The state of Nepal birds
2010
Carol Inskipp 1,
Hem Sagar Baral 2, Tim Inskipp 3 & Alison
Stattersfield 4
1,3 Herneside, Welney, Wisbech, Cambs PE14 9SB, UK
2 PO Box 10918, Himalayan Nature, Lazimpat, Kathmandu, Nepal
4 BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge
CB3ONA, UK.
1 inskipp@btinternet.com (corresponding author), 2 hem.baral@gmail.com,3 inskipp@btinternet.com, 4 Ali.Stattersfield@birdlife.org
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3276.933 | ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:A230A337-E2D3-41C3-A1FE-32AA6FADFE03
Editor: J.W.
Duckworth, IUCN SSC, Bath, UK. Date of publication: 26 January
2013 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms #
o3276 | Received 30 July 2012 | Final received 04 December 2012 | Finally
accepted 08 December 2012
Citation:Inskipp, C., H.S. Baral, T. Inskipp & A. Stattersfield (2013). The state of Nepal birds 2010. Journal of Threatened Taxa5(1): 3473–3503; doi:10.11609/JoTT.o3276.933
Copyright: ©
Inskipp et al. 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any
medium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing
adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: Jensen
Foundation, Darwin Initiative and BirdLife International.
Competing Interest: None.
Acknowledgements: We are
very grateful to the Jensen Foundation, Darwin Initiative and BirdLife
International for generously supporting this study. Special thanks go to Hum
Gurung, Chief Executive Officer, Bird Conservation Nepal (BCN) who managed the
State of Nepal Birds 2010 project and to Ishana Thapa, Jyotendra Thakuri,
Menuka Basnyat, Sushma Shrestha, Anand Chaudhary and Mitra Pandey from BCN and
Tris Allinson, Jenny Birch and Mike Crosby from BirdLife International for
their contributions. Compiling the data would not have been possible without
the generous donation of unpublished records by numerous observers and many
other people provided useful comments on the draft results. We warmly thank the
reviewers of the manuscript, Dr Rajan Amin, Dr Will Duckworth and Laxman
Poudyal for their very useful comments. The results of this study are also
presented in a more popular form in a report published in Nepal by BCN and the
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, and is available from
the BirdLife International website www.birdlife.org. A complete list of names
of all those who contributed records or who made comments is given in this
report.
Author Details: Carol
Inskipp has
written a number of books and papers on the conservation, status, distribution
and identification of Nepal’s birds since 1985, mainly with her husband Tim and
Hem Sagar Baral.
Hem
Sagar Baral has
a PhD in Ecology of Nepal’s Grassland Birds from the University of Amsterdam,
The Netherlands and has worked on bird conservation for 25 years. He has held
important positions in Bird Conservation Nepal, founded the non-governmental
organisations Himalayan Nature and Nepalese Ornithological Union, and Nepal’s
only bird observatory. He has authored and co-authored several books and many
papers on Nepal bird conservation
Tim Inskipp has studied the
distribution, status and identification of birds in Nepal since his first visit
to the country in 1970 and has co-authored a number of books and papers on the
subject.
Alison Stattersfield is Head of Science at
BirdLife International, responsible for ensuring that the conservation
programmes of BirdLife’s Partner organisations, operating in over 100
countries, are based on global priorities derived from sound science.
Author Contribution: CI drafted the text
for this paper. For the project she assisted in: compiling and analysing
species information and making the overall analysis of threats to Nepal birds,
responses made and recommendations for the future. HSB assisted in compiling species
information, coordinated field-based persons on recent updates, and helped to
make the overall analysis of Nepal’s bird conservation scenario. TI assisted
in the compilation of the bibliography on birds of Nepal and in compiling
species information for this project. AS’s contributions to the paper
and project include guidance on methods, interpretation of results and
contributions to drafting.
Abstract: The national status of Nepal’s birds was
determined using the IUCN Red List criteria and following IUCN’s regional
guidelines. Records of all species
identified as potentially at high risk were extracted from all relevant
references in a comprehensive, up-to-date Nepal bird bibliography. In addition, numerous previously
undocumented records were obtained from observers in Nepal. The initial list of potentially
threatened species was revised as records were accumulated. Literature reviews were made of current
pressures on Nepal’s birds, responses to these pressures and recommendations
for the future. Finally a
comprehensive summary table was compiled for all nationally threatened species,
including their world distribution, global threat status, national threat
status, occurrence, habitat, main altitudinal range, population, key threats,
research needs, and key conservation interventions needed. In 2010, 149 bird species (17% of the
total recorded) of Nepal’s birds were considered nationally threatened: 53
Critically Endangered species, 48 Endangered and 47 Vulnerable. Near Threatened species were not
assessed due to lack of time available for the necessary research. An
additional 16 species were considered threatened in 2010 compared with 2004; no
species assessed as threatened in 2004 was considered non-threatened in 2010.
When habitat types are considered wetland species are the most threatened (35%
of the total wetland species), followed by grassland species (23%). When altitudinal preferences are
considered lowland species are the most threatened (36% of all lowland
species), followed by species only occurring in the middle hills (17%). Human activities leading to habitat loss
and damage are the major threats, with agriculture the root cause; hunting and
trapping are other important threats. Effective responses for conservation include Nepal’s protected areas
network, community forestry, designation of Ramsar sites, National Wetland
Policy implementation, surveys of globally threatened species and their
conservation needs, and conservation awareness activities. Recommendations for
future actions by non governmental organisations are made.
Keywords: Assessment, conservation, nationally
threatened birds, Nepal, pressures, response, status.
Abbreviations: BCN - Bird Conservation
Nepal; CBD - Convention on Biological Diversity; DNPWC - Department of
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation; IBA - Important Bird Area; IUCN -
International Union for Conservation of Nature; NBS - National Biodiversity
Strategy; NGO - Non Governmental Organisation;
For
figures, tables -- click here
INTRODUCTION
Nepal
is renowned internationally for its rich diversity of bird species. Although
the country possesses an area of just 147,181km2 (0.1% of the
world’s total landmass), it accounts for about 8% of the world’s bird species,
with 867 species recorded up to the end of 2010, including about 800 species
that are regularly recorded (Bird Conservation Nepal 2011, unpubl. data). In terms of globally threatened bird
species, 36 have been recorded in Nepal based on the categorisation in BirdLife
International (2010), 25 of which occur regularly and are included in this
study.
