Importance of social-ecological system in biodiversity conservation: a reflection from

disappearing sacred natural sites of Nepal

Parbakhar Poudel

Abstract:

Today, loss of biodiversity through disappearing sacred natural sites has become a global

concern. Despite of high socio-cultural, religious and ecological significance, sacred natural

sites have been facing a huge human pressure even raising the question on their future

existence. The different causes for the loss of these traditionally managed sacred natural sites

in Nepal are analyzed and possible approach to overcome this problem is discussed here. The

traditional/indigenous and local knowledge is very dynamic and reflects societal and

ecosystem changes in values, beliefs and biophysical factors. People’s attitudes towards

conservation and action have been changed with these changes. People’s faith on aboriginal

taboos based on religious, social, cultural and spiritual faith is being lost and the ‘social fence’

of traditional conservation practices is weakening in Nepal. The complicated resource

structure, and different ownerships and management pattern of sacred natural sites made it

more vulnerable to risk by these changing conservation attitudes of custodians. The

incompatibility of two conservation attitudes, traditional which is based on socio-cultural,

religious and spiritual belief and scientific approach based on ecological value, are identified

as the main cause for disappearing sacred natural sites including some other reasons.

Integration of these two conservation approaches in social ecological system is recommended

as best governance approaches to revive these disappearing sacred natural sites.

Key words: sacred natural sites, common, threat, social fence, social-ecological system

Background

Biodiversity contributes many aspects of human well-being. Human action often leads to

irreversible loses in term of diversity of life on earth (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,

2005). Rapid change in large-scale human and biophysical process is leading people’s action

to over exploitation of limited natural resources. It has been creating a serious problem on

ecological, economic, ethical and aesthetic importance of biodiversity.

Most of the world´s biodiversity is not in protected areas but on lands used by people (Berke,

2009).Therefore, biodiversity conservation requires an understanding of social systems and

Page 1 of 13

their interactions with ecological systems. People have been maintaining and protecting some

area as untouched on different conservation structures and management strategy. These

protected areas neither contain any written conservation rule nor any formal governing

structure. However, they are harboring the valuable flora and fauna. Human domination on

nature and command over its structure and function of ecosystems (Vitousek et al. 1997) often

is overwhelming their capacity to provide ecosystem services critical to our survival (Kremen,

2005). The traditional/indigenous and local knowledge is very dynamic and reflects societal

and ecosystem changes in values, beliefs and biophysical factors. Through their philosophy,

actions and influence, faiths can have a major impact on the way people view the protection

of nature. People’s activities in a changed context reshaped their conservation belief on

traditionally managed sites. This has put a critical threat on those conservation areas which

are being managed under a ‘social fence’ of religious, cultural and spiritual faith. The

unwritten socio-cultural taboos are being violated and the social fence is weakening. As a

result, thousand of such sites are already destroyed and the existing one has also been facing

the big pressure. This is more critical in case of sacred natural sites (SNSs) due to their

complicated resource structures and different management and ownership patterns.

This discussion paper has tried to find various cause and consequences of disappearing natural

sacred sites in Nepal. This discussion paper is an output of desk study solely based on

secondary literatures.

1. Introduction

1.1 Sacred Natural Sites

Sacred natural sites (SNSs) are areas of land or water having special spiritual significance to

people and communities (Cited Wild and McLeod, 2008). These SNSs can be the abode of

deities, nature spirit and ancestors, burial land, or associated with the spiritual leaders (Wild

and McLeod, 2008; Avasthe et al 2006), often known as fetish groves (Dorm-Adzobu,

Ampadu-agyei & Veit 1991). These are remarkable places which link nature and culture,

often determine local/regional/national cultural identity (Schaaf, 2007).

Nepal is a multicultural and multi religious country with more than 100 ethnic groups

including 59 indigenous groups and 6 mainstream faiths (CBS, 2002) out of 11 larger faiths in

the world (Wild and McLeod, 2008). They all have their own way of respecting the nature.

Page 2 of 13

People from all ethnic identities have strong faith on god and they worship the nature.

