




































In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

 

African Journal of Environmental Economics and Management ISSN 2375-0707 Vol. 6 (1), pp. 394-405, 
January, 2018. Available online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 
 
 
 

Review 
 

An evaluation of the development trends of research on 
natural resource management in Nepal 

 
Mahamoudou Traoré Yonli 

 
Geography, Research Division, TU, Kirtipur, Tribhuvan University, Nepal.  

E-mail: Mahamoudouyonli@gmail.com 
 

Accepted 21 November, 2017 
 

This paper discusses the development trends of participatory research in Nepal with reference to 
natural resource management, taking example from Karnali watershed area. The issues discussed in 
this paper clearly indicate that there is urgent need to promote the participatory action research on 
environment and development for the proper links between population, development, technological 
implication and institutional strengths, using a micro level conservation and development model that 
suits local environments. The author opines that both government organizations and academic 
institutions have to join hands with an effort to promote the participatory research culture in Karnali 
watershed area for sustainable natural resource management. 

 
Key words: Scientific research, relaxed rapport, extractive survey, eco-development, integrated conservation 

and development planning, village level model. 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

 
Over the decades, there have been drastic changes in 
modes of research and learning. Shifts from logical-
positivism paradigms (quantitative) to phenomenological 
paradigms (qualitative) have been witnessed in research 
and development practices since 1980s. These shifts 
move now from top-down to bottom-up and from 
extractive survey questionnaires to participatory 
appraisal, in which more and more activities for 
innovation, management and development of available 
resources are done by local people rather than outsiders. 
It is seen that various methods and approaches of 
participatory research evolved from here, with local 
people learning these methods themselves in order to 
map out their conditions in planning and action. An 
important method of participatory research is rapid rural 
appraisal (RRA), which had a widespread in the 1980s. 
Its further evolution, which was met in the 1990s, into 
participatory rural appraisal (PRA) has grew fast and 
promoted participatory action research (PAR), 
participatory learning action, focus group discussion and 
perception study for development dialogue with a view to 
enable local people share, enhance and analyze their 
knowledge of life and conditions to plan and to act. Thus, 

 
 
 
 
 
the participatory research in natural resource 
management and development appeared since 1990s 
with several sources, reasons and traditions; however, 
the term activist participatory research was introduced in 
the 1970s by the work and inspiration of Paulo Freire in 
his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Rhoades, 1990; 
Chambers, 1995). Historically, it evolves continuously 
quicker and closer communication, transfers and sharing 
of activist participatory research, agro- ecosystem 
analysis, applied anthropology, field research and rapid 
rural appraisal. Particularly, field research on farming 
systems and conservation of natural and environmental 
resources by geographers, agricultural economics or 
biological scientists have contributed in shaping the 
present form of the participatory research in a complex 
structure. 

 
LOCATION OF THE KARNALI WATERSHED AREA 
 
The Karnali- Watershed Basin (KWB) lies in the western 
part of the Mid Western Development Region of Nepal, 

which is about 500 km west from the capital city, 

Katmandu, of the country. It is located between 27°42' N 



Mahamoudou      395  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 1. Map of Karnali watershed area. 
 

 

to 30°27' North latitude and 81°E to 83°45' East 
longitude, extending from Dhaulagiri Himal in the east to 
Bayas-Rishi Himal in the west. The total spatial cover of 
the area is 42,559 sq km, which is about 29.02% of the 
country. Its average length is 176.59 km from the east to 
west with non-uniform width of 240 km from the north to 
south (MOFSC, 2010). Hence, the north-south extension 
of the basin makes great variations between ecological 
regions namely: mountain, hill and tarai in regard to relief 
features, climatic characteristics, and distribution pattern 
of resources. However, about 80% of the land is covered 
by rugged terrain. The elevation ranges from 129 m in the 
southern plain area to 7,000 m height in the northern 
mountain (CBS, 2007). It borders the Western 
Development Region in the east, Far-Western 
Development Region in the west, Uttar Pradesh of India 
in the south, and the Tibetan Region of China in the north 
(Figure 1). 
 

 

REVIEW OF PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH 

ACTIVITIES 
 
Researchers and scientists believe that participatory 

research is a legitimate and useful method of scientific 

research in natural and social sciences by rapid 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

assessment procedures like conversation, observation, 
informal interviews and focus group discussion of 
realities. Chamber (1989) pointed out many reasons to 
the origin of the rapid rural appraisal that further evolved 
into participatory rural appraisal and participatory action 
research. Among them, the first reason was 
dissatisfaction with anti-poverty biases of rural 
development by urban-based professionals. These 
biases were spatial (visit to nearby cities, on roadsides, 
and to the villages’ centers with neglected peripheries), a 
project that gave special attention to the donor desires 
rather than people’s demands, a person meeting men 
more than women, and elites more than the poor and 
disadvantaged groups, seasonal visits to sites in 
favorable weather, and diplomacy, that is, where the 
outsiders do not wish to cause offence by asking to meet 
poor people in bad conditions. The next one is 
disillusionment with the normal processes of the 
questionnaire survey and their results. This is as a result 
of the fact that the conventional approach to research 
tended to be long drawn-out, tedious, difficult to 
administer, a nightmare to process and write up, 
inaccurate and unreliable data obtained, and difficult to 
use in wider perspectives. Another important preseason 
was more positive and was in favor of this study to make 
it a more cost-effective method of learning. It was 



 
 
 

 

developed by the growing recognition of the development 
professional to discern the fact that rural people are 
knowledgeable on many issues which touched their lives 
and which are recognized as the indigenous technical 
knowledge (ITK) to tap it more effectively, as a source of 
information for analysis and use by outsiders. 

