestock, disaster and health sectors adversely. The people of the region, accustomed as they are to steady weather patterns, will find it hard to deal with the variability, especially as the changes are likely to be both great and accelerated.

Freshwater Biodiversity: The aquatic ecosystem of the MKWR river basins is determined by the spatial transition from an alpine to a tropical climate over a short latitudinal distance as well by the seasonal changes in climate that produce huge diversity in the region’s terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Within the MKWR basins, 92 lakes of different sizes are spread cross Nepal’s three physiographic regions—the mountains, the hills, and the Tarai. Among them are the Ghodaghodi, Rara, Shey-Phoksundo, and Rakesh lakes. These lakes support a great number of endangered, threatened, endemic and vulnerable species of birds, reptiles and fishes.

Human activities, together with climatic variability, stress the region’s freshwater biodiversity. Tourism can enhance local livelihoods but, if it is left unregulated, will continue to create pressure in local ecosystems, lakes and rivers.

Rara Lake supports three endemic species of fish (Schizothorax nepalensis, S. raraensis and S. macrophthalamus), while Phoksundo Lake has six types of macro-invertebrates:

Betidae, Chironomidae, and some species of Oligochaeta, Polycentropodidae and Taeniopterygidae. The presence of Chionomidae and Oligochaeta indicates that pollution levels in the lake are increasing. Asala, kathyal, chiu, pate, satto, pande, sahar, rajbam, jalkapoor, goz, katle, rawa, thed, kathlaggi, karauwa, sebra maccha, bucheasala, asalasoal, chucheasala, kuero, gerara, oyara, kaloch, pangar, sueni, githi, geraj, rim machha, pointed-nose snow trout, blunt-nose snow trout, spotted snow trout, khurpel, chepti, chuche sahar, baghe, mada, ghawai, rahu, kabre, golden mahseer, Rara snow trout, and Nepali snow trout are among the key fish in the MWKR basins. Gangetic river dolphins and gharial and mugger crocodiles are other species in the area.

Fisher communities living on the banks of the rivers and lakes in the region report that local fish stocks and the diversity of species have decreased. Infrastructural developments such as barrages, dams and non-engineered rural roads have destroyed the habitats of aquatic species and had several negative consequences, particularly the stunting of fish growth and the intensification of diseases and parasite infestations.

In most of the rivers and lakes in the region, the physio-chemical parameters of the water are within acceptable limits. However, in the Middle Karnali, Jhimruk and Middle Rapti rivers, concentrations of certain solutes are higher than they ought to

be. Contamination is likely to increase unless social and economic safeguards are increased.

Stresses and Challenges: In the MKWR river basins, temperatures are rising, rainfall is becoming more erratic and snowfall, is declining. Local communities claim that thunderstorms and hailstorms are more frequent than they once were. These unanticipated changes in weather have altered the local hydrology and accelerated soil erosion, landslides and mass wasting as well as hazards such as drought, forest fires, and the spread of invasive species. Soil fertility is declining, as is the health of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. Non-engineered road construction, settlement growth and land-use changes are the dominant non-climatic stresses in the MKWR river basins. While both local populations and the government see roads as the foundation for overall socio-economic development road-building is often haphazard and environmentally destructive. In fact, many roads have seriously jeopardized ecosystem health, in part, by depleting spring water sources on a wide scale. Over time, these stresses and changes in land use and land cover have intensified and added to the challenges. The region is home to some endemic fish and aquatic animals, including Gangetic dolphins. Local communities like the Tharu, Sonaha, Raji, and Majhi practice capture fishery as their traditional occupation.