A
total of 27 Important Bird Areas (IBAs) has been identified in Nepal covering
forests (22 IBAs), grasslands (four) and freshwater ecosystems (10); some IBAs
contain more than one of these ecosystems (Baral & Inskipp 2005). Important Bird Areas are key sites for
bird conservation which have been identified using
standardised global criteria (BirdLife International 2011). In Nepal 24 IBAs support globally
threatened species, 13 have restricted-range species, 24 have biome-restricted
species and eight qualify as IBAs because they hold large congregations of
waterbirds (Baral & Inskipp 2005).
The
first assessment of the threat status of Nepal’s birds: Threatened Birds of
Nepal was published in 1996 (Baral et al. 1996). This report was succeeded by The
State of Nepal’s Birds 2004 (Baral & Inskipp 2004) eight years
later. Better documentation on
species’ status enabled the latter report to be much more detailed than the
1996 report. It included an account
of the threats to Nepal’s birds, an assessment of national threat status for
individual species considered to qualify at national level for IUCN Categories
Vulnerable, Endangered and Critically Endangered categories and a comprehensive
review of all Endangered and Critically Endangered species.
This
paper presents an assessment of national threatened species conducted in 2010,
a review of current pressures on Nepal’s birds and responses already taken, and
some recommendations for actions by NGOs to address the status of Nepal’s
nationally threatened birds. A more detailed account of this assessment is given by Bird
Conservation Nepal (BCN) and Department of National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation (DNPWC) (2011).
METHODS
The
national status of Nepal’s birds was determined using the IUCN Red List
criteria, and following IUCN’s regional guidelines in their application. This involved considering a few issues
that are not encountered at the global level, for example species that do not
reproduce in the country, but are still dependent upon its resources for their
survival (IUCN 2003). A number of
species on the national threatened list falls into this category, for example
Black Stork Ciconia nigra, Pied Harrier Circus melanoleucos, Greater
Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga, Baillon’s Crake Porzana pusilla, White-throated
Bushchat Saxicola insignis and Yellow-breasted Bunting Emberiza
aureola. It is possible to
consider species that are non-native but have been introduced to the country
(IUCN 2003), but no species occurring in Nepal fall into this category.
The status of Nepal’s birds in 2010 was assessed by first
undertaking a literature search to update a comprehensive bibliography of
Nepal’s birds (Inskipp & Inskipp 2010). An initial list of potentially high risk species was drawn up. Records of these species, including
number of individuals, date and location were extracted from all relevant
references in the bibliography and compiled on species forms. Numerous previously undocumented and
valuable records were obtained from observers in Nepal, some of whom completed species records forms. The forms provided details of the
location and dates of records, and the numbers of each species recorded, as
well as any information that was available on threats. Records from observers outside Nepal had
already been acquired from reports or were located by research online. As records accumulated some species were
found to be better off than expected and were dropped from the initial list of
potentially threatened species. A
few species were added to the initial list as other observers alerted us to
their rarity.
Only resident species and summer and winter visitors were assessed
(755 species in total), not passage migrants (29 species), vagrants (74
species), nor extinct or extirpated species (nine species).
Literature
reviews were made of current pressures on Nepal’s birds and also responses to
these pressures that have already been made, as well as those that are
recommended for the future by NGOs.
A
comprehensive summary table was compiled for all nationally threatened species,
including their world distribution, global threat status, national threat
status, occurrence, habitat, main altitudinal range, population, key threats,
research needs, and key conservation interventions needed (see results).
RESULTS
State of Nepal’s birds
Comparison of results in 2004 and 2010: The 2010 assessment of the
status of Nepal’s birds showed that an alarming 149 bird species (17%) are
threatened at the national level (Table 1). As many as 99 species are thought to be
Critically Endangered or Endangered, meaning there is an extremely high or very
high risk of their extirpation in Nepal in the near future.
An
additional 16 species are considered nationally threatened compared with the
2004 assessment of 133 threatened species (Baral & Inskipp 2004) (Fig.
1). No species assessed as
threatened in 2004 was considered non-threatened in 2010. There is a much higher number of Critically
Endangered species (61) in 2010 than in 2004 (40 species) and also a higher
number of Endangered species (38) compared with the 2004 total of 32
species. The number of species
categorised as Vulnerable was higher in 2004 (61) than in 2010 (50) (Fig.
2). There was also one Data
Deficient species in 2004 (Baral & Inskipp 2004) but none in 2010. Near
Threatened species were not assessed due to lack of time available for the
necessary research.
Habitat preferences of nationally threatened
birds: The 2010 study found that over half (53%, 79
species) of Nepal’s nationally threatened birds inhabit forests. Nationally
threatened species inhabiting wetlands total 40 (27%), grasslands 23 (15%),
cultivation 12 (8%), scrub seven (5%), open country 14 (9%), near human
habitation four (3%), and semi-desert one (1%).
When
all species regularly occurring in Nepal are considered, 474 species (59%)
inhabit forests, 184 (23%) cultivation, 115 (14%) wetlands, 100 (13%) grasslands,
101 (13% scrub), 75 (9%) open country, 30 (4%) near human habitation and 19
(2%) in semi-desert.
This
means that wetland species are the most threatened (35% of the total of wetland
species), followed by species of grasslands (23%), open country (18%), forests
(17%), near human habitation (13%), in cultivation (7%), scrub ( 7% ), and semi-desert (5%) (Fig. 3)
Altitudinal preferences of nationally threatened
birds: This study showed that over
half (56%, 83 species) of Nepal’s nationally threatened species are only found
in the lowlands (75–1000 m). Some 19% (28 species) occur in the lowlands as well as in the middle
hills (75–3050 m), 13% (20 species) only in the middle hills
(1000–3050 m), just 5% (8 species) in the middle hills and higher
altitudes (above 3050m) and 1% (2 species) only at higher altitudes (above
3050m).
When
all species regularly occurring in Nepal are considered, 233 species (29%) are
only found in the lowlands (75–1000 m). A total of 250 species (31%) occur in
the lowlands as well as the middle hills (75–3050 m), 115 species (14%)
only in the middle hills (1000–3050 m), 181 species (23%) in the middle
hills and higher altitudes (above 3050m), and 21 species (3%) only at higher
altitudes (above 3050m).
This
means that lowland species are the most threatened (36% of all lowland
species), followed by species only occurring in the middle hills (17%), 11% of
species in the lowlands as well as the middle hills, 5% of species only at high
altitudes, and 4% of species in the middle hills and higher latitudes (Fig. 4).
Globally threatened species: All the globally threatened
species regularly occurring in Nepal met the criteria for being nationally
threatened.
Pressures on Nepal’s birds
Effects of habitat losses and damage: Human activities are putting
enormous pressure on Nepal’s bird populations. The 2010 study revealed that those
leading to habitat loss and damage were the major threat affecting a total of
128 (86%) of the species of birds at risk nationally, at least to some degree.