In the mid of the 1990s, it became a more popular 
model of research and development in Asia, Africa and 
South America in both the GOs and NGOs sectors. It also 
became the main theme of field research for academic 
institutions and it spread internationally. Many 
international NGOs contributed to shape its present form, 
which is important for need based development activities. 
Among them, International Institute for Environment and 
Development (IIED) London, Institute of Development 
Studies (IDS) UK, World Bank, Action Aid and Win rock 
International have played significant role to promote the 
participatory research. Therefore, it is a simple method, 
with set of approaches for scientific inquiry that enable 
local people conduct their own analysis and often plan 
and take action. 
 

 

Principles of participatory research 

 

To carry out a good and practicable participatory 

research, some important performances are required by 

the practitioners, and they are briefly discussed here. 
 

A reversal of learning: To learn from rural people 

directly, on site and face-to-face, thereby gaining from 

local physical, technical and social knowledge. 

 

Learning rapidly and progressively: With conscious 

exploration, the flexible use of the methods of 
opportunism, improvisation, iteration and cross checking 

do not follow a blueprint program, but the ability to adapt 
in any learning process. 

 

Offsetting biases: Rural development is all about 

relaxing and not rushing, listening and not lecturing, 

probing instead of passing on to the next issues, being 
unimposing instead of important, and seeking out the 
deprived people and learning their concerns and 
priorities. 
 

Optimizing trade-off: Relating the cost of learning to the 
useful truth of information, with trade-off between 
quantity, relevance, accuracy and timeliness. This 
includes the principles of optimal ignorance - knowing 
what is not worth knowing, and of appropriate imprecision  
- not measuring more than needed. As Keynes is reputed 

to have said; it is better to be approximately right than to 

be precisely wrong. 
 

Triangulating: Using a range of methods, types of 

information, investigators and disciplines to cross-check. 

 
396     Afr. J.  Environ. Econ. Manage. 

 
 

 

Seeking diversity: This has been expressed in terms of 

seeking variability rather than average and has been 
described as the principle of maximum diversity or 
maximizing the diversity and richness of information. This 
can involve sampling in a non-statistical sense. It goes 
beyond the cross checking of triangulation. Defined 
broadly, it deliberately looks for notices and investigates 
contradictions, anomalies and differences. 
 
Facilitating: Rural people are allowed to facilitate 

investigation, analysis, presentation and learning by 
themselves, so that they present and own the outcomes, 
and as well learn from it. This has been expressed as 
‘handing over the stick’. This often entails an outsider 
starting a process and then sitting back or walking away, 
and not interviewing or interrupting. 
 

Self-critical awareness and responsibility: Facilitators 

continuously examine their behavior, and try to do better. 
This includes embracing error-welcoming error as an 
opportunity to learn to do better and using one’s own best 
judgment at all times, that is, accepting personal 
responsibility rather than vesting it in a manual or a rigid 
set of rules. 
 
All these principles are behavioral, since they are applied 
in practice by people doing things. Thus, the quality and 
accuracy of participatory research in environment and 
development area depend on the moral responsibility and 
technical efficiency of researchers.  

In the new millennium, it is more applicable in 
integrated conservation and development planning with 
respect to climate change adaptation and humanitarian 
issues. Thus, it requires picking up an appropriate theme 
and area of research that has in the priority of the country 
issues that suite the interdisciplinary research. However, 
funding institutions do not provide grants to such 
research in general due to the tradition of providing grant 
based on donor desires rather than local needs and 
demands. It further demands that the old concept of 
research and fund granting traditions should be modified 
to make it more applicable for use in research outputs 
into socio-economic development with due consideration 
of natural resources conservation and development 
policies of the country, which could be carried out with in-
depth investigation, critical inquiry and exact assessment 
in seeking facts through collective efforts. Conducting 
such research in an environment with natural resource 
appraisal and development, self searching methods of 
inquiry that promote the culture of self-research with 
participatory mapping and modeling of what is on ground 
are used. It also requires that trend analysis, livelihood 
analysis, analysis of difference and participatory planning 
and budgeting should be done. 

 

Innovation of participatory research 
 
Participatory research has broken new ground of research 



Mahamoudou      397 
 
 

 

and methods of rediscoveries that encourage people to 

improvise the spirit of play. Various discoveries and 

innovations of participatory research have existed since 
the last three decades, and are briefly reviewed. 
 
Villagers’ knowledge and capabilities: The first 
discovery is that villagers have a greater capacity to map, 
model, estimate, rank and score their surrounding 
resources than outsiders. Findings of the participatory 
research show that rural people have more extensive and 
detailed mental maps than urban people and that when 
given the right conditions and materials, they can express 
this visibly on ground or on paper as three dimensional 
models (that is, watersheds). Rural people have now 
noticed social details using local materials such as seeds, 
manure, vegetables; land resource, water resource, 
market and other information. It evinces that having the 
right methods and materials, villagers can show 
themselves capable of generating and analyzing 
information far beyond normal professional expectations. 
It is evident that rural people are able to use largely 
independent culture of literacy to reflect and rank the 
problems and opportunities as they perceive them, and 
express their preferences for improving their farming 
system, managing and using common property resources 
for better livelihoods and for development actions in their 
communities. 
 
Relaxed rapport: The second discovery (the relaxed 

rapport between outsiders and rural people) can be 
established early in the process, which is the key to 
facilitating participation. To measure trust and minimize 
predisposing conditions for inquiry, it promotes the culture 
of honest and accurate sharing of detailed knowledge 
and values between outsiders and villagers. 
 