The building of major water infrastructures for irrigation and hydropower being has increased competition among and disputes over various water uses and threatened local ecosystems. Conflicts between humans and wildlife exists in some parts of the basins, and the use of natural resources has increased practically everywhere, partly due to inadequate regulation and ineffective implementation of the regulations that exist and partly due to the lack of livelihood alternatives. Destructive practices, including the use of explosives, poison and electricity, have reduced fish stocks. People have started using small-meshed nylon nets that catch small fish, even fingerlings, a practice that further reduces stocks. Fishing is done in all seasons without regard to periods of spawning and migration. Pollution from both point and non-point sources (untreated wastewater, solid waste, soil erosion and soil disposed of during road construction) is likely to threaten aquatic habitats and freshwater biodiversity. This threat will grow as settlements grow larger and denser. The consequences may be the irreversible degradation in freshwater biodiversity and the extinction of species.

The mining of sand and aggregate from the rivers of the basins has increased as these materials are in high demand for the construction of roads, buildings and other infrastructures.

Knowledge, Policy and Politics: As is true in the rest of Nepal, the region is undergoing a political and governance transition. Nowhere is policy-making yet based on well-grounded evidence. Policies regarding the conservation and management of ecosystems and biodiversity are top-down, of limited practicality, and inadequately linked to local social and cultural contexts. In any case, they are poorly implemented. Policies are guided more by specific projects and/or international imperatives than by local demands and, in some cases, are not supported with any legislation whatsoever. Market forces are beginning to affect the stocks and services of ecosystems in significant ways. Price fluctuations in international and regional markets, for example, have a major influence on both the demand for and prices of medicinal herbs, and thereby affect livelihoods as well as ecosystem integrity.

Food consumption patterns are changing. People favour the import of fine-grained rice and instant noodles, finding these products tastier than traditional food crops such as maize, millet, barley, naked barley, and buckwheat. In many places of the basins, this shift has led to a decline in the use of local foods that provide nutritional security. Without locally rooted social and environmental safeguards, the new dietary preferences are likely to reduce agricultural biodiversity and cause further declines in freshwater biodiversity.

The rich biological and social diversity in the MKWR basins is supported by an array of indigenous and local knowledge and practices (ILKP). IKLPS are related to the use of natural resources, health, diet, the production of crops and livestock, agricultural water management and fishery. Capitalizing on their knowledge and practices, communities have adapted to the emerging challenges. These practices are deeply embedded in local culture, values and norms. In the absence of meaningful support from the state such knowledge systems are being rapidly eroded. Local and traditional knowledge can be used to identify indicators of freshwater biodiversity and serve as a foundation for the conservation and preservation of that biodiversity.

Power, Interests and Incentives: The Ministry of Energy, Water Resources and Irrigation and its departments play a primary role in the use and allocation of water in the MKWR basins. The Ministry of Forest and Environment focuses on issues concerning terrestrial natural resources, including forests, and though forests are linked to water, this ministry has limited jurisdiction over water resource management.

Moreover, its jurisdiction is limited to the execution and approval of EIAs and does not extend to making decisions about river conservation. Another agency with some interest to protecting water resource is the Ministry of Tourism, but, it, too lacks formally stated jurisdiction. The Central Fisheries Promotion and Conservation Centre is responsible for formulating fishery-related policies, regulations and standards and monitoring standards too. It maintains data and coordinates with institutions form the local to the international level to promote the exchange of information. Its power is limited, and the institution itself is overshadowed by other institutions.

The tourism sector has vested interest in protecting nature and aesthetics while promoting nature, the Himalaya, landscapes, and rivers. The tourism sector can also serve as an advocate for river conservation. Traditional social institutions like guthi, which are bound by pre-defined roles, are involved in the management of community-owned water sources like ponds and lakes. Guthi, however, are on the decline and face stresses. Thus, by default, local governments are concerned with various aspects of local water management. India also has an interest in the MKWR’s rivers, particularly in their large-scale regulation through the development of reservoirs, in order to secure downstream benefits.

The organizing of the legal powers of local, state and federal government bodies is key to determining the jurisdiction of decision-making. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the use of rivers and their water. The newly created provinces are allowed to issue licenses for hydropower projects with capacities ranging from 3 MW to 20 MW, whereas local governments can issue permits for projects below 3 MW. Thus, by default, any project with a capacity greater than 20 MW falls within the jurisdiction of the federal government. That said, a subtle tension is brewing over these legal powers and it is not clear how will it play out.

