We learned that in order to make the CBR a legal document, it needs to be for-mally registered at both village and national levels of government. The committee is responsible for its registration at village level, something that is achieved through the Village-level Biodiversity Conservation and Development Committee (VBCDC).
We have also invested in the development of a practical mechanism that links com-munity-based CBR registration to an instrument for documentation at national level.
Our argument is that the compilation of information from the various community-based CBRs, managed through VBCDCs, and their linkage to national level, forms a basis for claiming ownership over the use of genetic resources. Such a repository is required for sharing the benefits from any commercial use of the biodiversity and ATK originating from communities. Vernooy and Ruiz (Chapter 6.4) further elabo-rate on ABS, while also addressing specific aspects of the situation in Nepal.
Success stories of CBR
In Begnas, one of our CBM sites, we observed that CBR is an effective tool for locat-ing unique and rich PGR at both household and community level. Through the CBR, the community were able to identify a single household that maintains more than 20 rice landraces. This information became more relevant when it was known that the community itself was maintaining over 40 rice landraces. When the CBR committee members shared this information in their village, it had an immediate impact. Custodian farmers and farmers’ groups that had been conserving unique or abundant diversity were publicly recognized and were awarded with specific grants from the CBM fund.
Farmers realized that only a few households are responsible for the conservation of a large number of local varieties. The material in their hands is thus considered highly vulnerable to genetic erosion. Upon recognizing this situation in the CBM site in Bara, the leadership encouraged 22 farmers’ groups to form a CBO, which in turn established a community seed bank (CSB). The CBOs were able to access funds from both local government and other developmental organizations for the construction of their CSBs, using information from the CBR as evidence (Singh et al., 2006).
In Begnas, the community identified unique traits in rice, finger millet, taro and sponge gourd from the CBR, sharing this information with relevant stakeholders.
The information was also used in participatory crop improvement, value-addition
Community biodiversity registers in Nepal 89 and market linkage programmes, as a means to create incentives for farmers to con-tinue cultivating these species and varieties.
Within another CBR project, we supported the establishment of the Rupa Lake Conservation and Rehabilitation Cooperative, from 2002 until 2006. An analysis of information in the CBR showed that many wetland resources, such as native fishes, white lotus and freshwater otters, were endangered due to illegal hunting or over use by local communities, particularly by those living upstream. With this insight, the cooperative began a CBM-guided commercial fish-farming venture. Within eight years, the annual income of the cooperative had increased from US$4200 to US$98 000. Each year, the cooperative allocates 25% of the income to conservation actions and ecological services, including the conservation of local fish diversity, the protec-tion of breeding habitats for wetland birds, the conservaprotec-tion block of wild rice spe-cies, and other conservation activities targeting species and varieties identified as rare in the CBR and therefore requiring special attention. The cooperative expanded its membership to include households from upstream communities that also benefit from its actions. It promotes the management of local PGR, organic farming and reforestation, has created a scholarship programme for schoolchildren, and provides employment to indigenous fishing communities. In 2010, four years after the conclu-sion of the project, the cooperative had over 700 shareholders. The CBR experience in Rupa Lake became an important reference for LI-BIRD and other biodiversity stakeholders in Nepal. It showcases how CBR can provide social, economic and envi-ronmental benefits, also referred to as payment for ecosystem services.
The CBR has been important in many of our agrobiodiversity sites in supporting and providing crucial inputs to several other CBM practices, including:
• recognizing custodians by providing awards and other means of social recognition during diversity fairs;
• increasing the competitiveness of local varieties through the improvement of specific traits, as illustrated by the case of rice landrace, Jethobudho Pokhareli (discussed by Silwal et al. in Chapter 5.5);
• increasing the demand for local diversity by value addition through better processing, packaging and market linkages, and through the establishment of small-scale enterprises (Bhandari et al. in Chapter 4.2 provide an example of this, showing how the unique diversity of the citrus species was conserved through a process of value addition and market promotion);
• establishing and supporting the CSB activities (as further described by Shrestha et al. in Chapter 2.8 in their global overview of this practice);
• promoting the use of diversity kits and the distribution of seed of rare or unique varieties (as described by Shrestha et al. in Chapter 2.2).
Lessons learned and future challenges
The recording of information at household level can be very resource and time con-suming, which may deter communities and their partners from sustaining this prac-tice. In order to create a high degree of ownership over, as well as the motivation to sustain the CBR, while ensuring an adequate critical mass of contributing member
90 Abishkar Subedi et al.
households, we learned that one CBR per community or village is the most practical and most viable. Biodiversity projects often organize diversity fairs as part of their regular activities. Another way to optimize resources and time is to link the documen-tation and monitoring activities of the CBR with such events. This will increase the visibility and the use of the CBR practice among members, and will further motivate community members to contribute. A digital database system is an efficient option if the necessary resources and capacities are available. Such an investment ensures the efficient management of the CBR and makes it more attractive to younger com-munity members. Unique PGR and ATK can be documented through video clips, which would maximize their future use. One opportunity is to integrate CBR within digital rural inclusion programmes that are currently being implemented. Another important lesson learned from working with both the institutional and community-based CBR is that the latter modality is not only more appropriate from a develop-ment perspective, but is also more sustainable institutionally.
We learned to ensure the legal status of the CBR and to support the development of a framework with national systems for biodiversity conservation. This includes the exchange of PGR for research and development purposes, and the development of mechanisms for access and benefit-sharing (ABS). In Nepal, although provisions have been made for such a mechanism in a draft ABS bill, the practical mechanisms still need to be developed. Our experiences in different contexts of biodiversity man-agement show that the CBR is an experimental ground for developing such ABS mechanisms; stakeholders in charge of this important and difficult task do not need to start from scratch.
In conclusion, we learned that strong socio-political and economic incentives encourage community members to continuously engage in CBM, in which CBR is a rewarding but also demanding practice. We therefore have been able, and will con-tinue, to seek ways to link the CBR to community well-being and welfare. Its associa-tion with mechanisms that deal with access to financial or market services is a priority.
It is unlikely that biodiversity registration alone is a viable and sustainable strategy for protecting PGR and ATK, whether the government or local institution supports its implementation, or if a CBO is autonomous in managing its CBR. It is only sustain-able when the community takes responsibility for the registration and monitoring of its resources, which in turn creates direct and visible benefits for their livelihood.