Diagramming and visual sharing: The discovery is the 
power of diagramming and visual sharing information. It 
helps to transfer the world of the person interviewed into 
paper and to change the information into public goods 
from personal to unverified. With visual sharing of map, 
the model, diagram or unit can be used for ranking, 
scoring, counting, or quantification, and all who are 
present can see, point, discuss, manipulate and alter 
physical objects or representation. Triangulation takes 
place with people crosschecking and correcting each 
other. Learning becomes more progressive and 
information is visible by the public, checked, verified, 
amended, added to and owned by the participants. 
Through participatory mapping and modeling, villagers 
can draw and model their resources with location, 
deciding what to include, debate, add and modify in the 
details. In shared diagramming information, seasonal 
changes dimensions, such as rainfall, agricultural 
production, labor, income, indebtedness, food security 
and migration trends can be shown in paper or other local 
materials. In the media, villagers commend and alter the 
fact of whether they are literate or not with confidence. 

 
 
 
 

 

Sequences: The next popular discovery is the 
sequences of participatory methods like participatory 
mapping, social mapping and matrix scoring or ranking, 
which have more striking combinations and sequences 
that present new and complementary information on 
socio-cultural, natural resources and livelihood 
improvement aspects. In many areas, participatory 
resource map leads to transect planning, in which 
villagers made the map act as guides for outsiders. It 
further leads to the identification and discussion of 
problems and opportunities and then leads to listing and 
ranking options. A village social map provides up-to-date 
household information which leads to discussion, 
negotiation and reconciliation of priorities. Thus, the 
power of such sequences is four fold. First, the 
commitment of participation increases, before it further 
makes the action more likely, spontaneous and 
sustainable. Secondly, sequences triangulate and reveal 
errors of omissions in earlier presentations. Thirdly, the 
different activities interact cumulatively, and each activity 
add a dimension to the quality of details and enrich 
others, so that when taken together the whole become 
more than the sum of the parts. Fourthly, all concerned 
learn through the process, through people sharing what 
they know, through observation and through analysis. 
Therefore, participatory methods fit well with flexible 
learning process approach which is even more open-
ended and adaptable to the villagers. Thus, it enables 
them use their own categories and criteria to generate 
their own agenda, and to assess and indicate their own 
priorities. 

 

Training and reorientation for outsiders: The fifth 
innovation of participatory mapping, which is the initial 
training and orientation given to outsiders, can be 
conducted in practice in a short span of time. Face-to-
face field experience is the main thrust of participatory 
research. Hence, the principles of optimal 
unpreparedness are applied. Usually, it is best to start 
sooner; as such, it seems safe or sensible for newcomers 
not to wait, but to start, stumble, self-correct and then 
share. Through participatory methods, villagers are 
encouraged to map, participate and plan for the training 
of outsiders to facilitate changes in perceptions and 
action, listening and not lecturing, learning progressively, 
embracing error and being critically self-aware of 
participation. Thus, the reversing role is taught to villagers 
in order for them to perform village tasks. For some 
outsiders, especially those who have had a strictly formal 
professional training, this can threaten trauma. They 
deserve sympathetic understanding, and no significant 
change may take place. For some though, a new range of 
possibilities and sense of freedom to experiment and 
innovation opens up. Thus, there is no need for the 
villagers to be trained in all methods. The methods can 
be tried, improvised and adopted subsequently, and new 
ones can be invented. 



 
 
 

 

Sharing and spread: The last and most important 
discovery is sharing the culture and spread of 
technologies through participatory research. Participatory 
research is recognized now to have three foundations: 
methods, behavior and attitudes, and sharing. Previously, 
methods appeared to be the most important than 
behavior and attitudes of the outsiders, but now sharing is 
the most important for spreading of experience and 
mutual learning. To share and exchange methods and 
experience, interchanges of staff are efficient; as such, 
staff of one organization spending time with staff of other 
organizations can enhance the creativity and 
inventiveness of villagers to come into play. In such ways, 
innovations can be continuously stimulated. Thus, all 
forms of sharing-trainings, trainers, ideas, experiences, 
methods and innovations take place. 
 

 

Practical application of participatory research 

 

Participatory research methods, approaches and 
techniques have been widely used for appraisal, analysis 
and research in many subject areas such as agro 
ecosystems, natural resources, environment, technology 
and innovation, health and nutrition, family system 
research and extension, pastoralism marketing, disaster 
risk reduction, organizational assessment, socio-cultural 
and economic conditions. Participatory appraisal and 
planning, participatory implementation, monitoring and 
evaluation, and training and orientation for outsiders and 
villagers are the major processes that have been used in 
development and resource management areas. However, 
most of the application of the participatory research can 
be listed out in four categories. 
 
Natural resources management: Participatory research 

is more popular and it uses widely acceptable techniques 
for watershed planning and management including: rapid 
catchment assessment, soil and water conservation, 
degraded forest assessment, nurseries and planting, 
identification of trees’ uses, rural energy assessment, 
green enterprise development, wildlife reservation, and 
village resource management plans. 

 

Agriculture: The next application is farmer participatory 

farming system research done by farmers in addressing 

crop farming, livestock farming, irrigation system, and 

market network for their products. 
 

Equity and inclusive development: Another application 
focuses on a research on policy level to sustain the 
growth momentum in order to ensure inclusive 
development, where benefits of economic development 
are to percolate to the poor and under privileged with an 
objective to boot economic growth along with augmenting 
employment opportunities, alleviating poverty and 
ensuring regional equity and prosperity. 

 
398     Afr. J.  Environ. Econ. Manage. 

 
 

 

Health and nutrition: Health and nutrition monitoring is 

the fourth important application of participatory research 
which focuses on reproductive health, disease problem 
ranking, healthcare providers and costs, planning health 

projects, food security, nutrition assessment and 
monitoring, and water and sanitation assessment, 
planning and location. 
 