Because provinces and local governments have limited financial and technical capacities provinces and local governments, they are unlikely to become immediate players in this game. Even if local governments build their institutional capacity, it is unlikely that they will be in a position to increase their revenue base enough to fund hydropower projects on their own or even with private-sector partnership.

Because they will need to borrow loans from external sources to fund for which they will remain dependent on the federal government. The context for the large-scale development of irrigation is similar. While constrained in their ability to develop hydropower and irrigation, local governments do have jurisdiction over keeping rivers and other water sources, including ponds and wetlands, clean by managing solid and liquid wastes. They also have authority to address disputes over the usage and distribution of drinking and local irrigation water.

With the rate of urban development increasing and demand for construction-grade river materials growing, the dynamics of the housing and real estate business sectors will impact freshwater biodiversity, especially as aggregate mining is a major contributor to government incomes. Thus, with the need to generate revenue in mind, governments may not be unbiased in their decision-making, to the detriment of the environment. In fact, all three levels of governments have prioritized infrastructure development over the environment and water conservation. The number of ministries and departments with physical infrastructure development in their portfolios exceeds the number working for the environment, adaptation to climate change and conservation. Nepal’s population, too, seeks to improve road connectivity and other infrastructures so that they get better quality services.

Management for Resilient Freshwater Biodiversity: In the 1990s, the Nepali government proposed IWRM was proposed as a response to the fragmented sectoral pursuit of water development that had developed earlier. Translating the principle of IWRM into practice has faced major challenges and has not gained momentum at either the national or the river-basin scales. Everywhere, the main agenda has been large infrastructure development. That said, there are local examples of IWRM that can—and must—be emulated. The existence of a large number of FMISs and successes in community forestry across the country are examples of shared responsibility for and community custodianship of natural resources management. The area water management program in Mai Khola and the lake-basin water management of Begnas Lake in Pokhara Valley are other local examples. These models can help us devise localized integrated approaches to the management of water for freshwater biodiversity in the MKWR river basins. While there are sound reasons to adopt IWRM, there are limitations to its application as well. To succeed, it needs to be integrated with the idea of building the resilience of freshwater biodiversity through focusing on exposure, use systems, users and institutions. Building resilience is a continuous process, one involving action, monitoring and revision. It requires consideration of the following direct, consequential and cross-scale threats to freshwater biodiversity and efforts to minimize them.

Direct • The use of explosive devices, electric current (generated by a portable set), and poison, which causes the large-scale destruction of fish and other aquatic life.

• Overfishing, which lowers stock

• Use of fine-meshed nylon nets, which catches fingerlings

Consequential • Loss of habitats and collapse of riverbanks due to the excessive mining of sand and aggregate.

• Water infrastructures (hydropower plants, irrigation systems and inter-basin projects), which divert water upstream and reduce flow in the stretch downstream of the diversion.

• Persistent discharge of organic and non-organic pollution into rivers.

Cross scale • The sediment load in river channels that comes from landslides caused by and from the disposal of material excavated during road construction.

• Increases in sediment load from upstream activities.

• Alterations in river flow due to the erratic precipitation associated with climate change.

To differing degrees, all of the above factors have a profound effect on the MKWR basins’ freshwater ecosystems and social contexts. They intertwine with a) increases in exposure, b) the fragility of natural and human-built systems, c) the low capacity of marginalized users, and d) constraining institutions, all factors that reduce opportunities for promoting freshwater biodiversity. Building resilience needs systematic attention to all four of these factors.

Way Forward Champions: This PEA expects that champions will play a constructive role in the pursuit of balanced development that includes as a primary objective the conservation of freshwater biodiversity. The champions would do the following:

a) Use a scientific approach to management and learn from the implementation of policies on the ground.

b) Engage with those external groups and stakeholders involved in management and decision-making

c) Consider the broad political context in which they are embedded.