According to Hindu mythology there are 330 millions gods and goddess each of them relates

with certain flora and fauna. Conservation and caring of habitat of these flora and fauna

perhaps evolved as sacred groves. Worshiping of sacred groves and trees; water body and

animals as ‘presiding deity’ (Avasthe et al 2006) is a representative example of how Hindu

respect the nature. Often, they are considered to be the residence of a local deity, or contain an

object or body of water that houses the deity. Due to the spiritual values attributed to these

sites, restriction on access and use often apply (ibid).

1.2 Ecological Importance of Sacred Sites

Sacred sites not only possess cultural, social, religious and spiritual values but they also

provide various ecosystem services; for instance serving as an important natural gene pool

preserving the habitat for the local flora and fauna (Gadgil and Vartak, 1975, 76; Mgumia

and Oba 2003; Bhagawat et al 2005a; Bhagwat and Rutte, 2006; Bhattarai and Baral, 2008).

They provide safe breeding places for many bird species (Basnet et al 2006). They can also

act as refuges for many commercially threatened species. That is why sacred natural groves

are often given different names like ‘near-natural ecosystem’, ‘natural gene pool’, refuge for

rare and endangered species’ mirroring its high ecological value.

Protection of SNSs can be an effective means of biodiversity conservation, as it is embedded

local culture and belief system (Schaaf, 2007). History shows that biodiversity rich areas such

as scenic valleys and religious complexes were created in prehistoric times dating back to

times unknown to humankind (cited in MOFSC, 2008), Western Ghats of India, one

biodiversity hot spot in the world is typical example of culture based conservation initiative

(Gadgil, & Vartak, 1976).

There are some well preserved forests in the name of ‘holy shrine’ in Nepal as well. They are

being governed by traditional institutions under religious forest category of Forest Act 1993.

Many sacred natural sites are located in community forest areas which are being managed by

forestry user groups under the community forestry rules and regulation. There are 40 religious

forests in Kathmandu alone (NBAP, 2001). Acharya K. P. (2003) has listed 80 plant species

used in socio-cultural festivals. The preservation of particular places as sacred natural sites is

Page 3 of 13

initiated through the conservation of these particular sacred animal and plant species having

special religious and cultural significance (MOFSC, 2008).

1.3 Governance system

SNSs are being conserved under informal traditional institutions where socio-cultural and

religious taboos are working as ‘social fence’ so far (Basnet et al 2006). Custodians1 (mostly,

religious leader, community head and shamans) are taking the managerial role though in most

of the cases they are not legally and formally recognized by official conservation authority.

Most of sacred sites are common pool resources. Land tenure ship poses by government

except few SNSs. SNSs having high pilgrimage value belong to custodial institution. They

govern the resources based on their institutional (mostly traditional and religious) rules and

regulations. The access restriction to sacred sites under strong religious and cultural taboos;

and divine threat of ‘residing shrine’ of these holy sites has protected from illegal resource

extraction and area encroachment. There are different types of traditional voluntary local self-

governance specific to certain caste and ethnic groups. Syangtan (Posang),Veja (Magar),

Kipat ( Limbu, Rai), Mirchang (Marphali), Guthi (Newar), Choho (Tamang), Ttho (Gurung)

are some noteworthy traditional local-selfgovernace volunatary organization related to

specific indigenous group(Cited in Bhattachan,2008). All of these systems are marginalized

and almost in the state of extinction (ibid).

2. Threats and Consequences

Anthropogenic impact is the primary cause to threat though natural calamities are also

responsible for physical destruction of some SNSs. People’s way to view for protection of

nature is changed with changed socio-cultural, religious and spiritual faith. Conversion of

mainstream faith, changing living style from rural to semi-urban or urban life, diminishing

faith on god and spirituality are main causes which changed the people’s attitude and action

on traditionally managed SNSs. Ownership, resource sharing, social stereotype and racial

discrimination issues fuelled up the extent of the fore mentioned causes. The impact of these

factors on depletion of the SNSs is contextual. It is highly determined by economic and

educational status of the society. It alters their attitude on existing social fence of aboriginal

taboos on resource extraction from sacred groves. This acculturation and loss of faith on

1 Individuals or groups of people, usually within traditional institutions, who have the responsibility to take care of a specific sacred natural site or sites (see details Wild and McLeod, 2008)

Page 4 of 13

tradition has become a serious threat to these biodiversity repositories. Some important factors

are precisely described in the following headings.