Impacts of agriculture: A recent study of the
impacts of agriculture on Nepal’s birds concluded that the spread of
agriculture and changes in agricultural practices are the major root causes of
loss and damage to natural habitats (Inskipp & Baral 2011).
Conversion
for agriculture is the chief cause of deforestation, while over-grazing by
livestock and over-harvesting for fodder are the main causes of forest
degradation (South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme 2010). Overgrazing presents major problems to
lowland reserves, which protect almost all of Nepal’s remaining lowland
grasslands (Baral 2001). Furthermore, the level of livestock grazing is considered one of the
most serious threats to the ecological integrity of the mid-hill and highland
protected areas (HMGN/MFSC 2002). Livestock overgrazing is said to be responsible for damage to wetlands
(IUCN 2004) and the low biodiversity of upland grasslands (MoEST 2006). In addition, heavy grazing and browsing
promote the spread of an invasive alien creeper, Bittervine Mikania
micrantha, which is now a particularly dangerous threat in Nepal (Siwakoti
2007).
(a) Pesticides: Pesticides are widely and
increasingly used in agriculture, especially in the lowlands (Atreya 2008) and
could be a significant threat to many species (Inskipp & Baral 2011).
Proof
of pesticide impacts on birds, which can only be determined by analysis of eggs
or bodies, has not been carried out on Nepal’s birds till date. In this study pesticide poisoning is
considered a possible threat to 21 nationally threatened species, mainly birds
of prey and large wading birds; however, many more species could be affected.
(b) Fertilisers: Trend analysis and the
opinion of traders show that fertiliser use has increased by about 11.5kg per
ha every year in recent years (Thapa 2006). Widespread contamination of agricultural
run-off by nitrogen and phosphate nutrients from fertilisers has led to
eutrophication of lowland wetlands. Eutrophication has eventually resulted in low oxygen levels in water and
the death of invertebrate and fish food supplies for birds (Kafle et al. 2007,
2008).
(c) Poisoning by diclofenac: Poisoning by diclofenac, a
drug used for livestock ailments has led to drastic declines in vulture
populations in the Indian subcontinent, including Nepal (Oaks et al. 2004;
Shultz et al. 2004). For example,
White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis, formerly the most common Nepal
vulture up to 1000m (Inskipp & Inskipp 1991), and the once fairly common
and widespread Slender-billed Vulture G. tenuirostris have declined to
such a level and so sharply that both species are now categorised as nationally
Critically Endangered.
Pressures on forest birds
The
high proportion of forest bird species nationally at risk can be partly
attributed to forest depletion being one of the major environmental issues in
the country (South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme 2010) and also
because forests comprise the major natural habitat in Nepal.
According
to the 2005 FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment, 25% of Nepal was covered in
forest in 2005. This forest
includes plantations, but these form a very small proportion of forest cover in
Nepal (53,000ha). The total loss of
forest area between 1990 and 2005 was 25%. During the same period degraded forest (wooded areas with tree canopy
5–10 %), increased from 1,180,000–1,897,000 ha (Forestry Nepal
2005).
Conversion
of land to agriculture is the major cause of deforestation in Nepal. Other causes of deforestation are the
growth of settlements and infrastructure, illicit tree-fellingand the transboundary timber trade (South Asia Co-operative Environment
Programme 2010).
The
majority of Nepalis depend on the country’s forests for their essential
requirements for fuel, livestock fodder and other basic materials.
The
2010 assessment found that most threatened forest birds inhabit the tropical
and subtropical and lower temperate zones where forests have been most
depleted; for instance Yellow-vented Warbler Phylloscopus cantator, Abbott’s
Babbler Malacocincla abbotti and White-naped Yuhina Yuhina bakeri. Many of the threatened forest birds
require dense, moist conditions, a well-developed understorey or epiphytic
growth, for example Broad-billed Warbler Tickellia hodgsoni, Rufous-throated
Wren Babbler Spelaeornis caudatus and Himalayan Cutia Cutia
nipalensis.
A
total of 14 forest species from these zones have not been recorded for at least
ten years: Pale-headed Woodpecker Gecinulus grantia, Blyth’s Kingfisher Alcedo
hercules, Mountain Imperial Pigeon Ducula badia, Asian Fairy
Bluebird Irena puella, Yellow-cheeked Tit Parus spilonotus, Rufous-faced
Warbler Abroscopus albogularis, Coral-billed Scimitar Babbler Pomatorhinus
ferruginosus, Rufous-throated Wren Babbler Spelaeornis caudatus, Spotted
Wren Babbler Spelaeornis formosus, Silver-eared Mesia Leiothrix
argentauris, Rufous-backed Sibia Heterophasia annectans, White-hooded
Babbler Gampsorhynchus rufulus, Scarlet-backed Flowerpecker Dicaeum
cruentatum and Yellow-vented Flowerpecker D. chrysorrheum.
A
high proportion (47%; 37 species) of threatened forest birds was found to
inhabit broadleaved evergreen forests, an especially threatened habitat, and
32% of forest birds (25 species) (for example Ruddy Kingfisher Halcyon
coromanda), are largely confined to evergreen forests in the tropical
and/or subtropical zones, where these forests are of very limited extent.
Suitable
habitat for some threatened forest species may still be unexplored, especially
in upper temperate and subalpine forests and so these species may be less
threatened than currently believed.
Besides
habitat loss, some forest species, especially Galliformes and owls, suffer from
hunting and trapping.
Loss of invaluable habitat
linkages
Despite
losses and degradation, there is still forest cover on steep slopes, and this
is likely to be untouched if access remains difficult; thus providing
protection for birds and potential reservoirs of bird populations for
recolonisation. However, the
continuation of forest cover on steep slopes will not help to protect species which winter in the lowlands if forest cover in the
lowlands is cleared.
The
review of pressures on birds found that forest losses have been so widespread
and extensive in the lower and middle hills that invaluable habitat linkages
between forests in the high Himal and lowlands or lower hills have been
lost. As a result many bird species
no longer have available the continuum of habitats that they require to move
altitudinally with the seasons and their distributional range is therefore
restricted e.g. Barred Cuckoo Dove Macropygia unchall, Dark-sided ThrushZoothera marginata, and Lesser Shortwing Brachypteryx leucophrys.
Furthermore,
the loss of a continuum of habitats across a high altitudinal gradient means
that many species are much less able to shift their distribution according to
climate change and are therefore more at risk.