Champions will advocate for the maintenance of balance in the waterscape, which is defined by the 12 watersheds of the MKWR basins, so that a variety of human needs, including that for aquatic biodiversity, can be met within the framework of IWRM.

They will strive to ensure “non-polluted rivers in a balanced landscape for healthy aquatic biodiversity.”

Data and Networks: The focus must be on improving our understanding of hydrometeorological processes, including the monsoon, the snow system, droughts, extreme rainfall, flow regimes, and sediment processes by strengthening data-collecting systems.

Fish and Aquatic Habitats: The local community should be made more aware of the damages invasive species can cause to native species. Vulnerable fish species should not be harvested.

Resilience and adaptation: Approaches that rely on knowledge of local diversity and on the scaling up of good practices are needed so that freshwater biodiversity can be effectively conserved as circumstances change. Vulnerable and marginalized communities need to be provided with opportunities to take partake in eco-friendly businesses. Health and hygiene improvement programs will not only increase the income of beneficiaries but also build their self-esteem and improve leadership. By mainstreaming measures that address gender inequality and social exclusion, the social and political capital of communities will be built and they will be better able to bear future shocks.

Nature-based Development: To conserve freshwater biodiversity, the implementation of eco-friendly and green development methods must be mainstreamed in development. Doing so will require promoting green businesses, aquaculture, crop and livestock farming, grass and tree sapling plantation, turmeric cultivation, nettle collection, apiary, seasonal vegetable cultivation in greenhouses, and small handicraft industries among women’s groups and marginalized communities. The conservation of freshwater biodiversity will also benefit from activities such as the maintenance of water source quality, the mapping of aquatic species, the preservation of endemic fishes, and sustainable fish production and marketing. Targeted programs for uplifting the lives of fisher communities are equally important.

Participation: The conservation of freshwater biodiversity cannot proceed without the involvement of local communities as local people are the ones who use resources and are attached to them socially, culturally and emotionally. They are the ones who lose out when ecosystems degrade. Fisher and river conservation groups can help minimize the loss of aquatic biodiversity in the MKWR basin. Involving locals must incorporate a gender and social inclusion agenda and adopt GESI-sensitive approaches and interventions to management, monitoring and results-based reporting. This strategy must be supported by adequate resource mobilization, such that an enabling environment for partnership, mentoring and learning/sharing is created. Similarly, adopting participatory planning processes in decision-making will reduce gender gaps in the access to and control, use and management of resources.

Participation can help empower women and excluded groups by giving voice to their concerns and making clear rights and responsibilities.

Monitoring: the monitoring of the physio-chemical and biological parameters of water must be enhanced so that we can better understand the quality and status of aquatic biodiversity.

Policies and Legislation: Given the role of freshwater biodiversity in sustaining the needs of human and ecological communities, the federal government should consider developing an umbrella policy on freshwater and aquatic biodiversity conservation.

Such policies and legislation must allow room for local and provincial governments to frame their own policies, laws and regulations for the conservation of freshwater biodiversity with their jurisdictional boundaries. Equally important is developing regulations to ensure the effective execution of policies.

IWRM: the formation of local IMWR committees with a mandate to audit the water resources development programs of the concerned local governments can help ensure that the continuity of ecosystems and services are maintained. Where the boundary of a rural or urban municipality coincides with that of a watershed, the same committee can function at both the local and the watershed levels. If boundaries overlap, in contrast, a separate watershed-level committee can be formed. Local government representatives, civil society members, and individuals with proven expertise on fresh water biodiversity conservation must be included in such committees.

Promoting Stewardship: Stewardship underscores the sensible use of water and other natural resources with minimum negative externalities. Indeed, the 2015 Constitution has entrusted all governments with the reasonability to serve as custodians of natural resources. Measures are needed to translate this provision into actual action so that efforts will generate multiple positive results for women and marginalized groups.

Watershed and River Health: Local governments must select a set of minimum indicators and use them to collect data to assess watershed health. Local-level volunteers engaged in the collection of data should be provided with regular capacity building and technical support.

