Vol. XLI: No. 1 2014 - Home | Food and Agriculture ... · 4 Vol. 41: No. 1 2014 gardens, conversion...

Regional Quarterly Bulletin on Wildlife and National Parks Management

REGIONAL OFFICE FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (RAP), BANGKOKFOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Vol. XLI: No. 1 2014

Featuring

Vol. XXVIII: No. 1

REGIONAL OFFICEFOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

TIGERPAPER is a quarterly news bulletindedicated to the exchange of informationrelating to wildlife and protected areamanagement for the Asia-Pacific Region.

ISSN 1014 - 2789

Address.

TIGERPAPERFAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

Maliwan Mansion, Phra Atit RoadBangkok, 10200, Thailand

Tel: (662) 697-4000E-mail: [email protected]

Website: http://www.fao.org/asiapacific/rap/nre/links/tiger-paper/en/

Editor: Janice NaewboonnienAdvisor: P. Durst

Contents

TIGERPAPER is dependent upon your free and voluntarycontributions in the form of articles, news items, and announcements inthe field of wildlife and nature conservation in the region. In order tobetter serve the n eeds of our readers please write to us and send in theinformation you have or let us know if there is any information that youneed. We appreciate receiving your letters and make all efforts torespond.

Front cover: Leopard (Photo: Pradeep Vyas)Back cover: Leopard attacking forestry officials (Photo: Forest Department,Government of West Bengal)

The opinions expressed by thecontributing authors are notnecessarily those of FAO. Thedesignations employed and thepresentation of the material in theTIGERPAPER do not imply theexpression of any opinion on the partof FAO concerning the legal orconstitutional status of any country,territority or sea area, or thedelimitation of frontiers.

Human-leopard conflict in North Bengal, India..................... 1Conservation status of the Asian elephant in the Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary of Bangladesh..................................... 6Pallas’ cat in Annapurna Conservation Area of Nepal...........14Ecological restoration of degraded forest systems in the tropics............................................................................15Citizen scientists survey of urban bird diversity at Brixton Nature Reserve in Perth, Western Australia......................21Status and nature of human-wildlife conflict in Shivalik Hills, Himalayas: A case study from Lansdowne Forest Division, Uttarakhand, India.......................................................... 27First observation of Scaly-breasted munia from Andaman and Nicobar Islands........................................................ 32

Celebrating the importance of forests!................................. 1Climate change and food security........................................ 4FAO supports Mongolia to carry out National Land Use Assessment through UN-REDD...................................... 6Study of the potential impacts of forest product legality regulations and REDD+ on forest production and trade in the Asia-Pacific region.................................................8Summaries of Partner Events at the 25th APFC session........ 9A call for better communication for the future of our forests..12Asia-Pacific Forestry Chips and Clips..................................14New RAP Forestry Publications..........................................15FAO Asia-Pacific Forestry Calendar................................... 16

1

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

11

HUMAN-LEOPARD CONFLICT IN NORTH BENGAL, INDIAby Pradeep Vyas and K. Sengupta

Introduction

Human–wildlife conflict refers to the interactionbetween wild animals and people and the resultantnegative impact on people or their resources, or wildanimals or their habitat. According to the 2003IUCN World Parks Congress, human-wildlifeconflicts occur when wildlife requirements encroachon those of human populations, at costs both toresidents and wild animals (IUCN, 2005; FAO,2009). The by-products of human existence offerunnatural opportunities for wildlife in the form offood and shelter, resulting in increased interferenceand potentially destructive threats for both man andanimals. Leopards (Panthera pardus) are the mostwidely distributed of all the world’s large cats(Bailey, 1993). Leopards are adapted to live well insavannah, rain forest, mountain elevations, densevegetation, low scrub and thickets and even quiteclose to human habitations (Bailey, 1993). Leopardsare widely distributed over all of India and are foundeven in the drier and sparsely forested regions of

the northwest. They are widely distributed in theforests, fringe tea gardens and fringe villages ofNorth Bengal. Leopards in North Bengal may bebroadly divided into two major groups, namely forestdwelling and tea garden dwelling. The problem ofhuman-leopard conflicts has recently increased inNorth Bengal due to changes in the land use pattern.

Study area

West Bengal, with an area of 88,752 km2, is in theeastern part of India, stretching from the Himalayasin the north to the Bay of Bengal in the south. It has4,031 km2 of recorded forest and large tracts undertea gardens established during the 19th century andonward. The leopard population is confined to onlythree districts of North Bengal, i.e., Jalpaiguri,Darjeeling and Cooch Behar which lies at thefoothills of the great Himalayas. The area coversthe moist and dense riverine forests of the Bengalduars and tarai regions. The tarai (“moist land”)is a belt of marshy grasslands, savannas, and forests

| Hum

an-leopard conflict in North B

engal, India |

22

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

at the base of the eastern Himalayas, whereasduars are flood plains at the foothills of the easternHimalayas in northeast India.