All these applications are positive evidences that are 
scaled and used by various organizations and individuals, 
who have been engaged in training and appraisal, to 
respond to demand and their own sense of priorities and 
experiences. The use of monitoring and evaluation was 
found to be limited and academic researchers have been 
slow to recognize what was happening in practical 
application of participatory research. These methods 
have usually proved more reliable in information flow 
arguments and discussions taking place among the 
villagers, outsiders and between both villagers and 
outsiders. However, the success and failure much 
depend on the behaviors and attitudes of the outsiders 
whether or not they have the time, patience and will to get 
closer to reality. Any way, reversals of modes like from 
closed to open, from verbal to visual, from counting to 
comparing, and reversals of dominance as from 
extracting to empowering, reserve to rapport and from 
tedium to fun are some important changes in the 
research that was brought out by participatory research. 
In Nepal and other developing countries, like India and 
the middle east countries, it proved more useful to carry 
out the research and development activities for 
conservation of environmental and natural resources and 
livelihood improvement of rural communities. Besides 
these, policy research and change, personal behavior, 
attitudes and learning, farming system research, quality 
assurance, inclusive growth and empowerment, and 
substituting for survey are potential fields to participatory 
research in Nepal for achieving flexibility by empowering 
people, learning to love change, becoming obsessed with 
listening, deferring to the front line, and building system 
for a world turned upside down. Therefore, we have 
challenged the locals to further develop and disseminate 
approaches and methods to promote their own analysis 
and make their own needs and priorities known to 
scientists. 

 

Usage of participatory methods in Karnali watershed 

area 
 
Since 1990s, participatory approaches and methods of 
research and development have been widely used in 
many parts of the country. Particularly, this has been 
done in rural resources development and management 
practices through community based organizations and 
users’ groups at community level, and it has become 
more popular in the world as the model of participatory 
development, such as community forestry and water 



Mahamoudou      399 
 
 

 
Table 1. Perceived challenges for ensuring people’s participation.  
 
 

Challenges 
Key informants 

 

 

No. % 
 

  
 

 Lack of ownership feeling 12 19.57 
 

 Low level of public awareness 9 14.28 
 

 Unclear policy 7 11.11 
 

 Growing unemployment 9 14.28 
 

 Lack of technical assistance 7 11.11 
 

 Lack of social mobilization 7 11.11 
 

 Lack of need basis plan 11 17.46 
 

 Total 63 100 
 

 
Source: Field Survey (2010). 
 
 

 

resource management through users’ groups. Many 
gainful evidences indicate that rural communities have 
benefited from using participatory methods to 
development for improving their farming system, 
conserving their available resources and preparing their 
own plan based on their own choices. However, it has 
little effects in Karnali watershed area. There are many 
reasons behind this which are discussed here with 
resolutions in brief. 
 

 

Low level of people’s participation 
 

The Onward Fifth Five Year Plan (1975 to 1980) was 
initiated with the central objective of institutionalization of 
people’s initiative in all development plans. The 
Decentralization Act of 1982 was enacted in the mid 
1980s. However, in practice, particularly, in the Karnali 
watershed area, it is often seen that both the government 
and non- governmental organizations, involved in the 
local resource development, did not promote people’s 
participation, rather the local people were kept away from 
taking active part in development. In the most cases, 
local people had not been given the choice to take 
decision for their development. Even though the financial 
authority was kept by the Central Government, the role of 
government was still found as the body in-charge of 
development and welfare of the local people. Further, 
there is growing number of middlemen who have bred 
corruption and mismanagement of available resources. 
Thus, only a small number of elite people are the 
beneficiaries of the development activities. The local 
people (real beneficiaries) are always kept far from the 
mainstream of development. It is evinced that the 
drawbacks of top-down development approach have 
largely been attributed to promote the people’s 
participation in local level development. Sundaram (1997) 
has nicely noted that the government mechanism in 
Asian countries, like Nepal and India, hardly want to 
enhance the people’s participation in the real term. It may 
be seen from Table 1 that the unclear government policy 

 
 
 
 

 

towards the participatory development, owing to the lack 
of strong sense of ownership feeling of local people on 
the ongoing development programs, was observed as the 
main challenges for increasing people’s participation in 
the area. The skewed distribution of resources has also 
been hampering people’s participation and the major bulk 
of resources are to be occupied by a small number of 
elites. About 11% of key informants have noticed the lack 
of appropriate social mobilization policies where people 
are educated, organized, motivated and enabled to 
undertake social enquiry and analysis for understanding 
their life situation and taking decisions and actions to 
change it for their well-being. As a result, 14% of the key 
informants further noted the dominant role of resource 
rich family on community-based organizations, which is 
further responsible for mass unemployment, and low level 
of local participation. Moreover, people’s involvement has 
been considered to volunteer a form in the 
implementation stage of local development in the region. 
Thus, it is the Central government authority that takes 
almost all development decisions. Consequently, the 
local needs have not been taken seriously at the time of 
programming. All these make the people to be less willing 
to participate in development activities in Karnali 
watershed area. Among the various issues, the most 
remarkable was observed to be technological drawbacks. 
The present use of technology for local resource 
mobilization is not appropriate and adequate. The level of 
participation has also been observed to vary among the 
ethnic groups based on resource base and priorities. 
Therefore, an appropriate need-based and time specific 
strategic intervention in various stages is of utmost 
importance for the mobilization of local resources. On the 
whole, the imposition development from the top level 
without due consultancy from the village level failed to 
activate people’s participation in local resource 
mobilization. So, there is a need to look at the opinion 
and idea of the local people in utilizing the local resources 
effectively at the local level. It shows that people’s 
participation is found as the most effective social 
measure for empowerment of local communities and the 
only way by which backwardness of the area can be 
eradicated (Pokhrel, 2004). It further permits to note that 
genuine public participation of people at the centre of 
development is the hallmark of eco-development. This is 
so, because it is an endogenous development process in 
which local people themselves assume the responsibility 
to manage their resources, define their needs, goals and 
aspiration, and to make decision affecting their well being 
and sustainable development. People’s participation is 
the process by which the rural poor would be able to 
identify their needs, share in design, implementation and 
evaluation of the participatory action for resource 
development (FAO, 1990). Some important activities that 
have been conducted by local communities for the 
conservation and management of natural and livelihood 
resources in Karnali watershed area are presented in the  
following photographs (Figures 1, 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d). 