Pressures on wetland birds
Wetland
birds were found to be the most threatened in Nepal (35% of wetland species are
nationally threatened). Threats
have significantly increased since 2004. Widespread threats include drainage for agriculture, unsustainable
harvesting of resources, diversion and abstraction of water for farmland
irrigation, overgrazing of shorelines and marshes, and mining of gravel from river beds. Many
species are suffering from water pollution, hunting, trapping, disturbance and
destruction of feeding and nesting sites. Water pollution from agricultural
chemicals has been identified as a particularly serious threat to lowland
wetlands (Kafle et al. 2007, 2008).
Overfishing and fish-poisoning: Overfishing and
fish-poisoning are major threats to large fish-eating birds. All these species have declined in
Nepal’s wetlands almost certainly because overfishing has significantly reduced
their food supply. Almost all of
them are now included in Nepal’s nationally threatened list, for example
Pallas’s Fish Eagle Haliaeetus leucoryphus, Grey-headed Fish Eagle Ichthyophaga
ichthyaetus, Brown Fish Owl Ketupa zeylonensis, Black-bellied Tern Sterna
acuticauda, River Tern S. aurantia, and Indian Skimmer Rynchops
albicollis.
Some
important wetlands, for instance Jagdishpur Reservoir (which is a Ramsar site
as well as an IBA) and Gaidahawa Tal, are contracted to commercial fishermen by
the relevant authorities at each site, resulting in significant threats to
wetland dependent birds. Disturbance caused by commercial fishermen results in birds flying away
from relatively safe habitats and to sites where they are more at risk from
hunting or trapping. The
introduction of carnivorous fish species by the fishermen may impact on the
survival of native fish ultimately affecting bird populations.
As
a result of this onslaught of threats, a large percentage of Nepal’s wetland
birds (29 species, 25%) is considered Critically
Endangered or Endangered. Some
wetland species have shown precipitous declines over recent years, for example
Brahminy Kite Haliastur indus, Caspian Tern Sterna
caspia, Black-bellied Tern S. acuticauda and River Tern S. aurantia(Fig. 5).
Pressures on grassland birds
A
large percentage (23%) of grassland birds isnationally threatened. The spread
of cultivation in Nepal’s lowlands has led to the once extensive lowland
grasslands becoming greatly reduced and fragmented. Nepal’s specialist grassland birds are
now almost entirely confined to protected areas, where their populations are
isolated (Baral 2001). Some
sedentary species e.g. Slender-billed Babbler Turdoides longirostris and
Jerdon’s Babbler Chrysomma altirostre may therefore face long-term
viability problems.
Within
protected areas some bird species, for instance the globally threatened Bengal
Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis, Swamp Francolin Francolinus gularisand White-throated Bushchat Saxicola insignis, are suffering from
inappropriate grassland management, including ploughing, intensive annual
cutting and burning, which alter grass species composition and are aimed at the
conservation of mammals, not birds (Baral 2001).
Lowland grasslands are traditionally exploited by local
communitiesfor their daily needs: grass for thatching roofs and weaving mats, as well as
fodder for their livestock (Baral 2001). The Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation has struck a
compromise between conservation and the survival needs of local people by
allowing them to harvest grass for a limited period every year. As a result, 95% of grassland is
believed to be disturbed in Nepal’s lowland protected areas during the
grass-cutting season (H.S. Baral pers. obs. 2010).
Controlling
illegal grazing and cutting activities is a difficult task for Nepal’s park
managers. Illegal overgrazing by livestock is by far the greatest threat to
lowland grasslands in protected areas (Baral 2001); these domestic ungulates
are at densities far higher than were formerly reached by wild species. Overall, a total of 14 species (61%) of
nationally threatened grassland species is in the Critically Endangered and
Endangered categories.
Although
upland grasslands occupy a far greater area than those in the lowlands, they
support only two globally and nationally threatened species: Cheer Pheasant Catreus
wallichii and Wood Snipe Gallinago nemoricola. Grasslands in the hills and
mountains are both natural and human-made in origin. Above the tree line they are mainly
naturally occurring alpine meadows up to the limit of vegetation. Below the tree line on south-facing
slopes burning and livestock grazing, which mainly took place a very long time
ago, have created and maintained grassy areas. These grasslands are poor in bird
species diversity.
Pressures on other specialist
bird species
Some
nationally threatened birds have other specialist habitat needs and are now
only locally distributed because of habitat losses.
Seven
threatened species occur mainly in pure bamboo stands, for instance, Fulvous
Parrotbill Paradoxornis fulvifrons and Golden-breasted Fulvetta Alcippe
chrysotis. Eleven other species
depend on or favour forests with a bamboo understorey, including Satyr TragopanTragopan satyra and Broad-billed Warbler Tickellia hodgsoni and
are threatened to at least some degree by bamboo losses. Bamboo is a highly useful forest
product; large quantities of bamboo Arundinaria spp. and Bambusa spp.
are cut for weaving mats and baskets and for construction work. Overgrazing by livestock is also
reducing bamboo in many areas e.g. Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve (Subedi 2008).
Great
Hornbill Buceros bicornis and Great Slaty Woodpecker Mulleripicus
pulverulentus require mature trees for feeding and nesting, but these are
frequently and selectively felled as they are of high economic value.
Hunting and trapping
Around 43 nationally threatened species were
found to be affected to some degree by hunting or trapping including the
collection of nest contents (29% of the total threatened). Recently two packs of feral dogs have
been seen in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve and feral dogs are known to threaten
larger mammals in Bardia National Park, so they could also be a problem for
birds. Wetland birds are especially
at risk in all parts of Nepal. At
Koshi, hunting and trapping birds for food and for sale at the market regularly
takes place (Shakya 1995; Giri 2002). Bird hunting, including netting and egg collecting havealso been identified as serious threats on Chitwan’s rivers (Roberts et al.
2002; Tyabji 2002). Hunting is also
threatening some grassland birds at risk, notably Swamp Francolin Francolinus
gularis (Baral 1998), as well as some forest species, for instance Great
Hornbill Buceros bicornis. A
2008/09 owl study in 22 out of Nepal’s 75 districts revealed widespread hunting
and trading of owls, especially Rock Eagle Owl Bubo bengalensis (Acharya
& Ghimirey 2009).
Pheasants
are popular targets for hunters and trappers in some parts of Nepal. For example, hunting is a major threat
to Cheer Pheasant Catreus wallichii in the upper Kali Gandaki valley,
Annapurna Conservation Area (Acharya et al. 2006) and in Rara National
Park (Budhathapa 2006). However, hunting was not considered an important threat to Nepal’s
known key populations of Cheer Pheasant in and around Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve
by Singh et al. (2006). The degree of threat caused by hunting
and trapping often depends on traditional attitudes. For example Himalayan
Monal Lophophorus impeyjanus is hardly hunted in Sagarmatha National
Park where the large majority of the human population are Sherpas who are
Buddhist and traditionally do not hunt. However, in Kanchenjunga Conservation Area the species is heavily hunted
as the local people have hunted for generations and in an April 2008 survey,
only one individual was located despite extensive suitable habitat (Inskipp et
al. 2008).