Methodology

To determine the extent of the human-leopardconflicts in North Bengal, data relating to the 13-year period between 2000 to 2013 were collectedfrom the Forest Department, Government of WestBengal. The data were analyzed statistically andin light of the available literature on the subject tomake recommendations.

Human-leopard conflicts in India

Human-leopard conflicts have existed in India forover 100 years and 11,909 people have beenreported to have been killed by leopards during1875 to 1912 (Abstracts relating to British India,2013). Occupying a position almost at the top ofthe food pyramid, the animal has gained acontroversial status owing to its peculiar shiftingof habitat from forest to villages and tea gardens,

which has paved the way for man-animal conflictsin different parts of India.

Kumar and Chauhan (2011) reported 162 attackson humans by leopards in the Mandi district ofHimachal Pradesh State of India, of which 13persons were killed and 149 were injured. Thewestern Indian State of Maharastra reportedtrapping of 103 leopards between 2001 and 2003(Vidya et al., 2013). The State of Uttaranchal hashad a history of human-leopard conflicts and about140 people succumbed to leopard attacks between1988-2000, while 93 leopards were killed in thesame period (Chauhan and Goyal, 2000). Thehuman-leopard conflict in the Borivile NationalPark in the metropolitan city of Mumbai is anexample of how leopards have adapted to an urbanlandscape.

Human-leopard conflict in North Bengal

The North Bengal landscape is a mosaic of forestand tea gardens, regularly interspersed by riversflowing from north to south. The past century hasseen vast changes in the land use pattern in NorthBengal with the establishment of many tea

Figure 1. Location-North Bengal

| H

uman

-leo

pard

con

flic

t in

Nor

th B

enga

l, In

dia

|

3

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

33

| Hum


engal, India |

Table: 1. Persons Killed/ Injured by Leopards during 2000-2013 Year Death Injured Total 2000-2001 0 0 0 2001-2002 0 0 0 2002-2003 0 0 0 2003-2004 0 17 17 2004-2005 1 13 14 2005-2006 0 8 8 2006-2007 0 0 0 2007-2008 3 2 5 2008-2009 1 1 2 2009-2010 3 2 5 2010-2011 1 0 1 2011-2012 0 19 19 2012-2013 1 29 30 Total 10 91 101

Table: 2. Death of Leopards during 2000-2012 in North-West Bengal Year Natural

Death Accident Poaching Retaliatory

killing Declared rogue and killed to save human lives

Total

2000-2001 6 1 1 4 0 12 2001-2002 3 0 3 0 0 6 2002-2003 10 1 2 0 0 13 2003-2004 13 0 0 0 2 15 2004-2005 10 1 1 4 0 16 2005-2006 11 2 1 2 0 16 2006-2007 10 2 0 1 0 13 2007-2008 13 2 0 2 0 17 2008-2009 22 7 1 1 0 31 2009-2010 18 2 0 2 0 22 2010-2011 24 1 1 0 1 27 2011-2012 26 1 0 2 0 29 2012-2013 19 5 0 4 0 28 Total 185 25 10 22 3 245

44

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

gardens, conversion of forest land to armycantonments, diversion of forestland for railwaysand highways, etc. These changes have made theforest highly fragmented. The development of thearea coupled with the rapid increase in the humanpopulation has seen increases in conflicts betweenhumans and leopards in this landscape. Besidesleopards some other wild animals known forconflicts with humans in North Bengal areelephant, gaur and greater one-horned rhinoceros.

In North Bengal during the period 2000 to 2013, atotal of 101 humans were attacked by leopards,of which 10 persons died (Table 1). During thesame period 245 leopard deaths were recorded,of which 185 were recorded as natural deaths and60 leopard deaths as unnatural for the reasons ofroad accidents, retaliatory killings, poaching andelimination as rogues (Table 2).

The man-leopard conflicts in North Bengal areprimarily handled by ten “Wildlife Squads” underthe Forest Department, which are strategicallylocated in various parts of North Bengal. TheForest Department has adopted a policy ofcapturing leopards from the conflict areas and atotal of 25 leopards were captured during theperiod 2010 to 2013. During the same period atotal of 8 leopards were immobilized when theystrayed to human settlements and failed to returnback to the forest and there was threat to humanlife or to the leopard’s life. After medical treatment,all such captured leopards are released back intothe nearest national park or wildlife sanctuary andthere exists no post-release mechanism.

Results and discussions

In the North Bengal landscape, since the year2000 a total of 101 persons have been attackedby leopards, of which 10 persons (10%) werekilled and 91 (90%) suffered injuries (Table 1).This indicates that such attacks are moreaccidental in nature rather than intentional killingsof the humans. The trend shows an increased rateof deaths of people during the same period, but itis not a significant increase (R2= 0.188). Almostsimilar observations were made for the period 1990to 1997 when 121 people were attacked byleopards in North Bengal (WWF India report,1997), of which 10 died and 111 escaped withinjuries.

