IPs in Nepal can be divided into two distinct
regional groups: Hill IPs and Terai IPs.
Many indigenous communities, notably the
Majhi, Bote, Musahar, Bankariya and others who
lived in and around protected areas (national
parks, wildlife reserves, buffer zones and
conservation areas) have been displaced and
have now become landless and deprived of their
traditional occupations.
Access of indigenous communities to forests,
rivers and wetlands (fishing, watering of domestic
cattle), and farming and foraging lands – that fall
within the jurisdiction of protected areas (PAs) –
has been restricted and curtailed in Nepal.
The government of Nepal does not recognize
indigenous territories or community ownership
of land. Nearly all forests and grasslands have
been nationalized in the past half-century; none
have been restored to community ownership.
Customary systems of collective management of
land, including forest and rangeland commons, are
not recognized in protected areas or the national
forest. Indigenous peoples of the Hills and the Terai
regions, including Inner Terai, have lost their
traditional political system, and with it many
aspects of the traditional social structure.
For example, the Tharus (indigenous peoples
of the southern plains of Nepal) and other
indigenous peoples of the Terai lost control
over their ancestral land after the eradication of
malaria in the early 1950s. They also lost their
traditional social and political structure with
the introduction of the autocratic party-less
Panchayat system in 1960.
The Limbus of the eastern Hills of Nepal were the
last IPs to lose the Kipat, or the indigenous land
tenure system. The district profile of Kanchanpur
reveals that the Tharu Chaudhary occupied 82%
of the land some 50 years ago. Now they have
only 16% (DDC profile).
The government of Nepal has a less than
satisfactory track record of implementing
international conventions protecting IP rights.
Nepal still needs to implement ILO Convention
No. 169 and the United Nations Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and
change existing laws and policies to give due
recognition to the indigenous peoples’ traditions,
customs and land tenure systems.
The existing legislative and policy frameworks for
equitable sharing of costs and benefits concerning
protected areas in Nepal are inadequate. Growing
public protests and local movements in buffer
zone areas of Nepal are evident to this end.
Although the government invited a Special
Rapporteur on the rights and freedoms
of indigenous peoples to Nepal, his
recommendations, along with the programs
and provisions of the Durban Declaration and
Program of Action (DDPA), have yet to be fully
implemented.
Nepal’s protected areas (including buffer zones)
were established by government decrees without
free, prior and informed consent by resident
indigenous peoples and local communities. The
government of Nepal does not legally recognize
“indigenous and community conserved areas” as a
designation of terrestrial or riparian management
or as part of the national protected area system.
As a result of legal and institutional dynamics,
indigenous communities around the country
have been historically deprived of the lands
Lok Niti
71
Select target paragraph3
Connect to a paragraph
Connect to an entity
Disable highlights
Add to table of contents