Nepal Endangered

Native wildlife has struggled to survive since human civilization began encroaching on natural habitats. This began in America during the Industrial Revolution, but did not begin plaguing Nepal for another half century. Population growth and community development and have endangered local wildlife, and it now finds itself subject to a rise in illegal poaching. Moreover, the recent Civil War in Nepal has left a shaky democratic republic in place, and conservation is not considered a top priority. Wildlife mismanagement is a global issue that typically clashes with legislative resolutions. If there is any hope of preserving and protecting the animal species in Nepal, it will come as a combination of enforced legislative protection and grassroots conservation.
One root of wildlife destruction in Nepal is the decimation of natural land. In just thirty years (1950-1980) Nepal lost fifty percent of its forest habitat to land development, which accommodated the 100 percent increase in population during this time (“Save Wildlife”). Whenever a new wave of population arises, land must be developed, and habitats suffer. When habitats are destroyed, the natural species that lived there cannot survive and their homes literally dissolve around them. While asking a country to reverse its economic growth in the name of conservation would be impractical, federal and nongovernmental regulation is not too much to ask. Destruction of natural habitats injures wildlife, but Nepal’s natural creatures have another enemy in addition to developers: poachers.
Even more troublesome than the problem of the rapidly growing Nepalese populace is the now common practice of poaching. With a governmental transformation in 2006 (when Nepal dethroned its monarch, King Gyanendra, and ultimately became a democratic federal republic) came a spike in the poaching of endangered species (Khadka). During the nine month period following the government shift, the federal Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation verified that more than twenty endangered rhinos were poached for their horns (Khadka). Other conservation groups believe the unofficial number to be much higher. They fear that nearly all of the eighty rhinos in the Babai Valley in western Nepal have been slain. During this time, government agencies also seized about twenty tiger skins, ten leopard skins and over 100 pounds of tiger bones in various places including the capital, Kathmandu (BBC).
The revolution in Nepal has liberated the country from rebel violence, but has enabled the sharp rise in animal poaching. During the ten year conflict between Maoist (communist) insurgents and the standing constitutional monarchy, patrols on each side secured conservation areas and national parks (BBC). Now that the government and the rebels have negotiated peace, no one patrols these areas, leaving them easily accessible to poachers. To make matters worse, the new cabinet recently released around twenty poachers in celebration of restored democracy in Nepal. And with no patrols in national parks, the released poachers have strong incentive to use the parks as poaching grounds. These grounds comprise twenty percent of the country’s land area which is divided into sixteen protected zones. Unfortunately, the revolution drew military guard away from these areas. While the new government scrambled to reestablish this protection, poachers operated unchecked. ‘“Time and time again, whenever there has been political uncertainty in the country, wildlife conservation has been one of the biggest casualties,’ said World Wildlife Fund Nepal chief, Anil Manandhar. ‘This time, it has become even clearer and what we need now is to focus on wildlife traders’” (BBC). Wildlife Conservation Nepal, a non-governmental organization, conducted undercover operations that led to the arrests of fifteen poachers in 2006 (BBC). Still, poaching remains highly unregulated in Nepal.
When it comes to resource management, solutions are much more pragmatic if they are well defined. The difficulty with wildlife is that objectives are so vague that success is unclear. In places like Nepal, the ongoing battle entails preventing wildlife extinction. So is every day the snow leopard remains alive considered a victory? It is certainly not. What defines objectives and successes varies by scenario. Conservation success is particularly elusive because conservation requires an infinite and ongoing amount of work; it is never conclusive. This in turn means that governments, nongovernmental organizations, and ordinary citizens could always do more to conserve natural species. Even so, two countries in particular have seen substantial successes.
In 1973 the United States of America passed the Endangered Species Act. In essence, the Act sanctioned the listing of threatened and endangered species, authorized incentives and agreements with states to preserve endangered species, allowed for the enforcement of financial penalties for violators, as well as for payment to anyone who reports violators (U.S. Fish and Wildlife). The Act also expressly “prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species” and “provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and water conservation funds” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife). The federal government took this massive legislative step to preserve native wildlife in America. The passage of the Act was paramount in establishing conservation as a national priority. The Endangered Species Act refers directly to the wildlife included in the Endangered Species Act. With financial deterrents in place that prevent illegal animal trade, the Act was effective in bringing endangered species populations high enough to be removed from the Endangered Species List. Since the Act employed penalties for violations of the Act and gave incentives to laymen to help enforce it, the laws were enforced and effective in preserving native wildlife. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 worked because it took a systematic and simple approach to wildlife conservation: killing endangered species would fine poachers far more money than they could make selling dead animals. With the assumption that Nepal will soon have a stable government, similar legislation could work well for Nepalese wildlife. Nepal and the United states are very different countries, so perhaps it is more prudent to consider a country closer to Nepal in geography and economic background.
Pakistan lies west of Nepal on the other side of India. Following the abolition of a hunting ban in Pakistan in the 1970s, the Himalayan ibex was hunted nearly to extinction (WWF-P). Governmental control was weak in the Karambar Valley, and the native Pakistani people were poor farmers and herders. These villagers faced two dilemmas: most of them lived well below the poverty line, and they were losing a native species to poaching. Fortunately, nongovernmental organizations enlightened the local Pakistanis, who started the Karambar Social Welfare & Conservation Development Organization in 1996 (WWF-P). The KSWCDO acquired Community Controlled Protected Area status, which licensed them to sell ten Himalayan ibex trophy hunting permits between 1998 and 2004. “The community has so far earned the equivalent of $6,700” (WWF-P). This money is spent specifically on ibex conservation and that of other local natural resources (WWF-P). Most importantly, the ibex population has exploded (in relative terms) from about 100 in 1997 to roughly 800 in 2003 (WWF-P). This success is relevant to Nepal because the two nations have similar geographies and comparable economic demographics. It is evident here that environmental conservation on the whole is more effective when backed by economic incentive. Nepal might use trophy hunting to develop its economy and as it worked in Pakistan, to restore endangered species.
There are currently some influential nongovernmental organizations working to conserve wildlife and stop poaching in Nepal. The country needs two primary assets to preserve its wildlife: enforcement of protected areas and money to keep the conservation agencies running. However, if Nepal (or any country) were able to manage wildlife perfectly, it could focus on continued preservation of species. Unfortunately, there will always be some poaching. It follows then that there needs to be a system of response for rescued animals. That is why wildlife rehabilitation centers would greatly aid the cause of conservation. After all, rehabilitation of species is particularly crucial for restoring endangered animal populations. So what is required to start wildlife rehabilitation centers? They need volunteers and they need funds. With care centers already in place however, this leaves only the money. Having grassroots care centers creates an atmosphere of public service and local conservation. That is why one potential solution to managing Nepal’s natural creatures is to sponsor the care centers where possible. With ordinary citizens promoting conservation, Nepal could be an exemplary conservation nation. Awareness of the poaching problem would also spike, which may even lower the demand for illegal animals.
The practical significance of preserving the world’s natural wildlife goes nearly beyond explanation. Forcing endangered species to extinction severely alters the natural cycle of ecosystems. Not only does each species have a designated role on earth, but also has cultural value. No one wants to have to describe to his children what African elephants or leatherback sea turtles were like before they went extinct. As the dominant species on the planet it is man’s responsibility to protect the earth and its native wildlife.