No record has been found to confirm man-eatingbehaviour by leopards in North Bengal, provingthat these attacks were not for food. Thisobservation differs greatly from Uttarakhand,where leopards have been found to kill people,especially children, for food (Technical report WII,2000). It is observed that leopards attack adults(78%) more often than children (22%), confirmingthat children are not the main victims of leopardattacks in North Bengal. However, casualtiesamong children are higher than the adults primarilyfor the reason that children have less capacity tobear with leopard attack injuries compared toadults.

Higher conflicts have been observed in the teagardens (77%) than in the forest areas and itsfringes (23%). It is a general belief that most ofthe leopard attacks involve women engaged ingathering tea leaves in tea gardens who areattacked by a mother leopard to protect her cubs;however, an analysis of the data does not confirmthis belief as leopard attack victims comprise 73%male and 27% female.

There is a very significant spatial variation andthe districts of Jalpaiguri (93%), Coochbehar (6%)and Darjeeling (1%) are the most affected districtsin North Bengal. There does not seem to be aseasonal variation of attacks between pre-monsoon, post-monsoon and monsoon.

As per the official records of the ForestDepartment, Government of West Bengal, a totalof 245 leopard deaths have been reported since2000. Of these deaths, 185 (75.50 %) were naturaland 60 (24.50%) were the result of accidents,poaching, retaliatory killings and eliminations ofrogues to save human lives. The trend line showsa significant increase in the death rate (R2= 0.826)during the same period (Table 2), which is indeeda matter of concern for leopard conservation inthe North Bengal landscape. The 9% of leoparddeaths that were the result of retaliatory killings isa highly significant indicator of conflict and thereis a likelihood that many retaliatory killings wentunnoticed. WWF India has observed a largenumber of leopard deaths due to conflict-relatedincidents in the region between 1990 to 1997, inwhich 25 leopard deaths were caused by people,out of a total 39 leopard deaths recorded (WWFIndia, 1997).

| H

uman

-leo

pard

con

flic

t in

Nor

th B

enga

l, In

dia

|

5

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

55

As per Forest Department records since 2002-03to 2012-13, a total of 1,649 livestock have beenkilled by leopards in tea gardens and forest fringevillages and a total compensation of Rs. 1.03 millionhas been paid. This does not include the loss oflivestock killed inside the forest areas, as nocompensation is paid for the same by the ForestDepartment and hence are not reported. This lossof livestock is the primary cause of conflictbetween the forest fringe human population andleopards. No records of dog lifting by leopardsare available, but it is a general observation thatdogs, which act as human settlement sentinels,constitute one of the main prey of leopards residingin the forest fringes.

The latest estimation of the leopard population inthe North Bengal landscape was carried out in2004, which recorded a total of 164 leopards;however, the exercise was incomplete as noestimation of leopards was carried out in BuxaTiger Reserve. As per the Forest Department’srecords, a total of 82, 108 and 331 leopards wererecorded in North Bengal in the years 1984, 1989and 2002 respectively. No leopard estimationexercises have been carried out in the entire NorthBengal landscape since 2002. This has resulted ina serious management gap for leopardconservation in North Bengal. Often leopardattacks are concluded to be an outcome ofincreases in the leopard population, but it could befor many other reasons including a diminished preybase, fragmentation of habitat, an increase indisturbances in leopard habitats due to bioticinterferences, etc.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are made forleopard conservation in the North Bengallandscape:

There is urgent need to conduct a census ofthe leopard population in North Bengal, sinceno counts have been made since 2002. Theleopard estimation exercise should be carriedout in forest and non-forest areas so as toassess the forest dwelling and tea gardendwelling leopard populations.

There is little knowledge about the ecology ofleopards of North Bengal so a research project

on leopard ecology using radio-telemetryshould be initiated.

Microchips and camera traps should be usedfor the post-release monitoring of capturedleopards.

Strict enforcement and alternate livelihoodprogrammes should be taken up to reducebiotic pressure on the forest for theconservation of forest dwelling leopards.

Extensive education and awarenessprogrammes should be taken up, especially intea gardens, to create awareness aboutleopard behaviour and precautions to be takenup for the leopard-related conflicts.

The Wildlife Squads need to be betterequipped. The trap cages are too heavy andoften result in injures to the captured leopards.Trap cages of better design and material withtechnology to display the weight of thecaptured animal are available and should beprocured.

Training in immobilization techniques andleopard handling should be imparted to foreststaff involved in leopard conservation.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Wildlife Wing,Forest Directorate, especially the Chief WildlifeWarden, West Bengal, for providing datarelated to the human-leopard conflict.

References

A study on distribution, relative abundanceand food habits of Leopard (Pantherapardus) in Garhwal Himalayas, TechnicalReport, 1999-2000, Wildlife Institute of India.

Bailey, T.N. 1993. The African Leopard:Ecology and behavior of solitary field.Columbia University Press, New York, USA,429p.