2.1 Issues of property regimes:

Four types of property regimes prevail in Nepal, private property, state property, common

property and open access (Cited in MOFSC, 2008). Natural sacred sites are distributed in all

types of property regimes; bigger area perhaps confined in common property and open access.

SNSs of all property regimes are facing threat in one another way. The nature of the cause

determines the vulnerability extent of threats. For instance, religious conversion of property

owner is more vulnerable to complete destruction of SNSs located in privately owned land.

Similarly, loss of faith on god and spirituality is more vulnerable for SNSs of open access

resources, issues of resource access and equity is more vulnerable for SNSs of common

property. The area managed by traditional institution with good economic return has protected

somehow from encroachment and illegal resource extraction. But it still has the problem on

equity and equality in benefit sharing among the stakeholders. The traditional managers who

belong to particular religions, cultures and ethnic group sometime might act discriminately.

These activities promote the illegal action of discriminated groups which sometimes crosses

their religious, cultural and social norms and rules, leading complete destruction of SNSs. The

unequal access to decision making, opportunities to contribute, and benefits from these

resources of common pool is the major problem in depletion of natural sacred sites.

Historically, traditional community management system like ‘Kipat’2 also has the problem on

resource management. This system had the collective property right system in certain

indigenous group (ibid). This system seems to be used as a strategy of government during the

unification period of Nepal. Though it was legally abolished by Nationalization Act 1957,

these indigenous groups are raising their voice to regain their right and trying to control the

resources. After the demolition of this system, a number of sacred natural sites become

without custodian and care.

2.2 Conversion of faith and acculturation

Religious, cultural and spiritual faith and believe system of society is being changed due to

religious conversion and acculturation. Their belief on traditional conservation practices is

2 There was an ancient communal land management system in which usufructuary right of community land and pastures were given to certain ethnic groups of local area.(Source: Cited in Acharya,2003)

Page 5 of 13

deteriorated. They do not fear from ‘social fence’ which is being existed for century. They

extract the resources from the sacred sites. Erosion of traditional law and rules created both

conflict and confusion. Studies show that rule breakers are dominated by religiously

converted people. For instance Christians and Muslim are found to be the main rule violator

in several sacred sites connected to Hindu shrine. Similarly, effects of dynamic cultural values

and communal land management practices often influenced the sacred sites management.

2.3 Loss of faith

Most of the sacred sited of Nepal are fetish groves and people have strong belief on religious

and spiritual taboos which strictly prohibited the human disturbance in sacred sites. The

rational educational system teaches about the non existence of spiritual world. It has rooted

(needs revision) on mostly young generation. So their concept, attitude and action on those

fetish groves are changed. This has not only weaken the social fence of conservation faith but

also been promoted them for the destruction of these biologically important areas.

This loss of faith on traditional conservation belief is highly vulnerable to those sacred sites

which are privately owned. Changing attitude of owner by any means of religious and

economic reason could destroy the natural sacred sites. Either he extracts/ sales the resources

or simply ignores the conservation. In this case, conservation of sacred groves would require

change of ownership from private hands to local communities.

There is a big gap in addressing the importance of traditional knowledge in the main stream of

conservation action (Colding and Folke 2001; Chandrakanth et al. 2004).The traditional

management of common pool resources are often undermined by privatization and

government policies. If we consider the forest ownership history in Nepal, it is shifted from

private to state than community. It is just opposite to Hardin’s (1968) arguments common

resource management where he had emphasized the privatization and state control of forest to

save from tragedy of commons. In other hand, participatory and community based forest

management approach of Nepal is the typical example of successful community forest

management practices. Securing the people’s right to access and control over their resources

is the tools which made them successful in forest management. The main gap is the lack of

scientific studies understanding the complex relationship between biological diversity,

Page 6 of 13

cultural diversity and sacred natural sites as well as their role to address diminishing problem

of these biologically rich and ecologically important areas.