400     Afr. J.  Environ. Econ. Manage.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Figure 2a. Briefing of project activities with authors at the field 

office of the Local NGO. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2d. Discussion with beneficiary women of organic farming. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Figure 2b. Meeting with beneficiary farmers of Jumla.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Figure 2c. Discussion with INRM user groups in Surkhet valley. 
 

 

Under such circumstances, the collective efforts of locals 

become self -organizing and self-sustaining in unleashing 

the potential of the local community and in meeting their 

 
 

inner urges and preferences with regard to development 
through self-reliance. The gravity of such development is 
to be self -generated, self- organized and self-sustained 
at the local level (Gultung, 1980; Charles, 1987; Bajpai, 
1998). Thus, the insight development of the locals is most 
important. In doing so, there is an immediate need of 
resource knowledge to the local people which is further 
possible through people’s resource right (Joshi, 2002). Of 
course, to ensure people’s involvement in eco-
development activities of the concerned communities, 
they must have a sense of belonging to the local and 
natural resources that is the main process of gaining 
power by real actors. Therefore, efforts are needed to 
promote the capabilities of local and indigenous 
institutions for making their functions more productive. 
This is possible only by strengthening such community 
institutions through providing sufficient autonomy as part 
of the organization involved in resource development. So, 
if local communities are to become principal actors in 
promoting their social well-being, they must be able to 
give vision and focus to their endeavors. It is indicative 
that devolution of power from the top to bottom (that is, 
grassroots) for capacity building with generation, 
application and diffusion of knowledge through a unified 
approach social change at the grassroots level could be 
achieved, and the resource poor could participate directly 
in efforts to improve their own well being. Furthermore, 
their participation must be substantive and creative in 
order to enhance the development of material resources 
and technologies with regard to serving and matching its 
real needs. It is clear that eco- development can only 
change the potential beneficiaries into functional groups. 
Thus, government authority should be given a priority for 
ushering in people’s involvement. Moreover, it needs to 
be a strong support of finance, policy and technical inputs 
from the government to local institutions for enabling their 
capacity with regard to resource mobilization. Most 
importantly, government authorities need to establish 
broad eco-technological strategies in partnership with key 
stakeholders. Evidences suggest that in the national 



Mahamoudou      401 
 
 
 

 
Table 2. Need of people’s participation for eco-development.  

 
 

Perceived needs 
Key informants  

 

 

No. % 
 

 

   
 

 Need basis/Bottom up planning 19 30.15  
 

 Ownership feeling 10 15.87  
 

 Coordination between outsider and insiders 6 9.52  
 

 Verification of implementing program 5 7.93  
 

 Development of indigenous knowledge 6 9.52  
 

 Organized/Collective Efforts 8 12.60  
 

 Institutionalization 9 14.28  
 

 Total 63 100  
  

Source: Field Survey (2010). 
 
 
 
 

level, local resources user groups and self-managed 
enterprises are emerging and functioning successfully. It 
proves that such grassroots organizations have great 
potential in those regions like the Karnali watershed area 
where environmental, as well as development challenges 
are immense. For this purpose, local people (that is, 
primary beneficiaries) need to form their own organization 
different from that of the primary local unit for mobilizing 
resources to acquire ownership of resource utilization and 
management overtime and assume full responsibility on 
decision making and implementation of community based 
resource development activities (Bavuskar, 1999; Sethi, 
2003; World Bank, 2003). To achieve this, first, efforts 
need to be made to access the attitudes, behaviors and 
priorities of the locals with deep understanding of the 
group dynamics and heterogeneous characters of the 
society. Secondly, steps should be taken to identify and 
support formal and informal groups and institution. So, 
special attention must be given to explore the resource 
and resource rights. It is necessary thus to ensure eco-
education of people to make them able to understand 
their needs and problems. Thirdly, investment has to be 
made in institutional capacity development which will 
further enhance the internal capabilities of local units. 
Such institutions should be considered as the form of 
public services. Therefore, local authorities must be 
strengthened to secure common benefits through 
accepting mutual obligation on resource mobilization. It 
shows that people’s involvement in resource 
development is necessarily desirable for a need base 
bottom-up planning, strong feeling of ownership on local 
resources, development of indigenous technology and 
promotion of collective action of the grass- roots people in 
the region. It can further be noted that coordination 
among and between the line agencies who are involved 
in community based resource development, correction 
and verification of their implementation procedures, and 
institutionalization of such community based organization 
are also possible at the micro level by 

 
 
 
 
 

adopting eco-development strategy (Table 2). 
Thus, people’s participation is essential to replace a 

relationship based on dominance and competition with 
that based on reciprocity and collaboration, and to 
promote solidarity and unity of purpose among all 
members of the community. However, several challenges 
are ahead in ensuring people’s participation in the study 
region. In most cases, the mechanisms involved for this 
purpose have failed to reach the grassroots level. The 
possible reasons might be over dependence on foreign 
aid and central controlled programs. Therefore, need 
base and resource base planning with right advocacy skill 
development and technical dissemination should be 
emphasized on government policy. At the moment, local 
efforts should be institutionalized to empower themselves 
with regard to income generation, social change, 
environment management and ecological balance of 
community life in the region. Emphasis should also be 
given to human resource development in order to 
promote the indigenous resource management system. 
Such indigenous systems have significant role on 
conservation of forest and other natural resources. For 
example, community forest user groups have proved 
themselves to be more responsible and reliable than the 
government officials. So, the participation of user groups 
and others who have rights in decision-making process 
about utilization and conservation of local and natural 
resources is what is needed now with respect to the 
region’s sustainable development. Therefore, cultural, 
social and ecological dimensions should be prioritized in 
the implication process of integrated eco-development 
strategies in Karnali watershed area, because the gravity 
of cultural values, social norms and people’s perception is 
much more on the control mechanism that acts for 
resource utilization and management. In short, the 
current emphasis should be on policies for strengthening 
indigenous resource management systems and 
institutionalizing such systems in order to succeed in the 
integrated eco-development model at the village level. 



