Impact of grazing restrictions on livestock composition and husbandry practices in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, Nepal

Abstract

SUMMARYLivestock grazing restrictions are a common practice in the protected areas of developing countries. Understanding the influence of these restrictions on livestock husbandry is critical because local people's livelihoods often depend on access to grazing lands and biodiversity conservation may be affected by grazing activities. Household surveys and government records were used to examine impacts of grazing restrictions on livestock composition and use of available forage resources in the Madi Valley of Chitwan National Park (Nepal) during early (1997) and late (2006) restriction policy periods. Households responded to grazing restrictions by reducing numbers of less productive cattle and high maintenance buffalo to offset forage demands, but there was no decrease in the number of goats. In 2006, average household fodder biomass (3.4 t yr−1) available from agricultural land was adequate for the average household livestock units (3.3 t yr−1) requirement. Although most households ‘stall fed’ livestock as an adjustment to the new policy, about 30% still depended on community forests and parklands for livestock rearing. Higher ‘stall feeding’ reduced grazing pressure and increased forest cover but demanded more fodder cutting, which has the potential to increase human/wildlife interactions, particularly with tigers in the buffer zone community forests.

Local perceptions of forest rules and interactions between rules, ecotourism, and human-wildlife conflicts: Evidence from Chitwan National Park, Nepal

“…Our study confirmed that livestock grazing in the BZCF has been gradually restricted since the introduction of ecotourism. This finding is consistent with Gurung et al (2009).…”

Assessing spatiotemporal changes in tiger habitat across different land management regimes

“…For instance, livestock grazing was prohibited from the multiple-use areas outside the park as ecosystem degradation due to overgrazing had become a major concern (Sharma 1990, Gurung et al 2009). For instance, livestock grazing was prohibited from the multiple-use areas outside the park as ecosystem degradation due to overgrazing had become a major concern (Sharma 1990, Gurung et al 2009).…”

“…These two land management regimes adjoin each other in space, with the effects of one likely having direct and/or indirect effects on the other. As such, policies that reduce human reliance on local natural resources (e.g., encouraging the use of non-wood fuel sources and improved livestock breeds) and actively managing tiger habitat are urgently needed (Hjortsø et al 2006, Gurung et al 2009, Thornton 2010. Therefore, given projected human population growth and current per-capita resource demands in Chitwan Treue 2006, CBS 2012), protecting tiger habitat will become increasingly difficult over time.…”

“…To mitigate human pressure on Chitwan's natural resources, a buffer zone (75,000 ha) surrounding the park was established in 1996 with the dual purpose of restoring ecosystem integrity and improving human livelihoods. For instance, livestock grazing was prohibited from the multiple-use areas outside the park as ecosystem degradation due to overgrazing had become a major concern (Sharma 1990, Gurung et al 2009). To offset this imposition, 30-50% of the park's annual revenue must be invested into the surrounding buffer zone to support community development programs, including alternative income opportunities and infrastructure improvement (GoN 1993).…”

“…Therefore, given projected human population growth and current per-capita resource demands in Chitwan Treue 2006, CBS 2012), protecting tiger habitat will become increasingly difficult over time. As such, policies that reduce human reliance on local natural resources (e.g., encouraging the use of non-wood fuel sources and improved livestock breeds) and actively managing tiger habitat are urgently needed (Hjortsø et al 2006, Gurung et al 2009, Thornton 2010). Furthermore, participatory-based management of ecosystems in and around the park, wherein local people are partners in designing, implementing, and enforcing resource management actions, may also foster sustainable conservation of tiger habitat over the long-term (Agrawal and Ostrom 2001).…”