Impacts of alien weeds
Serious
threats are posed by some invasive alien weeds, notably Water-hyacinthEichhornia crassipes, which was first reported in Nepal in 1966 and
is now widely distributed in most protected areas ranging up to 1500m. Free-floating mats of Water-hyacinthin Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve have caused a sharp decline in the number of
pure open water dwelling bird species, especially Oriental Darter Anhinga
melanogaster, cormorants, and grebes, as well as reducing feeding areas for
some ducks and other wetland birds (Dahal 2007).
More
recently another alien, Bittervine Mikania micrantha, has invaded
tropical and subtropical ecosystems from the far eastto west-central Nepal (Siwakoti 2007) and has had devastating effects in some
areas, notably in Chitwan National Park and Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve (Carol
Inskipp pers. obs. December 2010). Within five years Mikania engulfed a large chunk of the reserve’s
marshes and terrestrial habitats at Koshi (Baral 2002a). Mikania is a climber that can
very quickly cover trees and shrubs as well as the entire forest floor, thus
making it impossible for bird species to feed on the ground. Terrestrial-feeding species, such as
thrushes, pipits, as well as some babblers that require open forest floors,
with or without decaying leaves, are all affected (Baral 2002a).
Climate change
The
impacts of climate change on birds in Nepal are unknown, although are believed
to be significant. Climate change is already having a significant impact on the
Himalayan environment. Glacial melt
is increasing as temperatures rise and will lead to increased summer flows in
some river systems for a few decades, followed by a reduction in flows as the
glaciers disappear (Baral 2002b). Ibisbill Ibidorhyncha struthersii, which breeds in braided river
channels with shingle banks in glacial valleys, is likely to be directly
threatened (Baral 2002b). A
preliminary study of an Ibisbill breeding population in Kyanjin, upper Langtang
in 2010 recorded 25 individuals, which included the very low number of only
seven subadults. The researchers
considered that the birds’ poor breeding success resulted from landslides that
have swept away an important portion of their habitat (Ghimire & Thakuri
2010).
Some
of Nepal’s threatened birds are largely confined to protected areas, for
example a number of grassland species. As the climate changes, habitats in these protected areas may eventually
become unsuitable for these species. However, as natural habitats outside protected areas have been converted
to agriculture or developed, these birds have nowhere to go.
Forktails,
dippers, wagtails and river redstarts rely on invertebrate food supplies. It is possible that they could be
indicators for understanding climate change impacts in the Himalaya because, as
river flows are reduced, the birds’ invertebrate prey will decline (Baral
2002b).
Many
forest birds, including a high proportion of threatened forest species, depend
on moist forests and are likely to be affected if the climate becomes drier.
Responses
for Nepal’s birds - what has been done so far
Conserving and protecting
sites
Nepal’s protected area system: Nepal’s protected area
system (except buffer zones) covers over 20% of the country and includes 10 national parks, four reserves and
six conservation areas. Since 2004 the government has established four new
protected areas. Most protected
areas have buffer zones which cover nearly 4% of the
country’s total land area.
A total of 16 of Nepal’s 20 protected areas are managed by the
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), Government of
Nepal. Annapurna, Gaurishankar and Manaslu Conservation Areas are managed
by the National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC). The NTNC was established in 1982 as a
not-for-profit organisation, working in Nepal for nature conservation. Kanchenjunga
Conservation Area is managed by a Council, the Kanchenjunga Conservation Area
Management Council (KCAMC), which is a local body formulated from user groups
and committees.
Limited
or insufficient resources and capacity has impeded the ability of both the
DNPWC and NTNC to adequately conserve protected areas and species.
While
Nepal’s protected area network is impressive in coverage, of Nepal’s 27 IBAs
only 13 are fully protected, with 12 unprotected and two partially
protected. However, the Nepal Government’s
Fourth Report to the CBD in 2009 clearly stated that some management status
would be given to three unprotected IBAs (Phulchoki Mountain Forest, Farmlands
of Lumbini and Mai Valley).
Government legislation and policy: There are many government
policies that support conservation efforts in Nepal, including the National
Conservation Strategy for Nepal (National Planning Commission Secretariat, His
Majesty’s Government of Nepal 1988) that was endorsed as policy in 1988.
The
recommendations of the Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal (His Majesty’s
Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission and Ministry of Population
and Environment 2003) build on proven, successful programmes at grassroots
level. The national Community Forestry Programme (Ojha et al. 2009)
demonstrates the high potential of participatory management as a means to
promote sustainable development, for example.
The
CBD has been enforced since February 1994. In 2002, a comprehensive Nepal Biodiversity Strategy was developed to
fulfil Nepal’s obligations to the CBD. This serves as an overall framework for the conservation and sustainable
use of biodiversity and biological resources in the country. The Nepal Biodiversity Strategy
Implementation Plan was developed in 2006; its overall goal is to achieve the
NBS objectives during the period 2006-2010.
The
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as
Waterfowl Habitat was ratified by Nepal in December 1987.
Looking after habitats
Community forests: In 1978, the Panchayat
Forests and Panchayat Protected Forests regulations were introduced, enabling
the Forest Department to return control and ownership of forests to local
communities. The result was that,
by April 2009, one-third of the population was participating in community managed forests, directly managing more than
one-fourth of Nepal’s forest area (Ojha et al. 2009). This approach has proved to be an
effective way of conserving forests and biodiversity in many areas, especially
where pressures on forests are high (Thapa 2007).
The National Wetland Policy and Ramsar: In 2003, the National
Wetland Policy was agreed, with aims to conserve, manage and promote the wise
and sustainable use of wetlands, particularly through collaboration of
communities.
As
part of its obligation under the Ramsar Convention, the Government has
designated nine Ramsar Sites - Wetlands of International Importance; a further
six wetlands within IBAs could also qualify. The National Lake Conservation
Development Committee was formed in 2006 with the objectives of conserving
Nepal’s lakes (Pokharel & Shah 2006).
New guidelines for grassland management: New guidelines for grassland
management—including requirements for birds—are being developed by
DNPWC.
The banning of pesticides: Since April 2001, the
Government has banned persistent chemical pesticides for use in agriculture and
health. However, illegal import of pesticides remains a serious concern (Nepal
Forum for Justice 2006). In addition,
Nepal’s National Agricultural Perspective Plan has emphasised the Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) approach to try and reduce pesticide use, although very
few individuals are IPM-trained (Atreya 2007).