Regulation and Compliance: Improving regulation is necessary in four fronts. The first is the mining of construction-grade river materials. The second is e-flow release.

The third is the reduction of point and non-point pollution sources and the fourth, the reduction of harmful fishing practices. Given that local governments have the power to issue mining licenses and regulate mining operations, an umbrella law that sets the principles, standards and practices for that mining is needed.

Improving Coordination: Nepal presently has 761 local governments with the authority to implement their own laws, plans and policies in the jurisdictions defined by the constitution. There is, however, uncertainty about how the three levels of government and their ministries, departments and sub-division offices will coordinate. Uncertainty also remains about which authorities are responsible and what their responsibilities for the use and management of water resources consist. The lack of inter-agency coordination poses challenges to the management of local water resources and the efficient delivery of public services. A mechanism for promoting coordination among the different levels of governments needs to be developed.

Dissemination and Communication: Local communities must receive accurate information regularly and it must be tailored to meet their needs. FM stations, newspapers, mobile phones, the internet and social media platforms should be used to improve the flow and availability of information.

Capacity-building: The approach to capacity-building must focus on empowerment and on minimizing over-reliance on outside experts to address freshwater conservation challenges. The capacity-building of champions, to name one body of key figures, is necessary to promote their ability to develop and shape their skill and knowledge and then to use the enhanced product to solve physical, social and economic challenges related to freshwater biodiversity conservation. Women and social excluded groups must be included in such activities so that both strategic and practical needs can be met.

Conflict Management: Conflicts do arise, especially with respect to natural parks and benefit- sharing. Stakeholders also disagree about how the water resources of the MKWR basin should be developed. For example, some will argue obstructive hydropower infrastructure should be built while others will argue that rivers should be allowed to flow freely? Resolving such conflict requires recourse to continuous dialogue stimulated by new information made available and interest.

Trust fund: Trust funds can be used to support conservation activities, benefit-sharing, and the monitoring and mitigation measures associated with the construction of dams. Affected communities could be supported in acquiring funds and in using them to plan and implement their own mitigation and development efforts. Trust funds could be also used in conjunction with other financial sources to practice monitoring and social auditing. The Paani program is already planning to establish such a fund and, with it, create new opportunities for conserving freshwater biodiversity, Research and Documentation: It is necessary to provide funding for grants and activities supporting the conservation of freshwater biodiversity. Conferences, workshops and dialogues on the aquatic systems of the MKWR basins need to contribute to the public discourse. It is also necessary to document and preserve indigenous and local knowledge about aquatic ecosystems.

Social Dialogue and Convening: The conservation of freshwater biodiversity requires a new journey in which governments; the private sector, especially that involved in the trade of heavy equipment, iron, steel, and cement industries and real estate;

and communities must be continuously engaged. The key government agencies in this process are the Ministry of Energy, Water Resources and Irrigation; Water and Energy Commission; the Ministry of Forest and Environment; the Nepal Electricity Regulation Commission; and the MoFAGA, including their offices in provincial and local governments. The Independent Power Producers Association, Nepal; local communities; and other stakeholders also need to be systematically engaged. The convener of dialogue among these groups must not be an implementer but, at the same time, must possess adequate authority and mandate. The NNRFC could play such a role. As a mediator, it can provide suggestions to the federal, provincial and local governments about the conservation and management of natural resources as well as about the resolution of disputes.

Final Observation The conservation of freshwater biodiversity in the MKWR basins requires a multipronged approach which includes activities at all levels, local, national, and international. International-scale actions are needed to build knowledge that adds value to creative and constructive activism. It is necessary to engage the private sector and the construction industry in this approach, especially as they drive the demand that sand and aggregates be mined from rivers. Regulation of mining and other watershed-based activities should strive to maintain the health of watersheds and conserve freshwater biodiversity. Both supply and demand aspects must also be considered.