Chauhan, D.S. and S.P. Goyal. 2000. A study ondistribution, relative abundance and foodhabits of Leopard (Panthera pardus) in

| Hum


engal, India |

66

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

Garhwal Himalayas. Report of the WildlifeInstitute of India, Dehradun.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2009.Human-wildlife conflict in Africa: causes,consequences and managementstrategies. Rome, FAO.

Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. 1878. Numberof persons and cattle killed in BritishIndia by wild beasts and snakes. Statisticalabstract relating to British India from1867–68 to 1876–77. London: p. 132.Retrieved 30 March 2013.




His Majesty’s Stationary Office. 1915. Numberof persons and cattle killed in BritishIndia by wild beasts and snakes. Statisticalabstract relating to British India from1903–04 to 1912–13. London: p. 240.Retrieved 30 March 2013.

IUCN. 2005. Benefits Beyond Boundaries.Proceedings of the Vth IUCN World ParksCongress. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, UK.Ix + 306 pp.

Kumar, D. and N.P.S. Chauhan. 2011. Human-leopard conflict in Mandi district,Himachal Pradesh, India. 8th EuropeanVertebrate Pest Management Conference.DOI: 10.5073/jka.2011.432.098.

World Wide Fund for Nature-India. 1997.Leopard Study Report, India, EasternRegion.

Vidya, A., Thakur, S., Choudhary, S. and Dr.Anirudh. 2013. Human-Leopard Conflict inthe Pune District. Wildlife Protection Societyof India.

About the authors: Dr. Pradeep Vyas is anofficer of the Indian Forest Service, currentlyworking as Additional Principal ChiefConservator of Forest, West Bengal. Miss K.Sengupta is Project Assistant, IUCN LargeGrant Project, Forest Department, Governmentof West Bengal.

CONSERVATION STATUS OF THE ASIAN ELEPHANT IN THECHUNATI WILDLIFE SANCTUARY OF BANGLADESH

by Mohammad Shamsuddoha and Md. Abdul Aziz

Introduction

Asian elephants are critically endangered inBangladesh (IUCN Bangladesh, 2000) and areoften focused on as a flagship species forbiodiversity conservation in the Asia rangecountries (Nath and Sukumar, 1998). In

Bangladesh, the estimated population size of wildelephants may range from 300 to 350, of whichapproximately 200 are residents, and 100-150 aretrans-boundary migrants (Islam et al., 2011).Resident wild elephants are present only in thesouth-east districts of Chittagong, Cox’s Bazar andChittagong Hill Tracts (Islam, 2006; Aziz et al.,

| H

uman

-leo

pard

con

flic

t in

Nor

th B

enga

l, In

dia

| C

onse

rvat

ion

stat

us o

f A

sian

ele

phan

t in

Chu

nati

Wil

dlif

e Sa

nctu

ary

|

7

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

77

2005). The migratory elephants come from theneighbouring country India to several districts ofnorthern and south-eastern Bangladesh. Of the17 wildlife sanctuaries of Bangladesh, ChunatiWildlife Sanctuary is one of the few sanctuariesin the country that supports wild elephants.Importantly, this sanctuary is the only MIKE(Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants) site inBangladesh. Several herds are known to foragein this sanctuary and population size may rangefrom 21 to 40 (Islam et al., 2011). They also usethe Banshkhali Eco-park located next to the north-western part of the sanctuary.

A number of studies have been carried out onAsian elephants in Bangladesh (Al-Zabed, 1992;Chakraborty, 1996; Islam et al., 1999; Aziz, 2002;Aziz et al., 2005; Sarker and Roskaft, 2010; Islamet al., 2006, 2011), including conservation researchand management action projects by theBangladesh Forest Department and differentconservation agencies (IUCN Bangladesh, 2004;2011). Over-exploitation of forest resources andillegal human activities within the sanctuary have

led to severe habitat destruction over decadeswhich have been detrimental to elephants as wellas other wildlife fauna (Molur et al., 2005; Aziz,2013). Consequently, along with the overallconservation interventions implemented by theNishorgo Support Project and Integrated ProtectedArea Co-management (IPAC) since 2005,community-based alternative income generation(AIG) schemes were promoted to the communitiesliving around the Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary.Interventions were designed to reduce the scaleof resource extractions from the forests so thatelephants can have enough fodder and human-conflicts are reduced (Kabir, 2012). However, theperformance of the AIG programmes introducedneeds to be evaluated so that current levels ofresource extractions are abated because thehuman-elephant conflicts in these areas appearto be consistent with what it was before theseproject interventions. We present here the currentsituation of the human-elephant conflict with noteson population and habitat status of elephants inthe Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary. We also provide a

| Conservation status of A

sian elephant in Chunati W

ildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh |

88

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

small conclusion section for future managementand conservation initiatives.