Saving species from
extinction
Protection by national law: Only nine species are protected
by the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act - 2029 (1973). Recommendations for updating this list
by the NGO Himalayan Nature are in the process of being adopted by the DNPWC.
Bird surveys: In recent years, several
NGOs, including Bird Conservation Nepal (BCN), Bird Education Society (BES) and
Biodiversity Conservation Society Nepal (BIOCOS Nepal), and many individual
Nepalis, have carried out bird surveys, chiefly of globally threatened species.
For
instance, a survey of the population and distribution of White-throated
Bushchat Saxicola insignis highlighted the importance of Sukla Phanta
Wildlife Reserve as a major wintering area for the species (Baral 1998).
Mainly
using Nepalese fieldworkers, the World Pheasant Association (WPA) has carried
out pheasant population survey monitoring at Pipar in the Annapurna
Conservation Area since 1979. Populations of all pheasant and partridge species at Pipar, including
the nationally threatened and globally Near Threatened Satyr Tragopan Tragopan
satyra have been regularly and frequently monitored (Anonymous 2010).
Thewaterbird monitoring programme which is coordinated by
Wetlands International is the longest running annual bird monitoring programme
in the country.
Bird Conservation Nepal’s Vulture Conservation
Programme:The Vulture Conservation Action Plan for Nepal (2009–2013) (Department of
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation 2009) has helped prioritise and
streamline vulture conservation activities. BCN and its partners are carrying out
surveys of vulture populations and
breeding success, as well as nationwide surveys of veterinary institutions to
monitor the use of diclofenac. Wherever diclofenac is found, efforts are made to persuade the users to
replace it by vulture-safe meloxicam. Samples of livers of animal carcasses available as food for vultures are
being collected to test for diclofenac presence and so enable a better
understanding of the threat to vultures from this drug in Nepal (Department of
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation 2009).
Vulture Safe Zones are being set up by declaring areas free of
diclofenac. As a first phase, 13 districts in Nepal
are being targeted with a view to expanding the programme across Nepal and
India. Advocacy campaigns include
awareness work with the veterinary community, local community, district level
decision makers, school children, and custom officials. (DNPWC/MoFSC/GoN
2009).
Raising awareness
Local communities: WPA has a strong education
and conservation programme in Pipar, which is home to five out of six of
Nepal’s Himalayan pheasant species (Anonymous 2010), while BCN is building the
capacity of grassroots conservation groups at IBAs.
Since
2004, the Bird Education Society (BES) has been carrying out successful annual
conservation awareness programmes for farmers who live in Chitwan National Park
buffer zone. Many birds which
inhabit the National Park also feed in the agricultural fields in the park’s
buffer zone, where they are at risk from pesticide use, notably the globally
threatened Lesser Adjutant Leptoptilos javanicus. The BES programmes focus on
providing farmers with the necessary knowledge and skills to practice effectivemicro-organism (EM) technology and learn about IPM
(Subedi 2007).
Improving
awareness more generally: A wide range of educational and conservation
awareness activities are carried out by NGOs in Nepal. These include producing materials on
birds and conservation, organising birdwatching for the general public, and
running clubs for schools.
Another
example is BCN’s radio programme “Panchi Sansar” which conveys a bird
conservation message to about 10% of Nepal’s population every fortnight. The
programme has proved a very effective communication tool, enabling BCN to reach
the general public (BCN 2010).
An
impressive campaign to raise awareness of the plight of owls has been carried
out by Raju Acharya since 2008. At
least four million people were informed about the campaign by local, regional
and national newspapers, radio and television. A total of 166 owl conservation awareness
camps in six districts had been carried out up to the end of 2010 (Acharya
2011).
DISCUSSION
The
generosity of many more bird observers in Nepal in providing their unpublished
records has led to the 2010 study being a more complete assessment of species’
threat status than was possible previously.
Limitations
of this study and the two previous assessments of Nepal’s threatened birds are
that not all species have been comprehensively assessed to identify those that
might qualify for Near Threatened status. Passage migrants and vagrants were excluded because it was considered
that the main threats to these species in particular maylie elsewhere. However, some
passage migrants may use important stop-over sites
where threats may be high, such as Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve. A new study is currently underway, as
part of DNPWC’s commitment to prepare animal red data lists under the auspices
of the Zoological Society of London and National Trust for Nature Conservation,
which is considering the threat status of all bird species recorded in Nepal to
produce a National Red Data Book of Nepal’s Birds. The work undertaken in this study will
be used for this more comprehensive review.
Since
2004, more research work has been carried out to identify threats and the
extent of their impact on Nepal’s birds, and so we understand them better: for
example, the impacts of diclofenac on White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensisand Slender-billed Vulture G. tenuirostris (Gautam & Baral 2009,
2010); finding new vulture nesting sites, including in Arghakhanchi District
where five vulture species breed (Bhusal 2010); research work on owls
which has revealed the threats from trade (Acharya & Ghimirey 2009); and a
recent desk study which has shown the high impacts of agricultural changes
(Inskipp & Baral 2011).
Declines
are not taking place as quickly as a simple comparison of the figures between
the two assessments, in 2004 and 2010, indicates. More time was available for the 2010
study and, significantly, more records have been received from a larger number
of contributors, revealing a truer picture of the state of Nepal’s birds. With the improved knowledge resulting
from the more detailed analysis carried out in 2010 it has been realised that
in 2004 some species were more threatened than considered at that time, and
should have been categorised as Critically Endangered or Endangered instead of
Vulnerable; also that some species not picked up as Nationally Threatened in
2004, actually were.
Nevertheless
a comparison between the results of the 2004 and 2010 assessments shows that
the status of Nepal’s birds has deteriorated. It is clear that some threats have
certainly worsened, for example loss and degradation of forests, pressure on
grasslands, the spread and intensification of agriculture and, most especially,
the wide range of threats facing wetlands. However, positive responses have increased too, for instance the raising
of conservation awareness, spread of community
forestry and some projects benefiting local livelihoods.
Nepal
is fortunate, compared with many developing countries, in that long-term and continuing
interest in its bird life has provided a solid basis for recording and
interpreting the changes that are taking place. Such documentation raises awareness of
the importance of conservation and helps to focus on the highest priorities. As
a result, there are more effective interventions than in places without such
interest, for example targeted at species with the highest risk of global
extinction (e.g. vultures) and at sites which are most
important for biodiversity. That
said, resources and capacity are still limiting factors, and many priorities
remain that need to be addressed. The documentation has made possible the identification of some of the
key actions needed (see Recommendations below). These should be high priorities for NGOs
and government to consider as they revise their National Biodiversity
Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) in the light of the new CBD Targets for
2020.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE
NGO ACTION
Safeguarding sites
Advocate
protection of Important Bird Areas (IBAs), for example Dharan Forests, and
potential IBAs like Khadara Phanta in lowland grasslands, and Khandbari-Num
forests.