1 The Political Economic Analysis

The Political Economic Analysis The use, development and management of water in Nepal’s Mahakali, Karnali and West Rapti (MKWR) basins are primarily under the jurisdiction of the state. This is true for all of South Asia, where the rise of the state bureaucracy began in the mid-18th century, when the colonial government in India began expanding irrigation systems by building barrages and canal networks.1 After building the Ganga barrage in 1854, the colonial state began building the Sharada Barrage to harness the water for (a) generating revenue, (b) maintaining administrative control, and (c) establishing and legitimizing the state as a social welfare entity that would respond to droughts by supplementing irrigation. The goals were combined with the approach developed in western United States in the early 19thcentury wherein productive water flow was defined as flow towards human settlements for generating services and commercial benefits. Flows towards deltas, wetlands, and downstream areas were considered unproductive and, as the paradigm evolved, the role of water in maintaining ecological integrity became a peripheral concern. Because British India adopted this approach to water management and knowledge production, the centralized bureaucracy dominated decision-making about the allocation and use of water resulting in systematic marginalization of local knowledge and practices.

The combination of the western American paradigm and colonial goals had an implicit plain-biased political economy outlook in Nepal and the MKWR region.

Both the colonial enterprise and the Nepali state understood water resource (read hydropower) development in Nepal as something that should aim to export power to the large Indian market. Towards the end of the British rule in 1942, a memorandum issued by the Secretary of British India said, “There is one particular sphere of progress which seemed to hold out some hope and that it is in the development of hydropower in Nepal. Indeed, it may perhaps be said that Nepal has two important exports, one realized, namely soldiers, and the second perspective, namely electric power”.2

The implied intentions of this hydropower-focused approach were to reduce Nepal’s trade imbalance with India using revenue from sale of electricity to offset the deficit resulting from merchandise trade, develop connectivity and consequently also develop market in the respective locality. Discourse in India also suggested that

Nepal would earn much-needed revenue to finance its development needs and even become prosperous by selling electricity. The potential role of hydroelectricity in increasing Nepal’s energy supply, security and productivity began to be considered in earnest only after the 2015 border blockade though this consideration had begun in 1990, when multiparty democracy was established, and was bolstered by Electricity Act (1992) that created space for private sector entry in power generation.

In 2019, Nepal had about 100 hydropower plants of various sizes with total installed capacity at around 1,000 MW. In 2018, these plants supplied 4,475 GWh of hydroelectricity to the Integrated Nepal Power System (INPS). Public and private sector agencies are building another 117 hydropower plants that will have total installed capacity of 3,370 MW. When the installed capacities of plants in the pipeline are included Nepal’s installed capacity is expected to reach about 4,562 MW in the future.3

The efforts discussed above have increased Nepal’s installed hydropower capacity but the overall energy-use still remains dominated by burning of biomass, mostly for cooking. Biomass constitutes 77% of the total energy consumed, and petroleum products another 12.5%. In 2018, Nepal imported fossil fuels valued at NPR 153 billion from India and both the cost and the share of fossil fuels in the mix are increasing.

Use of hydroelectricity and other renewable sources like solar power, in contrast, account for just 3.4% and 2.5%, respectively. Till mid-2016 the INPS imposed daily brownouts of up to 16 hours. Later, after Nepal began importing about one-third of the electricity needed from India, the INPS was able to meet peak load requirements without brownouts4.

The development and operation of hydropower plants in Nepal face many challenges, including inadequate regulatory oversight and widespread non-compliance with environmental and social safeguards. This has resulted from the push to generate more power as a national priority. In addition, rivers face increasing degradation from unregulated extraction of river bed materials and pollution due to disposal of untreated solid and liquid wastes. These latter two aspects are threat to freshwater biodiversity.

The threat facing conservation of freshwater biodiversity in Nepal and in the MKWR basin is situated within the context discussed above. In addition, the following six stories reflect the marginalization of the Karnali region and serve as a useful precursor to this study on interventions that aim to achieve large-scale manipulation of rivers by building dams and barrages and transferring water between basins.