Study area

Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary (21°58' N, 92°04' E)is located about 70 km south of Chittagong city insoutheast Bangladesh. The sanctuary wasestablished in 1986 and covers an area of about7,764 ha of forests. The sanctuary falls within theadministrative upazila Banshkhali and Lohagaraof Chittagong district and Chakaria upazila ofCox’s Bazar district. There are seven forest beatsunder two ranges created for the effectivemanagement of forest and wildlife. The topographyof the area is hilly terrains with shallow to deepgullies and gentle slopes. The average elevationranges from 30 m to 90 m above the mean sealevel. The areas are traversed by numerous creeksamongst the hills and creeks which are believedto enhance the quality of wildlife habitats alongwith providing irrigation facilities for the localpeople. The forest type of the sanctuary is mixedtropical semi-evergreen in nature. This sanctuaryis known to support around 1,200 species of plantsand 178 wildlife species (Khan, 1990). Of thewildlife fauna, six species of amphibians, eightreptiles, 137 birds and 27 mammals have beenrecorded (Husain, 1990). The forest habitats ofthe sanctuary have been degraded by illegalextraction of trees, encroachment, and agriculturalpractices, among others that have led to a numberof wildlife species to become extinct locally,including the Hoolock gibbon Hoolock hoolock(Molur et al., 2005; Aziz, 2013).

Methodology

A combination of survey methods was used duringthis study including sign surveys following foresttrails, direct counts of elephant herds, randomsurveys, focus group discussions (FGDs), andsemi-structured questionnaire interviews. We havewalked through 25 transects repeated over 2 times,including 2 random surveys during the study periodbetween 2012 and 2013. Data on elephant herdsize, age-sex structure, dung piles, browsing plants,movement signs and directions, etc., were notedduring these surveys. Our questionnaire surveyinterviewed 38 respondents from a randomselection of local people living in 7 forest beats.

We also arranged 11 FGDs to understand theconflict situation and for validation of interviewdata. Participants were selected based on theirinvolvement with resource collection andagricultural activities relating to the sanctuary.Some forest officials were also included in theinterviews. During interviews and FGD, weaddressed questions to assess the frequency ofelephant attacks, scale and nature of damages,number of elephants involved in conflicts, and themajor factors that might have driven conflicts(Islam et al., 1999).

Results and discussion

Our study estimated a population size of 35-40elephants in the Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary andBanshkhali Eco-park. There were 3-4 elephantherds in the areas, but some of them might havediverged from one group or dispersed to coverwider ranges for enough fodder. We have recordeda highest group size of 8 individuals in theBanshkhali Eco-park, and 4-5 solitary males in thestudy areas. However, previous studies estimatedthe elephant population at lower numbers of 15-30 (IUCN Bangladesh, 2004), and 21-40 (Islamet al., 2011).

We recorded 55 species of plants under 23 familiesthat have been used by elephants in the studyareas (Table 1). The plant species range fromgrasses to trees, including homestead vegetation.Of these, trees represented 36%, followed byherbs (27%), bamboos (13%), climbers (11%),grasses (7%) and shrubs (6%). Our study suggeststhat cultivated crops in and around the study areasmight have provided the major diet to elephants.Elephants ventured into paddy fields during twomain crop seasons: February-May and September-December. They have started to feed on paddiesfrom the stage of green foliage and continue till toharvesting.

Because most of the study areas have beendegraded and are almost devoid of trees, severallocations in the study areas seemed to be criticalto elephants for grazing and resting. Of thesediscrete patches of forests, ‘bush and mediumcanopy’ (Figure 1) areas located along the easternsides of Jaldi, Napura and Puichari forest beatswere found to be most heavily used by elephants.

| C

onse

rvat

ion

stat

us o

f A

sian

ele

phan

t in

Chu

nati

Wil

dlif

e Sa

nctu

ary,

Ban

glad

esh

|

9

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

99




Figure 1. Land-use and habitat patterns of the Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary (Adapted from Nishorgo Support Project, 2005).

1 01 0

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

| C

onse

rvat

ion

stat

us o

f A

sian

ele

phan

t in

Chu

nati

Wil

dlif

e Sa

nctu

ary,

Ban

glad

esh

|Family English

name Scientific name Plant parts eaten Locality

Musaceae Bronze Banana

Musa ornata Almost all parts, except roots 2

Banana Musa sp. Almost all parts, except roots 1 Banana Musa sapientum Almost all parts, except roots 1 Dwarf

Cavendish Musa acuminata Almost all parts, except roots 2

Brasicaceae Radish Raphnus sativus All parts 1 Cabbage Brassica oleracea var.

batrytis All parts 1

Cauliflower Brassica oleracea var.capitata

All parts 1

Myrtacae Guava Pisidiumgaujava Young leaves, fruits 1 Blackberry Syzygium cumini Bark, fruit 1 Febaceae Bean Vigna uniguiculata Young leaves, stem, grain 1, 2 Anacardiaceae Mango Mangifera indica Flower, fruits 1

Mango Mangifera longipes Flower, fruits 2 Verbenaceae Teak Tectona grandis Bark 1, 2 Solanaceae Bringal Solonum melongena Fruits, leaves 1 Cucubitaceae Bitter