Lobby
the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) to give
management status to three unprotected IBAs as promised.
Promote
suitable management for birds in protected IBAs, especially in lowland
grasslands.
Conserving habitats
Lobby
the Government to enforce existing pesticide regulations.
Encourage the use of Integratedpest management (IPM) and of effective micro-organism technology (EM).
Lobby
the DNPWC to implement the new guidelines for grassland management.
Saving species
Lobby
the DNPWC to ensure the adoption of updates to Nepal’s protected bird list that
have been provided by Himalayan Nature. In addition, lobby the DNPWC and provide expertise if necessary to
ensure that the law protecting these species is enforced.
Conduct
systematic surveys and undertake conservation activities for key threatened
species, especially those that are declining: globally threatened species,
e.g., Swamp Francolin Francolinus gularis, flagship species, e.g.,
Bengal Florican Houbaropsis bengalensis, and species that have not been
recorded for at least 10 years, e.g., Silver-eared Mesia Leiothrix
argentauris.
Carry
out survey work to try and assess the impacts of climate change on bird
species.
Empowering people and raising
awareness
Carry
out programmes to raise the awareness of local communities in IBAs where little
or no similar work has been carried out previously, e.g., Dang Deukhuri Forests
and West Rapti Wetlands, and in villages around Khaptad National Park.
Carry
out training programmes for farmers in the use of EM technology and IPM in
buffer zones of other protected areas, e.g., Bardia National Park and Sukla
Phanta Wildlife Reserve.
Produce
more radio programmes to raise conservation awareness, especially where such
programmes have not been broadcast previously, e.g., in parts of the west central
areas and the far western hills.
Start
green clubs for schools in buffer zones of other protected areas and in
unprotected IBAs, e.g., farmlands in Lumbini and the Tamur Valley and
watershed.
References
Acharya, R. (2011). Final report on owl conservation
campaign (Tanahu, Dhading and Kaski districts). Submitted to World Owl
Trust, UK & Friends of Nature, Nepal, 13pp.
Acharya, R. & Y. Ghimirey
(2009). Final report on assessment of status, threats and the
ethno-ornithological relationship and its extension for the conservation of owl
in Nepal. Submitted to World Owl Trust, U.K, 56pp.
Acharya, R., S. Thapa & Y. Ghimirey (2006). Monitoring of the Cheer
Pheasant Catreus wallichii in lower Kaligandaki valley, Mustang, Nepal.
Report to King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation, Annapurna Conservation
Area Project, Nepal, 17pp.
Anonymous (2010). Pheasants
and schools at Pipar in the Annapurna Himalaya, Nepal
<http://pheasant.org.uk/cons_scasia_pipar.aspx> Downloaded on 9 April
2011.
Atreya, K. (2007). Farmers’ willingness to pay for community integrated pest
management training in Nepal. Agriculture and Human Values
24: 399–409. <springerlink.com/content/l38368m5l6r65814/> Downloaded on
9 April 2011.
Atreya, K. (2008). Health costs from short-term exposure to pesticides in Nepal. Social Science & Medicine 67: 511–519.
Baral, H.S. (1998). Status,
distribution and habitat preferences of Swamp Francolin Francolinus gularis in
Nepal. Ibisbill 1: 35–70.
Baral, H.S. (2001). Community structure and
habitat associations of lowland grassland birds in Nepal. PhD
Thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 235pp.
Baral, H.S. (2002a). Invasive weed threatens
protected area. Danphe 11(3): 10–11.
Baral, H.S. (2002b). Impact of
climate change on Nepal’s birds. Danphe 11(4): 6.
Baral, H.S. & C. Inskipp
(2004). The State of Nepal’s Birds 2004. Department
of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Bird Conservation Nepal & IUCN
Nepal, Kathmandu, 64pp.
Baral, H.S. & C. Inskipp
(2005). Important Bird Areas in Nepal: Key Sites for Conservation. Bird Conservation Nepal & BirdLife International, Kathmandu and
Cambridge, 242pp.
Baral, H.S., C. Inskipp, T.P. Inskipp & U.R.
Regmi (1996). Threatened
Birds of Nepal. Bird Conservation Nepal & Department of
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, 13pp.
Bhusal, K.P. (2010). Survey of
potential vulture nesting sites in northern belt of Arghakhanchi, Nepal.MSc Thesis. Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu.
Bird Conservation Nepal
(2010). Annual Report 2009/10. Bird Conservation Nepal,
Kathmandu, 34pp.
Bird Conservation Nepal
(2011). Bird Conservation Nepal (2011). Status
of Nepal birds. <birdlifenepal.org/status_of_birds.htm> Accessed 8 April 2011.
Bird Conservation Nepal & Department of
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (2011). The
State of Nepal’s Birds 2010. Bird
Conservation Nepal & Department of National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal, 96pp.
Budhathapa, B.B. (2006). Status and
distribution of Cheer Pheasant (Catreus wallichii) in Rara National
Park. Report to World Pheasant Association &
Oriental Bird Club, 20pp.
Dahal, B.R. (2007). Effects of Water Hyacinth
Eichhornia crassipes on aquatic birds at Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, south-east Nepal. Danphe 16(1):
64–65. <birdlifenepal.org/publication.php>
Downloaded on 10 April 2011.
Department of National Parks
and Wildlife Conservation (2009). Vulture Conservation Action Plan for Nepal
(2009–2013). Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil
Conservation - Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC),
Kathmandu, 25pp. <http://darwin.defra.gov.uk/documents/EIDPO022
/18126/EIDPO022%20AR2%20App8.%20Vulture%20Conservation%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Nepal%20Submitted%20March%202009.pdf>
Downloaded on 28 October 2012.
Forestry Nepal (2005). FAO releases final report of
Forest Resources Assessment 2005 <forestrynepal.org/article/news/274>
Downloaded on 9 April 2011.
Gautam, R. & N. Baral
(2009). Research and monitoring of White-rumped Vulture (Gyps bengalensis)
for seven years in Rampur, Nepal. Final report to The Peregrine Fund, USA, Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds, UK & Bird Conservation Nepal, 30pp.
Gautam, R. & N. Baral
(2010).Monitoring three endangered vulture species in the Pokhara valley, Nepal. Final report to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
(RSPB) & Bird Conservation Nepal, 12pp.
