Well over 50 different indigenous groups comprising close to 40 percent of the entire population have been recognized in Nepal and have a claim to the majority of the land in the country. These lands were forcibly annexed by the Nepali state through military conquests at the turn of the 19th century. Scholars have referred to this as a form of internal colonialism, and point to the nationalization of forest and grazing land with the imposition of protected areas as a key strategy used by the state in the imposition of ecogovernmentality. In recent decades a strong national indigenous peoples movement has succeeded in pushing the government to ratify International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 169, but lack of implementation continues. The government has failed to recognize collective territories, self-governance, as well as land and water management rights of local communities, including in SNP.

National parks established in customary territories of indigenous peoples, as was SNP, superimpose state controlled protected areas on preexisting management systems now recognized under international law as Indigenous and Community Conservation Areas (ICCA). According to international agreements put forth by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Convention on Biological Diversity and signed by the government of Nepal, local communities should be allowed to “exercise predominant or exclusive control of management and achieve conservation through customary laws or other effective means” (WPCA 2003 cited in Stevens 2013 pg 30). Although state intervention in the establishment and management of these national parks can at times work to undermine and even suppress people’s rights to self-governance, Stevens argues that the Sherpa in SNP have continued to maintain traditional ICCA and have even established new ones “despite lack of state recognition, respect and coordination” (Stevens 2013 pg 29). He goes on to note the opportunity to reform existing laws, policies, and practices to fully respect indigenous rights inside national parks.

Although Sherpa collective ownership and political authority over the region were recognized by royal decree in the early 19th century, autonomous governance and sovereign management of natural resources was taken away with the nationalization of Sherpa land with the 1957 forestry act and subsequent declaration of a national park on what was once a large Indigenous Conservation Territory comprised of regional ICCA. This expropriation included all land that was not being farmed or inhabited by the residents of the valleys. These settlements became enclaves of private land excluded from the national park (later defined as part of the park buffer zone). All other formerly collectively managed land, forest, and water resources were put under the control of the park administration. Although the DNPWC have allowed for livestock herding, stone quarrying, and the use of forest resources within the park boundaries, these basic livelihood activities must be authorized and regulated by park administrators.

Stevens argues for the implementation of a rights-based conservation paradigm, and pushes for the state’s formal recognition of ICCA in areas such as SNP. According to major human rights treaties ratified by the UN and ILO, indigenous peoples’ rights inside of ICCA include: control of customary territories, collectively-owned land, and natural resources; self-governance and self determination; participation in decision making about development, among others. This rights-based approach abstains from viewing multiple interested parties as stakeholders, and instead separates “rights holders” (the local community, whose have the right to autonomous self-governance) from rights duty-bearers (the state and NGOs associated with conservation in the area, that is, those who are obligated to protect the rights of indigenous peoples and the natural environment) and stakeholders (other parties such as tourists or domestic and international trekking companies). The current arrangement gives the park authorities the right to dictate management agendas, formalized in written plans produced every 5 years. All other parties are considered stake-holders.

Conservation strategies currently implemented in Nepal include buffer zones, conservation areas, national parks, hunting reserves and wildlife reserves; which vary in their degrees of shared governance between the state and local communities, and also in their management goals, with the former acknowledging greater human use while the latter emphasizing strict nature protection. Although these protected areas make up 23 percent of Nepal’s territory, James Anaya, the former UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, stated that the country’s National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act “provides no recognition of indigenous people’s right to consultation or to access their traditional lands and resources”(Anaya 2009, cited in Stevens 2013 pg 32). Indeed, SNP as well as many other conservation areas were implemented despite reservations expressed by local community groups. The more recently declared buffer zone returns the authority to govern certain sections of communal lands to community user groups under the supervision of national part authorities.

Stevens claims that the establishment of Himalayan parks like SNP have economically, socially, culturally, and politically dispossessed and disadvantaged local communities through restrictions on land use and management practices. The authority to manage resource use ultimately lies in the hands of the national park warden, who grants the right of conditional use to local communities at his discretion. Unlike the buffer zones and other conservation areas in Nepal, the national park scheme provides no mechanisms for co-management of park governance. Management plans are written by park officials in Kathmandu and then authorized by professional consultants and the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation. Indigenous communities who call the area home are viewed as one of many stakeholders in the planning process. Although many Sherpa have gained access to new economic opportunities and integration with the global economy, they have also experienced a loss of autonomy and lack of respect for local rights, knowledge, and management practice. This can put at risk long-standing conservation achievements and disassociate people from lands which were once communally protected, as was described in the previous section.