2.4 Sanskritisation and commercialization:

Erecting the physical infrastructure in sacred natural sites is another big issue. Custodian copy

cat from other pilgrims and tries to commercialize theirs SNSs for touristic purpose. It might

increase visitor and income source but could erode its cultural identity. It also disturbs

freedom and behavior of the wildlife which may cause their habitat loss.

2.5 Racial discriminations:

Nepali social structure is still in the vicious circle of racial and caste 3 stereotype regardless of

having no legal or religious legitimacy. Some indigenous people and their caste are

considered untouchable (Dalit)4.They are being discriminated to access and use the common

property equally as higher caste. They are being excluded to perform any activities in sacred

natural sites. They feel SNS is the property of elite, so they are not responsible to care. They

harvest the resources recklessly.

2.6 Commercial Forestry:

Plantation of commercially important plant species in SNSs is another big problem which

being deteriorating the biological diversity. Establishment of value based monotypic

vegetation suppresses the underground and minor flora. The harvesting of commercial tree

destroys the minor flora which might have the important ecological and ethno-botanical

importance. The commercial activities on sacred tree species have also reduced the religious

and cultural faith of people on those species.

3. Sustainable conservation approach

Natural ecosystems cannot be understood, conserved and managed without recognizing the

human cultures that shape them, since biological and cultural diversities are mutually

reinforcing and interdependent. Together, cultural diversity and biological diversity hold the

key to ensuring resilience in both social and ecological systems.

3 Caste, the placement of individuals and groups in the social hierarchy based on occupation, social group or cultural heritage4 Caste totally excluded from social activities to be done with so called elite caste.

Page 7 of 13

Social -ecological system (SESs) is the system of society and nature, and is dynamic in

nature. Human beings are integral part of SESs and its state of dynamism is determined by

three complementary attributes: resilience, adaptability and transformability (Walker et al

2004). There are several factors which directly influence the rate of dynamism and make the

existing system socially, ecologically and economically untenable. I will discuss here only

about the transformability which is the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when

ecological, economic, or social structures make the existing system untenable

3.1 Enhancement of Awareness: Cultivation of environmental subjectivities is a very long

process (Agrawal, 2005). Custodians have been conserving those sacred natural sites under

the strong religious, cultural and spiritual belief. The declining interest in traditional wisdom,

knowledge, and lifestyles among younger generations is the shadowed part of this

conservation approach. Integration of belief system of these two generations could be the best

approach. It is necessary to respect both belief systems, the young generation should be

convinced that these sites have to be conserved due to their ecological value not only by

religious, cultural and spiritual values. In the same way institutions should be guaranteed not

to violate the traditional faith by scientific conservation approach.

In the changing social system we cannot depend only in social taboos to protect the

disappearing sacred natural sites. The spiritual taboos are now taken as superstitious due to

rational education system. In general people are not aware about the ecological importance of

sacred natural sites. So enhancement of ecological awareness to stakeholder is vital approach

to save these losing SNSs. There is an incompatibility in faith system between the people who

believe in traditional, religious and spiritual taboos and who do not. The fear of the elder

generation is that the rituals may be renounced when ecological consciousness is promoted

because many people may discard traditional activities as superstitions. Integrated approach is

necessary here. Those who do not believe on existing faith of taboos should be aware by

ecological value of those sacred natural sites. And those elders who fear about renouncing of

rituals should be convinced by the conservation effort as it doesn’t mean keeping away from

the traditions. This integration of traditional belief and ecological rationale brings all people

in the same cornerstone of conservation. All people have vital interest in the preservation of

the ecosystem, though many are not aware of it at present. It is essential that every effort

Page 8 of 13

should be made to make people conscious of the need for the conservation of our bio-

resources.