 
 
 

 

ECO-DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES 

 

It is true that in Karnali region, the traditional farming 
system might have some little effect on ecological 
stability, so long as the population of man and his animals 
do not exceed the carrying capacity of the environment, 
but when they do, there has been consequent pressure 
on land, less suitable for farming, depletion of forest 
resources, erosion, and environmental destruction 
particularly of the marginal and sensitive areas. Lack of 
ecological consideration in development activities has 
also been intensified by environmental assaults and the 
life support systems have undergone diminishment. Thus, 
there is need to modify current land use policies that can 
make the region available for ecologically sound and 
sustainable agro-farming with man-environment kinship 
needs to be restored in order to link the socio-economic 
interests of the local people with the sustainable 
management of natural resources for environmental 
stability and ecological security. Therefore, shift in 
priorities, change in implementation methods, 
modification in the planning process, and examination in 
resource allocation patterns are needed for maximizing 
the economic returns of development without ecological 
destruction. Due to the wide range of topography, climatic 
elements, soil characteristics, and socio-economic 
condition, the Karnali watershed area presents very 
special ecological features having more than 75% of 
terrain rugged and steep, and the unit cost of 
infrastructure development is high, while returns are 
relatively low. The ever growing human demands, faulty 
method of cultivation, and development patterns have 
brought considerable damage to fragile eco-systems in 
the area. In this regard, an integrated approach of 
development and conservation by involving local people 
in all processes and steppes could be effective to 
promote the quality of life of the people in the area, 
because eco-development refers to sustainable 
development in which all development activities are 
performed in such a way that regional ecological balance 
can be maintained. Practically, environmental planning is 
done for regional (Meso) and rural (Micro) level 
development with a rational use of the resources and 
application of technological styles (Bhati, 1985; Guleria, 
1987; Peet, 1989). Through the principal objectives of the 
development strategies, protection of the available 
resources, regeneration of resources and development of 
human knowledge could enhance the quality of 
environment and the economy of the area. Furthermore, 
through social development with respect to maximizing 
the productivity of both the natural and human resources, 
and through preventive planning and development policy, 
many adverse ecological consequences could be avoided 
and the interest of the local people to environment 
management could be enhanced. Finally, people will feel 
comfortable with their environment and process of 
development. Therefore, such development 

 
402     Afr. J.  Environ. Econ. Manage. 

 
 

 

approach would make people adopt the integrated 
conservation and development in which people can 
decide their real goals and objectives for the proper 
utilization of local and natural resources. At present, it is 
shaping into people’s movement, and the active people’s 
participation is envisaged from the grassroots rather than 
from the remote control exercised by the corporate 
executives. Consequently, a fair hope that people can 
decide what their priorities of work are for conservation 
and development is expected. Thus, it is necessary to 
give top priority to the livelihood of the locals for 
designing such development strategies. This can be 
achieved through social planning norms that promote an 
organized collective effort of local people at the 
community level. All these are possible on a resource-
base planning unit which may be a watershed unit, be it 
macro or micro, but more than the political boundary. It 
also enables the integration of environment management 
and socio-economic development by adopting watershed 
management approach at the village level. It shows that 
the holistic vision of the proposed development strategy 
is essential for the integration of the environment into 
development practice with regards to rational utilization of 
local resources and minimization of the environmental 
hazards. 
 

 

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 

 

It is clear that the plans of the administrative units and 
central government failed to address the real needs of the 
area and the utilization of regional resources in Karnali 
watershed area. This is mainly due to top- down planning 
for local development and less interest of local people 
towards the government launched program. Further 
selection of the planning unit which is based on political 
boundary is also the factor responsible for ignoring the 
ecological bases of development. Thus, a socially 
desirable, economically viable and ecologically sound 
development approach is required to promote 
harmonious relationship between development and 
ecology. It is possible, to adopt only the watershed 
management strategy that prove to be an appropriate 
development path for the area. Pokhrel (2009) has noted 
that watershed management strategy should be the core 
for development activities, and there is need to popularize 
it in Himalayan region. Some other case studies have 
also shown that the integrated watershed development 
approach is more practicable and it evolves a compact 
technical, economical, ecological and geographical unit of 
planning for resource utilization and conservation (GOI, 
1988; Grewel et al., 2001; Narayan, 1993). Thus, in 
Karnali watershed area, watershed management 
approach could play a significant role in increasing the 
productivity of the total resources. Watershed is a very 
appropriate spatial unit for examining the physical 
aspects of Karnali and its tributary rivers with 



Mahamoudou      403 
 
 

 
Table 3. Number and area of watersheds.  

 
 Catchment  Watersheds Sub watersheds Micro watersheds 

 

Basins 
 

Area (km
2
) per 

    
 

area (km
2
) No. No. Area (km

2
) No. Area (km

2
) 

 

   watershed     
 

Karnali 42,890 7 6,127 15 2,859 90 476.55 
 

Babai 3,270 2 1,635 6 545 27 121.11 
 

Rapti 6,500 5 1,300 10 1,083 42 240.71 
 

Total 43,260 14 3,090 31 1,395 159 272 
  

Source: Sharma (1977); Field Survey (2010). 
 