Melons Momardica charantia Fruits, leaves 1

Rhamnaceae Jujube Zizyphus mauritiana Fruits, flowers 1 Wild Jujube Zizyphus rugosa Fruits, flowers 2 Caricaceae Papaya Carica papaya Fruits 1

Convolulaceae Water Spinach

Ipomoea aquatica Stem, leaves 2

Graminae Sungrass Imperata cyllindrica Leaves, shoots 2 Bamboo Bambusa sp. Almost all parts, except roots 1

Makhal Bamboo

Bambusa teres Almost all parts, except roots 2

Tulda Bamboo

Bambusa tulda Almost all parts, except roots 2

PolymorphaBamboo

Bambusa polymorpha Almost all parts, except roots 2

Berry Bamboo

Melocanna baccifera Almost all parts, except roots 2

Dolu Bamboo

Neauhozia zeylanica Almost all parts, except roots 2

Kali Bamboo

Oxytenanthera nigrociliata Almost all parts, except roots 2

Paddy Oryza sativa Grains, leaves 1

Wheat Triticum aestivum Leaves, stem 1 Sugarcane Saccharum officinarum Leaves, shoots 2 Wick grass Hymenache

pseudointerupta Leaves, shoots 2

Tiger grass Thysanolaena maxima All parts 2

Grass Sacciolepis myosuroides All parts 2 Wild

sugarcane Saccharum spontaneum All parts 2

1 1

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

1 11 1

Locality code: 1 - Plants recorded in the homestead after raids; 2- Plants recorded in the forest areas.

Our FGD and interview data suggested thatelephants intensively used these areas for breedingand nursing their calves. Although tree cover wasscarce in these areas, there were a number ofcreeks that provided good sources of water forelephants. We recorded a herd of 8 elephants withtwo new born calves in April 2012 in one of theseareas. Priority-based comprehensive managementactions along with plantation programmes mayimprove the conditions of these areas so thatelephants may find more fodder and shelter.Original tree species (e.g., Fig, Ficus spp.;Chapalish, Artocarpus spp.; Garjan,Dipterocarpus spp.; Jam, Syzygium spp.) which

have been wiped out from the study areas couldbe the priority species for plantation. Currentextraction of resources including fuelwood andsungrass should be arrested to prevent furtherdegradation of habitats.

In terms of human-elephant conflicts, our analysisshowed that 63% of losses incurred were due tothe damage of fruit trees, followed by crops (23%),houses and properties (8%), and bamboo grooves(6%). Elephants raided paddy fields during the twomain paddy seasons, and much of the paddy fieldsare within the boundary of the sanctuary and eco-park. Other crops raided by elephants are




Family English name

Scientific name Plant parts eaten Locality

Wick grass Hymenache pseudointerupta

Leaves, shoots 2

Tiger grass Thysanolaena maxima All parts 2

Grass Sacciolepis myosuroides All parts 2 Wild

sugarcane Saccharum spontaneum All parts 2

Moraceae Rubber Hevea brasiliensis Bark of young trees 2

Jackfruit Artocarpus heterophyllus Leaves, twigs, fruits 1

Monkey Jack

Artocarpus lacucha Fruits 1

Banyan tree Ficus bengalensis Leaves, twigs, fruits 1, 2 Australian

Fig Ficus auriculata Fruits 1

Chapalish Artocarpus chama Fruits 2 Dioscoreaceae Wild potato Dioscorea alata Fruits, leaves 2

Sweet Potato

Dioscorea batatus Fruits, leaves 1

Yam Dioscorea pentaphylla Fruits, leaves 1 Rutaceae Pomelo Citrus grandis Fruits 1

Smilacaceae Greenbrier Smilax sp. Fruits, entire tree 2 Fabaceae Indian

Rosewood Dalbergia sissoo Leaves, twigs 1

Catechu Acacia catechu Leaves, twigs, bark 2

Malvaceae Cotton tree Bombax ceiba Leaves, twigs, bark 1 Dipterocarpaceae Sal Shorea robusta Bark 2 Garjan Dipterocarpus turbinatus Bark 2

Bromeliaceae Pineapple Ananas comosus All parts 1 Amaranthaceae Data spinach Amaranthus gangeticus All parts 1

Palmae Coconut Cocos nucifera Central rachis, pith, leaves 1 Reeds Phragmites karka Leaves, stem 2

Caryophyllaceae Tara Stellaria wallichiana Fruits, entire tree 1

1 21 2

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

| C

onse

rvat

ion

stat

us o

f A

sian

ele

phan

t in

Chu

nati

Wil

dlif

e Sa

nctu

ary,

Ban

glad

esh

| presented in the Table 1. Farmers claimed thatthey have had to invest many hours to guard cropfields from elephant raids, including establishmentof guard-sheds, and using flashlights andkerosene-fire to deter elephants. Due to frequentraiding since the early stage, net productions ofcrops were also reduced significantly. It wasobserved that elephants preferred to vandalizethatched houses with sungrass roofs, and housesthat contained stored grains.