Maintaining religious and cultural harmony: The caste/ethnically and culturally mosaic

social structure is the great challenge for development activities in Nepal. Carrying out the

new steps in respecting their diversified values, culture, norms, custom is a (the) great

challenge in this condition. Conservation of sacred natural sites solely based on certain

mainstream faith is only possible if we are able to maintain the religious and cultural harmony

between them. This challenge of heterogeneity can be overcome by crafting good institutional

rules and regulations as mentioned by Ostrom (2005, 2007). This will also help to build

society self resilience from the possible violence carried out by religious extremist.

Establishing legal right: Some extremely remote common pools are entirely governed by

custodians with no external authorities influence though the land ownership is posed by

government. Those sites which have been caring by custodians without having legal right

should be given to them. Current management institutions should be analyzed and immediate

care should also be done for those sites with no current custodians. The sites with private

ownership should be brought in to community ownership. Government may need to

compensate in this case.

If custodians get legal right to commons, they can control the illegal encroachment and over

exploitation of resources which seems now to be almost impossible for the government. This

seems opposite to Hardins (1968) argument of privatization and state control over common

resources to overcome the tragedy of commons. But Nepal community forestry program has

already proved that participatory community management is the best practice for common

resource management. We also have bitter historical fact of heavy deforestation which

declined our forest coverage from 47% to 39% total land area after the government has

implemented the Private Forest Nationalization Act 1957(Acharya, D., 2003).

Legal protection: There are no any laws related to sacred natural sites. So rule violators get

excited to break the customary rules which are not recognized by government legislative

system. So government should frame rules related to sacred natural sites. That will solve the

impunity problem of natural sacred sites.

Page 9 of 13

4. Conclusion

Undoubtedly, sacred natural sites port significant ecological importance in addition to its well

known religious, cultural and spiritual weight. Deviation of human activities with changed

scenario of socio-cultural and political dimension has been posing the huge pressure on those

traditionally conserved natural sites. In some places, it has crossed its carrying capacity

breaking the self resilience and making the existing ‘social fence’ untenable to changed

context.

The incompatibility of the two diverging perceptions of young and elder people on

conservation of sacred natural sites is only due to the lack of understanding the way which

they are following viz. cultural and scientific approach. Integration of these two approaches

gives the sustainable conservation solution and links the nature with people of diverse faith,

culture and attitudes in a single string.

Social-cultural system could be the solution to integrate the existing cultural, religious and

spiritual conservation belief incorporating the ecological importance of sacred natural sites.

The combination increases the strength of ‘social fence’ and existing emotional attachment of

custodians and other stakeholders to sacred natural sites.

References

Acharya, D. (2003). Natural Resource Management in High Altitude Areas of Nepal: A

Review and Synthesis of Information. Kathmandu: LFP

Acharya,K.P.(2003). Religious and Spiritual Values of Forest Plants in Nepal. Paper

submitted to XII Forestry Congress, Quebec Canada

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0087-A1.HTM, Viewed on

June 2009.

Agrawal, A. (2005). Environmentality: Community,intimate government, and the making of

Environmental subjects in Kumaon, India. Current Anthropology, 46(2), 161–190

Avasthe R.K., P.C. Rai and L.K. Rai (2006). Sacred Groves As Repositories of Genetic

Diversity – A Case Study From Kabi-Longchuk, North Sikkim, ENVIS Bulletin:

Himalayan Ecology 12(1)

Page 10 of 13

Basnet,T. B., Shrestha, B. R., and Thapa,V.(2006). ‘Birds Diversity in World Heritage Sites

of Kathmandu. E-bulletin: Friends of Birds.

http://friendsofbird.net.np/publication/download.php?down=001.pdf, Viewed on

June 2009.

Berkes,F.(2009). Social-Ecological Systems and Conservation. Seminar Series, March 9, 2009,

Stockholm Rsilience Centre.http://www.stockholmresilience.org/ seminar and

events, Viewed on July 2009.