 

their size, which may vary from small to some large 
catchment areas. So, watershed is a logical planning unit 
for evaluating the biophysical linkages of upstream and 
downstream activities of the basin. It is only the sixth five-
year plan introduced as an integrated development 
approach in Nepal as the synonymous of soil and water 
conservation, but the failure of large scale development 
programs and the realization of the importance of interlink 
ages between resource productivity and sustained 
increase in rural income have led to the shift in watershed 
management approach with the prime focus of integrating 
environment and development in regional level. In 
operational level, it made efforts to bring all concerned 
institutions into single window system through 
interdisciplinary approach. Recently, it is more anthropo-
eco-centric and community based rather than technology 
based, thereby leading empowerment and self-reliance of 
the primary stakeholders as an entry point for outsiders to 
understand local environment, and for making 
development plan in a comprehensive way. However, 
evidences show that macro watershed management 
programs in Nepal have some remarkable failures, in that 
many watersheds are still being degraded. Particularly, in 
the Karnali watershed area, large scale programs have 
rarely been successful in conservation and utilization of 
local and natural resources with people’s participation. 
The degraded watersheds are further worsening due to 
over intervention of outside technical teams (Shah, 2000). 
Thus, social mobilization is needed to enhance the 
success of watershed development approach for the 
strong feeling of belongingness of local people towards 
the ongoing development and conservation programs. 
This is possible only by adopting micro-watershed 
development approach that can provide an appropriate 
path way for eco-development. Further, it would also be 
helpful in devising location specific solutions that may 
emerge by resolving activities that are conflicting (Head 
reach-tail end beneficiaries), and build-on complementary 
activities (forestation and soil conservation in hill and 
mountain regions enables better productivity in the Tarai 
region). Thus, emphasis should be shifted from large to 
small watershed areas in which both management of 
environment and socio-economic development can be 
integrated (Agarwal, 2003). Therefore, an effort is made 
here to delineate estimated watersheds, sub watersheds, 

 
 

 

and micro watersheds in the region. Based on the 
drainage pattern, transport network, population statistics 
and relief features, the whole Karnali-West Rapti basin  

(43,260 km
2
) was divided into four hierarchical orders: 

resource regions, macro watersheds, sub watersheds 
and micro watershed. So, 14 macro watersheds, 31 sub 
watersheds and 159 micro watersheds were identified as 
the unit of eco-development planning in the area (Table 
3). These micro watershed units can further be sub-
divided into small and mini watershed units varying in 

size (50 km
2
) for different land use purposes. Therefore, 

it is the micro watershed development strategy that could 
solve the problem of the five ‘es’: employment, economy, 
ecology, expert and equity, and would then be ushered in 
eco-development with a sharp focus on resource 
conservation and poverty alleviation in the region. 
Furthermore, the institutional and technical co-ordination 
amongst the involved agencies would also be 
strengthened in the region (Figure 3).  

As the concept of integrated eco-development refers to 
sustainable resource development, it requires local 
initiations for integrating the environmental issues into 
socio-economic development. This development 
approach can make a substantial contribution to resource 
management at the micro level incorporating biophysical, 
technological, social, political and other variables which 
account for resource utilization and conservation. Further, 
such type of development approach maps the complex 
connection, direct-indirect effects, feedback loops, and 
reciprocal relations and effects of environmental and 
human resources to each other. Experiences have shown 
that local institutions in essence, community resource 
user groups are so effective in conservation and 
development of natural resources at regional and national 
levels in the country. Even in many parts of the Karnali 
watershed area, especially in the hills, such user groups 
have also exhibited extra-talents in forest resource 
protection, utilization and management. Thus, it is 
strongly felt that a micro level resource utilization and 
conservation model is necessary in the precise and 
synthetic form that would increase the productivity of 
environmental resources in a sustainable manner. Such 
grassroots model can as an aspect of bottom-up strategy 
call for mass action at the micro level (that is, village 
level). So, the kingpin of the natural resource 



404     Afr. J.  Environ. Econ. Manage.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 3. Watershed Management in Karnali watershed Area. 
 
 
 

development strategy of Karnali watershed area is self-
reliance on resource mobilization by using indigenous 
knowledge and experiences. Thus, the right mix of 
traditional knowledge would be a winning combination of 
resource development. The central thrust of participatory 
development has to integrate development and 
conservation, government authorities and local 
beneficiaries, and coordination of the involved institutions 
between the decision making and implementation level 
and that of the micro watershed level. Further, such 
adaptive model of resource management focuses on 
environmental feedback to shape policy. Thus, the model 
explicitly considers social learning and institutional 
development. Under such provision, large numbers of 
community based organizations would have evolved out 
of the region, and would be able to develop locally 
suitable technology, appropriate policy feedback and 
strategic clarity for resource development and 
conservation. Better information system, participatory 
monitoring and systematic implementation of resource 
mobilization will also evolve through local initiations. 
Finally, a specific technique would be modeled against 
the top-down tendencies for resource based regional 
development planning in Karnali watershed area and in 
Nepal in general. For this purpose, it is necessary to 

 
 
 
 
build-up local capacity for the total reforms of institutions 
in order to change the environmental policies in different 

orders. The principal concepts and components of this 

grassroots development model are: 
 

(i) Formulating policy, strategy and programming the 
project based on the resource knowledge of the local 
people and an application of a suitable technology. Thus, 
it has to have a local base including people, traditions 
and indigenous institutions.  
(ii) Implementation of resource development activities 
through people’s involvement to strengthen local 
organizations and to bring about positive change in the 
local environment.  
(iii) Participatory monitoring system with a view to avoid 

previous drawbacks of resource development planning at 

the micro level. 
 