During this study, humans and livestock being killedby elephants were not reported. However, anestimated 14 people were reported to have beeninjured due to elephant attacks, although some ofthe incidences occurred within the forests duringillegal resource extractions. No elephant deathswere reported in the areas during this study. Thehuman-elephant conflicts in the areas appearedto be a persistent problem (Islam et al., 1999;IUCN Bangladesh, 2011) and have beennegatively affecting elephant conservation efforts.A long-term conflict situation will contribute tolosing the support of local people for elephantconservation initiatives in future. This sort ofconflict often reduces the local support forconservation in areas where human life andproperty are at high risk of elephant destruction(Thoulesand Sakwa, 1994).

Major factors leading to human-elephant conflictsincluded habitat loss and fragmentation, extractionof forest resources (e.g., fuelwood, timber,bamboo, sungrass), agricultural activities withinthe sanctuary and grazing of elephant habitats bylivestock (e.g., herds of buffalo, cows). Habitatencroachment and pressure from the expansionof agricultural fields over fringes also threaten thelong-term survival of elephants in the areas.

Conclusion

The elephant population in the study areas mayfluctuate due to migration and movement to forestsoutside of the sanctuary and eco-park. Localpeople have not abandoned illegal resourceextractions, although a number of conservationefforts appear to have contributed to the overallhabitat improvement in the recent past. Resourceextractions should be strictly regulated and shouldonly be permitted for selected forest users in the

restricted buffer areas so that local people willhave a positive feeling towards forest managementand wildlife conservation. Some areas identifiedin this study are critical to elephant conservationand these areas should be urgently improved byarresting further resource extractions and byplantation programmes. Bio-fencing andunattractive crop cultivation initiatives can beintroduced to minimize future crop raiding. Themajority of the local people who have either legalor illegal stakes with the sanctuary and eco-parkappeared to be non-supportive to elephant as wellas overall biodiversity conservation. However,their support for elephant conservation is a mustand the authorities should take up this issue to beresolved in future management efforts. Finally,political will and a bottom-up conservationapproach can play a vital role in elephantconservation in Bangladesh.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the generous supportprovided by the field officers of the BangladeshForest Department during this study. We areparticularly thankful to Mr. Zaglul Haider,Divisional Forest Officer; Mr. Anower HossainSarker, Assistant Conservator of Forest andother field officers for their cooperationduring this study. We would also like to thankMr. Md. Abdur Rahim, plant taxonomist of theDepartment of Zoology, JahangirnagarUniversity, who helped identify some plantspecies.

References

Al-Zabed, A. 1992. Man-elephant interactionat Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary inBangladesh.Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis,Department of Zoology, JahangirnagarUniversity, Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Aziz, M. A. 2013. Notes on a polyspecificassociation of Rhesus Macaque and Pig-tailed Macaque in the BanshkahliEcopark of Bangladesh. ZOO’s PRINT, 5:21-23.

Aziz, M.A. 2002. Ecology of Asian Elephant,Elephas maximus and its interaction withman in Chittagong and the ChittagongHill Tracts. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis,

1 3

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

1 31 3

Department of Zoology, JahangirnagarUniversity, Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Aziz, M.A., Feeroz, M.M. and A.F.M. Shahriar.2005. Feeding movements of the Asianelephants in the northern side of the riverKarnafuli in the Chittagong Hill-Tracts,Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal ofSciences, 17 (1): 51-58.

Chakraborty, T.R. 1996. The ecology andconservation of elephants (Elephasmaximus). Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis,Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka,Bangladesh.

Husain, K.Z. 1990. A report on a survey of thefauna of the Chunati Game Sanctuary.Multi-Disciplinary Action Research Centre,Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Islam, M.A., Khan, M.M.H., Kabir M.M., Das,A.K., Chowdhury, M.M., Feeroz, M.M. andS. Begum. 1999. Man-elephantinteractions in Bangladesh in 1997.Bangladesh Journal of Life Sciences, 11:31-36.

Islam, M.A. 2006. Conservation of the Asianelephants in Bangladesh. Gajah, 25: 21-26.

Islam, M.A., S. Mohsanin, G.W. Chowdhury, S.U.Chowdhury, M.A. Aziz, M. Uddin, S. Saif, S.Chakma, R. Akter, I. Jahan and I. Azam.2011. Current status of Asian Elephant inBangladesh. Gajah, 35: 21-24.

IUCN-Bangladesh. 2000. Red Book ofThreatened Mammals of Bangladesh.IUCN –The World Conservation Union,Bangladesh Country Office, Dhaka,Bangladesh.

IUCN-Bangladesh. 2004. Conservation ofAsian elephants in Bangladesh. IUCN-The World Conservation Union, BangladeshCountry Office, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

IUCN-Bangladesh. 2011. The Asian Elephantsand Associated Human-ElephantConflicts in South-Eastern Bangladesh.I. Sobhan, M.A. Aziz & N.A. Khan (eds.),IUCN Bangladesh, Dhaka.