Bhagwat, S A and Claudia Rutte (2006). Sacred groves: potential for biodiversity

management. Front Ecol Environ, 4(10): 519–524

Bhagwat SA, Kushalappa CG, Williams PH, and Brown ND (2005a). The role of informal

protected areas in maintaining biodiversity in the western Ghats of India. Ecol

Soc 10: 8 www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art8/, Viewed June 2009

Bhattachan,K.B.,(2008).Traditional Local Governance in Nepal.

http://www.nefin.org.np/articles/ Viewed on August, 2009.

Bhattarai,K.R.and S.R. Baral (2008). Potential role of sacred grove of Lumbini in biodiversity

conservation in Nepal. Banko Janakari 18(1):25-31

CBS (2002). Population census National report 2001. Government of Nepal/ National

Planning Commission Secretariat, Kathmandu.

Chandrakanth MG, Bhat MG, and Accavva MS. (2004). Socio-economic changes and sacred

groves in south India: protecting a community-based resource management

institution.Nat Resour Forum 28:102–11.

Colding J and Folke C. (2001). Social taboos: “invisible” systems of local resource

management and biological conservation. Ecol Appl 11: 584–600.

Dorm-Adzobu, C., Ampadu-agyei, O., & Veit, P. G. (1991). Religious Beliefs and

Environmental Protection: The Malshegu Sacred Grove in Northern Ghana.

Nairobi, Kenya: Center for International Development and Environment of the

World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. English Press Ltd.

Folke, C. (2004). Traditional Knowledge in Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society

9(3): 7 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art7/.

Gadgil, M. & Vartak, V.D.(1975). Sacred groves of India – a plea for continued conservation.

Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 73:623-647.

Gadgil, M. & Vartak, V. D. (1976). The Sacred Groves of Western Ghats in India. Economic

Botany 30 :152-160

Page 11 of 13

Hardin,G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons, Science (1968), p. 162

Kremen, C. (2005).Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their

ecology? Ecology Letters, 8:468–479

Luo Yaofeng, Liu Jinlong, Zhang Dahong (2009). Role of traditional beliefs of Baima

Tibetans in biodiversity conservation in China. Forest Ecology and Management

257: 1995–2001

McNeely, J. (2003). Recommendation: Cultural and spiritual values of protected areas. WPC

Recommendation 5.13, 5th IUCN World Parks Congress, Durban, South Africa.

URL:http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/outputs/recommendations/

approved/englih Viewed May 2009.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well–being: Biodiversity

Synthesis Report. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/ document

354.asp.pdf. Viewed on July 2009.

Mgumia, F.H. and Oba, G. (2003). Potential role of sacred groves in biodiversity conservation

in Tanzania. Environmental Conservation 30:259- 265.

MOFSC (2008). Biodiversity Governance, Sacred Himalayan Landscape. Thematic Research

Working Brief Number 2, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation Government /

WWF Nepal Program. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bgov_25_may.pdf

viewed on July 2009.

NBAP (2001) Nepal Biodiversity Action Plan, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation,

Kathmandu, Nepal.

Ostrom,E.(2007). Sustainable Social-Ecological Systems: An Impossibility? Paper presented

at the Annual Meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of

Science, “Science and Technology for Sustainable Well-Being,” 15–19 February

in San Francisco, USA

Ostrom, E. (2005). Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press.

Schaaf, T. (2007). Involvement of UNESCO-MAB and UNESCO World Heritage Centre in

Biodiversity Conservation through Sacred Natural Sites: Final Report on the 10th

Meeting of the East Asian Biosphere Reserve Network (EABRN), 47-58pp

http://www.unescobeijing.org. Viewed on June 2009

Page 12 of 13

Urtnasan, N. (2007). Management Issues of Biodiversity Conservation through Sacred Sites

Concept: Final Report on the 10th Meeting of the East Asian Biosphere Reserve

Network (EABRN), 31-46pp, http://www.unescobeijing.org. Viewed on June

2009

Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J. & Melillo, J.M. (1997). Human domination of

Earth’s ecosystems. Science, 277:494–499.

Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and

transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2): 5

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/

Wild, R. and McLeod, C. (2008). (Editors) Sacred Natural Sites: Guidelines for Protected

Area Managers. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PAG-016.pdf

Page 13 of 13