These interventions will generate hydropower, provide irrigation and drinking water, and control floods and, in doing so, promote economic development. To succeed, however, the interventions must uphold the principle of sustainability enshrined in the Constitution and global Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) agenda: it must balance economic development with social development without compromising the natural environment.

Specifically, this study aimed to

• Identify potential champions within the parliamentary, legislative, and executive branches of the federal government. Provincial governments, district agencies, selected urban and rural municipalities, civil society organizations and the private sector that support or are likely to support or at least be open to considering the USAID Paani Programs approach to water resource management, and

• Keeping these findings in mind, make recommendations for meeting the program’s objectives to reduce threats to freshwater biodiversity, and to enhance the resilience of human and ecological communities.

Stakeholders were engaged in dialogues about balancing development and conservation in activities designed for the realization of these objectives, as an underlying propose was to also strengthen community-based and other local-level organizations as well as the private sector and higher-level departments and commissions in the process. This study has examined the role of institutions that seek to conserve freshwater ecosystems and promote social welfare.

The MKWR Basins The MKWR and the Karnali region is one of the least developed regions with low Human Development Index (HDI) (Mahakali: 0.43, Karnali 0.43. West Rapti: 0.46)5 outcomes compared to other parts of Nepal, mainly in terms adult literacy, life expectancy, malnutrition, access to safe drinking water, etc. Large parts of the region remain poorly connected by roads and therefore remain to be effectively ‘reached’.

Development in the region has remained costly and governance weak, and this has directly affected delivery of basic services, resulting in high child and maternal mortality, low agriculture productivity, etc. that explain the widespread poverty.

The following section highlights factors that have debilitated development of the region including some potential.

Food Insecurity: The temperate climate and insufficient governmental efforts in the supply of agricultural technology to the farmers have made Karnali a food deficit region and thus dependent on food import (NPC, 2012). A deeper study by Adhikary shows that the dynamics is more complex. The Karnali region depends on food imports but the dependence is more political than natural, according to Adhikary (2012). “Many of the problems in Karnali owe to the exploitative relationship imposed by Kathmandu (the power center) over Karnali (a peripheral region treated as a colony). The feeling among Karnali people that they are in a subservient position, that rice is better than their local food, and that they need to depend on the bureaucracy for development originates from this relationship imposed by the ruling class for their political and economic interests.”

Social Stratification: Most of the hilly region of the MKWR regions are not connected or are in the process of being connected to the road network. The region is highly stratified and includes Matwali Chhetris (the Chhetris who consumes alcohol), high caste (Brahman, Thakuri) and artisan groups: tailor-musician (Damai), shoemaker (Sarki) and carpenter (Kami). They occupy different ecological niches and do not live in the same areas. Matwali Chhetris reside in the uplands, whereas, high caste (Brahman Thakuri) and artisan groups live in the valley. The region has high caste-based untouchability, and this directly affects the development and the outcomes for Dalits (Nepali, 2018). With eradication of malaria and the opening of the Tarai in the 1960s, some people from the MKWR regions have permanently migrated to the Tarai and lower valleys like Surkhet (Satya Shrestha-Schipper, 2009-2010).

Gender Discrimination: Karnali is a “backward” region from the HDI perspective.

The constraints imposed on women are reflected in the illegal, but still widespread practice of chhaupadi, where menstruating women and women pre- and post-delivery are temporarily banished from their homes to avoid “ritual pollution.” The Guardian recently published an article about 21-year-old Parbati Bogati’s death in a “period hut” in Doti District6. She is thought to have died from smoke inhalation from the fire she’d lit to stay warm while sleeping in the small, windowless hut. This was the fourth such case in the year in Karnali. In addition, the representation and influence of women in politics and community leadership leaves much to be desired.

The patriarchal nature of society and domestic drudgery continue to debilitate their human development.

Disaster Relief: Karnali’s isolation is also reflected in the inability of the Nepali state to respond to the impacts of geological and weather-related disasters such as frequent droughts, high intensity rainfall, and the occasional earthquake.