Ghimire, B.C. & J.
Thakuri (2010). Assessment of Ibisbill for the adaptation of climate change in
central Nepal. Preliminary report submitted to National Adaptation of Action
Project, Ministry of Environment, Nepal. 2pp.
Giri, T. (2002). Threats to birds at Koshi. Danphe 11(1):
35–36.
His Majesty’s Government of
Nepal, National Planning Commission and Ministry of Population and Environment
(2003).Sustainable Development Agenda for Nepal, Kathmandu
<http://www.npc.gov.np/new/uploadedFiles/allFiles/Sustainable_Devlopment_Agenda_Eng.pdf>
Downloaded on 8 April 2010.
His Majesty’s Government of
Nepal and Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (2002). Nepal
biodiversity strategy. His Majesty’s Government of
Nepal/Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu. <nepjol.info/index.php/AEJ/article/viewArticle/2114>
Downloaded on 8 April 2010.
Inskipp, C. & H.S. Baral
(2011). Potential impacts of agriculture on Nepal birds. Our Nature (2010) 8: 270–312.
Inskipp,
C. & T. Inskipp (1991). A Guide to the Birds of Nepal –Second
Edition. Christopher Helm, London. 400pp.
Inskipp,
T. & C. Inskipp (2010). A Bibliography of Nepal Birds. Unpublished, 64pp.
IUCN/SSC (2003). Guidelines
for application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels.<http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/2003_guidelines_application_iucn_redlist_criteria_regional_levels.pdf> Downloadedon 10 April 2009.
Kafle, G., M. Kafle, K. Balla & B.K. Paudyal
(2007). A review of threats to RAMSAR sites and associated biodiversity of
Nepal. Tigerpaper 34(4): 1–5. <fao.org/asiapacific/rap/nre/links/tiger-paper/en/>
Downloaded on 15 April 2011.
Kafle, G., M. Kafle, K. Balla & B.K. Paudyal
(2008). A review of threats to RAMSAR sites and associated biodiversity of
Nepal (Part II). Tigerpaper 35(1): 9–11.<fao.org/asiapacific/rap/nre/links/tiger-paper/en/>
Downloaded on 15 April 2011.
Ministry of Environment, Science & Technology (MoEST) (2006). Rural
Energy Policy. MoEST, Kathmandu. <
http://www.moenv.gov.np/newwebsite/downloads/RE-Policy-2006.pdf > Downloaded
on 28 October 2012.
National Planning Commission Secretariat, His Majesty’s Government
of Nepal (1988). Building on success: The National Conservation Strategy for
Nepal. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 179pp.
<http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABD226.pdf > Downloaded on 28 October
2012.
Nepal Forum for Justice
(2006).Governmental and Public Awareness-raising on POPs. International POPs Elimination Project, Kathmandu, 8pp.
<http://www.ipen.org/ipepweb1/library/ipep_pdf_reports/4nep%20gov%20and%20public%20awareness%20raising%20on%20pops.pdf>
Downloaded on 28 October 2012.
Oaks,
J.L., M. Gilbert, M.Z. Virani, R.T. Watson, C.U. Meteyer, B. Rideout, H.L.
Shivaprasad, S. Ahmed, M.J.I. Chaudhry, M. Arshad, S. Mahmood, A. Ali K.K.
& Khan (2004). Diclofenac residues as the cause of vulture population decline in
Pakistan. Nature 427: 630–633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02317.
Ojha, H., L. Persha & A. Chhatre (2009). Community Forestry in Nepal:
A Policy Innovation for Local Livelihoods and Food Security. Working Paper No.
W09I-02. International Food Policy Research Institute, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, 34pp.
<http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00913.pdf>
Downloaded on 28 October 2012.
Pokharel, S. & K. Shah
(2006). Lessons from Nepal on developing a strategic plan for ILBM
– the case of Phewa Lake. <http://wldb.ilec.or.jp/ILBMTrainingMaterials/resources/nepal_strategy_presentation.pdf>
Downloaded on 12 April 2011.
Roberts, J., K.R. Tamang, S.R. Kumal, R.D.
Mahato, N.Bdr. Gurau, A. Barlow, G. Malakar, C. McDougal & M. Cotton
(2002). Wetlands International Waterfowl Census January 2001, West Rapti
and Narayani rivers. Danphe 11(1): 29–30.
Shakya, S. (1995). Bird
massacre in Nepal. Bird Conservation Nepal Newsletter 4(3): 5.
Shultz,
S., H.S. Baral, S. Charman, A. Cunningham, D. Das, G.R. Ghalsasi, M.S. Goudar,
R.E. Green, A. Jones, P. Nighot, D.J. Pain & V. Prakash (2004). Diclofenac poisoning is
widespread in declining vulture populations across the Indian subcontinent. Proceedings
of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 271:
S458–S460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2004.0223.
Singh, P.B., L. Paudyel & S. Sharma (2006). Survey of
Cheer Pheasant Catreus wallichi in and around Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve,
western Nepal. Report to World Pheasant Association, UK & Oriental Bird
Club, UK, 30pp.
Siwakoti, M. (2007). Mikania weed: a challenge
for conservationists. Our Nature 5: 70–74.<nepjol.info/index.php/ON/article/viewFile/801/770>
Downloaded on 8 April 2011.
South Asia Co-operative
Environment Programme (2010). Nepal. <sacep.org/default.htm> Downloaded on 9 April 2011.
Subedi, H. (2007). A bird conservation awareness
camp for local farmers. Danphe 16(1): 43–44. <birdlifenepal.org/publication.php>
Downloaded on 10 April 2011.
Subedi, T.R. (2008). Status and
conservation of Red Panda Ailurus fulgens in Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve, Nepal. Rufford
Small Grants for Nature Conservation Project. <ruffordsmallgrants.org/rsg/projects/tulsi_ram_subedi>
Downloaded on 9 April 2011.
Thapa, I. (2007). Community forestry: ideal
for participatory biodiversity conservation. Danphe 16(1): 18–20.
<http://www.birdlifenepal.org/publication.php> Downloaded on 8 April
2010.
Thapa, Y.V. (2006). Constraints and approach for
improving fertilizer supply for meeting domestic demand. Economic
Policy Network Policy Paper 30. Report to Economic
Policy Network & Asian Development Bank, Kathmandu. <mof.gov.np/economic_policy/pdf/Constraints_Approach.pdf> Downloaded on 9 April 2011.
Tyabji, H. (2002). The crisis
of the rivers and streams in Royal Chitwan National Park. Danphe11(1): 30–31.