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
their interactions with ecological systems. People have been maintaining and protecting some
Page 1 of 13
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.
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
Page 2 of 13
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
initiated through the conservation of these particular sacred animal and plant species having
special religious and cultural significance (MOFSC, 2008).

1.3 Governance system

Page 3 of 13
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). Custodians 1 (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
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:

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
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
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

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
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,
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
Page 6 of 13
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.

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
Caste, the placement of individuals and groups in the social hierarchy based on occupation, social group or cultural heritage
4
Caste totally excluded from social activities to be done with so called elite caste.
Page 7 of 13
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
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
Page 8 of 13
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.
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
Page 9 of 13
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)
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

Page 10 of 13
 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
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
Page 11 of 13
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
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.

Page 12 of 13
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