Thus, such innovative model can eventually lead to a 
district, as well as village level conservation and 
development plans. Further, such model could 
successively imply that the local organizations have to 
control the local and natural resources, adopt a 
sustainable pattern of development and avail appropriate 
technologies in subsequently distributing local resources 



Mahamoudou      405 
 
 

 

amongst beneficiaries on an equitable basis. Therefore, 
government authorities need to develop suitable 
methodology and guideline in order to ensure people’s 
participation and facilitate local organizations for the 
process of institutionalization in the proper way. Similarly, 
to provide some financial support in the form of seed 
money is also needed. To build up local capabilities by 
imparting training and techniques at the local level is also 
essential from the government side. Hence, it should be 
emphasized that the catalytic role of government is to 
galvanize the people to initiate resource development 
actions according to their priorities at self reliance. In this 
regard, district development committee (DDC) and village 
development committee (VDC) as the authority of 
government need to make a framework, in which this 
model may function and evolve. To achieve this, there is 
need to modify outside intervention for the dynamics of 
local institutions. Actors, like non-government 
organizations, should collaborate with resource owned 
communities to develop the integrated micro level model, 
and explore and exhibit relevant alternatives that would 
stimulate the development of new resource management 
institutions (Saravanan, 2001). 
 

 

CONCLUSION 

 

It is evident that such participatory resource-based 
research and development model enables both the local 
people and collaborating authorities to learn about each 
other (their goals, knowledge and techniques) and finally 
make development efforts that are socially desirable and 
ecologically suitable. All these imply far-reaching changes 
and cooperation among and between the beneficiaries 
with respect to up-grading of skills and adaptation of new 
technologies for community based resource utilization 
and management in Karnali watershed area. 
 
 

 
REFERENCES 
 
Agarwal SK (2003). Integrated Watershed Development: Technology 

based Model for Rural Development, Kurukshetra. 51(12): 49-57.  
Bajpai PK (1998). People’s Participation in Development: A Critical 

Analysis, in S.P. Srivastava (ed).The Development Debate: Critical 
Perspectives. Rawat Publishers, Jaipur. 

Baviskar A (1999). Participating in eco-development: The case of the 
Great Himalayan National Park. In Jeffery R, Sundar N (eds.). A New 
Moral Economy for India’s Forests? Discourses of Community 
Participation, Sage Publication, New Delhi.  

Bhati JP, Swarup R (1985). Why Eco-development Planning Fails in the 
Himalayas: Some Problems and Policy Issues. In Singh TV, Kaur J 
(ed.) Integrated Mountain Development, Himalayan Books, New 
Delhi.  

Chambers R (1995). Rural Appraisal: Rapid Relaxed and Participatory. 
In Amitava M (eds.) Participatory Rural Appraisal Methods and 
Applications in Rural Planning, Vikash Publishing House, New Delhi. 

Chambers R (1989). Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural 

Research, Intermediate Technology Publications, London. 

 
 
 
 

 
Charles KJ (1997). What is Development? In George KK, Nair VS Jacob 

J (eds). Economics, Development and the Quest for Alternatives. 
Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi. 

FAO (1990) Farming Systems Development, Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 

Gultung J (1980). Self-Reliance – A Strategy for Development, Bogle 
Liovertune Publications, London.  

GOI (1988). Integrated Watershed Development Project (Hills): An 
Analytical Overview and Future Strategies.National Workshop on 
Watershed Approach to Rain fed Farming: Strategies for Integrated 
Watershed Development for Hill Regions, Rain fed Farming System, 
Government of India, Vigyan Bhawan, N Delhi.  

Grewel AS, Jai TC (2001). Poverty Alleviation and Resource 
Conservation through Integrated Watershed Management in a Fragile 
Foot-Hill Ecosystem. In Stott DE,. Mohtar RH, Steinhardit GC (eds) 
Sustaining the Global Farm. USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion 
Research Laboratory, Purdue.  

Guleria AS (1987). A Strategy for Eco-Development in Himalayan 
Region: Watershed Approach in Pangtey YPS (ed) Western 
Himalaya: Environment, Problems and Development, Gyanodaya 
Prakashan, Nainital.  

Joshi AP (2002). Resource Rights – Community Domain, Kurukshetra, 
50(7): 12-14.  

Narayan VD (1993). Watershed Management: Concept and Framework 
in Soil and Water Conservation Research, Indian Council of 
Agricultural Research, New Delhi. 

Peet R (1989). New Models of Environment and Resources. In Peet R, 
Thrift N (ed) New Models in Geography, Unwin Hyman Ltd., London. 

Pokhrel KP (2009b). Climate Change Adaptation: Strategy for 
Ecological Restoration and Livelihood Security, VOICE, 1(1): 5-12.  

Pokhrel KP (2004). Local Efforts on Resource Conservation and Eco-
development: A Case Study of Mid Western Development Region 
Nepal, Unpublished. Ph.D. Thesis, BHU, India. 

Pokhrel KP (2009a). Environment and Development Practice in Nepal: 
A Geographical Analysis, EDRC, Banke, Nepalgunj. 

Rhoades RE (1990). The Coming Revolution in Methods for Rural 
Development Research, Users’ Perspective Network (UPWARD), 
International Potato Centre (CIP), Manila. 

Saravanan VS (2001). Institutionalizing Community Based Watershed 
Management in India: Institutional Elements for Sustainability 
National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER), New 
Delhi.  

Sethi S (2003). Stakeholders’ Participation in Local Level Planning and 
Development, Kurushetra, 53(3): 26-30.  

Shah P (2000). Participatory Watershed Management in India: The 
experience of the Aga Khan Rural Support Program. In Ian S, John T 
(ed.) Beyond Farmer First-Rural People’s Knowledge, Agricultural 
Research and Extension Practice, Intermediate Technology 
Publications Ltd., London.  

Sundaram KV (1997). Development from Within: Rethinking on an 
Alternative Development Path, in George KK, Nair VS, Jacob J (ed.) 
Economics Development and the Quest for Alternatives, Concept 
Publishing Company, New Delhi.  

World Bank (2003). World Development Report, Sustainable 

Development in a Dynamic World, Transforming Institutions, Growth, 

and Quality of Life, The World Bank and Oxford University Press, 
New York. 



 