Despite these longstanding issues, informally the SNP park wardens’ have generally  supported community management of forests and other resources. Many villages continue traditional management, procedures which include collective decision making in village assemblies, and take turns serving as the nawa who regulates grazing lands, wood collection, and the harvest time for a particular season. These practices have been encouraged by park officials, who have at times arranged a small salary to assist in these activities. Although this may sound progressive, in fact this type of management should be included in official documents rather than relegated to informal agreements. Stevens argues that the lack of formal recognition of these policies means they could be ignored at anytime by park administrators should they chose to do so.  

In addition to maintaining traditional management schemes in spite of this lack of recognition and limits put on self-governance, the Sherpa people have also begun new initiatives to strengthen ICCA. This has included the management of deadwood collection by buffer zone community groups in conjunction with park staff. Although this system has not been formally recognized in recent management plans, Stevens claims it has been successful in dramatically decreasing fire wood consumption, down 75 percent since 2002 (Stevens 2013). This is in sharp contrast to other studies in the region which point to increasing demand on forest resources and an overall depletion of the forest, especially in the past 20 years (Salerno et al. 2010 a, Garrard et al. 2016). These claims will be further investigated in the section concerning ecological impacts.

Another example given by Stevens of a newly formed ICCA within the park is the Lakyok bird sanctuary, an area which the community of Khumjung received permission to fence off in order to prevent disturbances to the nesting ground of local bird species, and were even able to receive a small salary for their continued monitoring and protection efforts of the area. However, unequal power relations persist, and community leaders talk of insufficiently shared benefits, and a failure to respect local culture, self-determination and rights. This is reflected in the 2016 management plan compiled by park officials. Although local groups were explicitly thanked for their help and input, the document was in no way coauthored or authorized by local community groups. In addition, there is no mention of the rights of indigenous communities to collective land ownership, self-governance, natural resource management or cultural integrity (SNP Management Plan 2016).

After learning about ICCA during an IUCN/DNPWC governance workshop in 2008, Sherpa leaders gathered and authored a resolution in support of recognizing their home as an ICCA. They then shared this document with national park, government officials and international organizations. The director general of the DNPWC launched an immediate investigation, and villagers were told by park management that what they did was illegal, and were pressured to retract their statements. National newspapers reported that Sherpa had illegally declared a conservation area to replace SNP with the support of international conservationists. Eighteen community leaders and a subgroup of the IUCN responded with another letter to the director general defending and clarifying their actions, and the brief public controversy quickly faded. In 2009 the prime minister of Nepal made his first visit to the Khumbu region, but a letter from community activists petitioning him to recognize Khumbu as an ICCA was met with silence. Since then Sherpa leaders have continued to be involved in promoting ICCA, including taking a leading role in founding the domestic organization ICCA Network Nepal, as well as attending international conferences organized by the ICCA in Japan and Barcelona. Sherpa ICCA have also been featured in numerous IUCA publications (Stevens 2013).

As it currently stands, the local communities residing within the Khumbu valley are generally described in government, NGO and academic documents as stakeholders; those who are influenced by management plans. Meanwhile SNP management and the DNPWC are right holders. Under the law they are the owners of all lands in the national park and are the authors and enforcers of the management plans which govern all areas outside of the buffer zone enclaves. This is in direct contradiction with international treaties signed by the Nepali government regarding the communal land and resource rights of indigenous peoples. Although Sherpa leaders and park management generally collaborate effectively, this unequal power relationship based on the marginal political and social status of indigenous peoples demonstrates the state’s lack of willingness to move towards a more progressive conservation strategy based on the rights of local communities rather than the usurpation of local rights by government bodies.   

Despite years of change, the Sherpa community and identity remains strong within the Khumbu region. Many traditional land use and resource management practices continue to this day and have at times even been encouraged by the government and park authorities. Although areas of contention still exist, such as the recognition of Sherpa indigenous rights, conflict between local communities and park or government management are rare. Rather most pressing problem resides in the ecological strain placed on the environment by unrestricted tourist growth. These environmental factors, combined with the unjust distribution of economic benefits and the creation a sub-class of migrant workers, can be seen as the exploitation needed to fuel economic growth and the expansion at the frontiers of capital.  

Garrard, R. et al. 2016 "Land Use and Land Cover Change in Sagarmatha National Park, a World Heritage Site in the Himalayas of Eastern Nepal," Mountain Research and Development, 36(3), 299-310

Salerno et al. (2010 a) "Energy, Forest, and Indoor Air Pollution Models for Sagarmatha National Park and Buffer Zone, Nepal," Mountain Research and Development, 30(2), 113-126

Stevens, S. (2013) National Parks and ICCA in the High Himalayan Region of Nepal: Challenges and Opportunities. Conservation an Society 11(1): 29-45

WCPA (World Commission on Protected Areas). 2003b. Recommendation V. 26. Community conserved areas. 5th World Parks Congress, Durban, South Africa.