Kabir, J.M. 2012. Elephant Habitat andHuman-Elephant Conflict: A Case Study

in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary. In:Connecting Communities andConservation: Co-management InitiativesImplemented by IPAC in wetlands andforests of Bangladesh. Bangladesh ForestDepartment, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Molur, S., Brandon-Jones, D., Dittus, W., Eudey,A., Kumar, A., Singh, M., Feeroz, M.M.,Chalise, M., Priya, P. and S. Walker. 2003.Status of South Asian primates:Conservation Assessment andManagement Plan (C.A.M.P.), Workshopreport, 2003. Zoo Outreach Organisation/CBSG–South Asia, Coimbatore, India.

Nath, C. and R. Sukumar. 1998. Elephant-humanconflict in Kodagu, southern India:distribution patterns, people’sperception and mitigation methods. AsianElephant Conservation Center for EcologicalSciences, Indian Institute of Science,Bangalore, India.

Sarker, A.H.M.R, and E. Roskaft. 2010. Humanattitudes towards conservation of Asianelephants (Elephas maximus) inBangladesh. International Journal ofBiodiversity and Conservation, 2 (10): 316-327.

Sukumar, R. 1989. The Asian elephant: Ecologyand Management. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK.

Thoules, C.R. and J. Sakwa. 1994. ShockingElephants: Fences and Crop Raiders inLaikipia District, Kenya. BiologicalConservation. Elsevier Science Limited. GreatBritain.

Authors’ addresses: Mohammad Shamsuddoha,Department of Zoology, JahangirnagarUniversity, Dhaka 1342, Bangladesh; Md.Abdul Aziz, Associate Professor, Departmentof Zoology, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka1342, Bangladesh and PhD Candidate, TheDurrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology(DICE), University of Kent, UK. Email:[email protected]




1 41 4

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

PALLAS’ CAT IN ANNAPURNA CONSERVATION AREA OFNEPAL

by Neeru Thapa

Since the passing of the National Parks andWildlife Conservation Act 2029 (1973), Nepal hasestablished many protected areas in order toprotect its biodiversity. These protected areasinclude 10 national parks, 3 wildlife reserves, 6conservation areas, 1 hunting reserve and 12buffer zones, covering 34,185.62 km2 (23.23%)of the total geographical area of the country.

The National Trust for Nature Conservation(NTNC) is managing the Annapurna ConservationArea (ACA) through the establishment of theAnnapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP).ACA is the first and largest conservation area ofNepal. ACAP is considered to be a pioneer inadopting the Integrated Conservation andDevelopment Program (ICDP). Behind thesuccess of the ICDP model is the strong motivationand commitment of the local people towardsconservation. ACAP has strengthened the grass-roots level people by entrusting them with theresponsibility of managing the natural resources.ACAP has developed an innovative approach forpreventing environmental degradation and loss ofnatural resources in ACA by creating a sustainablebalance of needs among local people, tourismmanagement and nature conservation. ACA ishome to many fauna and flora and is by far themost popular mountain tourism destination in theNepal Himalayas.

ACAP, in partnership with the Snow LeopardConservancy – Nepal, has installed severalcameras in ACA to monitor snow leopard status.Of a total eleven cameras installed in the Manangarea of ACA, two camera traps have capturedthe first live pictorial evidence of Pallas’ Cat(Otocolobus manul) in ACA of Nepal. Thephotographs were captured on December 10, 2012(4,200 m) and on December 26, 2013 (4,650 m).The photographed cat with a long, ringed tail anddark spots on the forehead was confirmed by

national and international experts to be a Pallas’Cat and was announced as a new species to Nepalat a press conference organized at the ACAPHeadquarters in February 2014.

Pallas’ Cat is the eighth species recorded in ACAthat are new to Nepal. The other seven speciesare: Kiang (Equus kiang), Tibetan Argali (Ovisammon hodgsoni), Tibetan Gazelle (Procaprapicticaudata), Tibetan Sandgrouse (Syrrhaptestibetanus), Eurasian Eagle Owl (Bubo bubo),Tibetan Argus (Argusianus argus) and VarnishedApollo (Parnassius acco).

In 2012, when Bhutan recorded the firstphotographic evidence of Pallas’ Cat, it wasassumed that it would also be present in theEastern Himalayas of Nepal, but there were norecords of its presence in any geographical areaof the country. Thus, the new photographicconfirmation of its presence in Nepal is a greatboon for the country and for those dedicated toworking in the conservation sector. ACAP aimsto ensure a detailed study regarding the Pallas’Cat’s status, distribution and potential habitat. TheInternational Union for Conservation of Nature(IUCN) has listed Pallas’ Cat as “Nearthreatened” because of the globally decliningpopulation and disappearance from most of theirformer ranges. The Pallas’ Cat’s survival isthreatened by hunters for its fur, fat and organswhich have medicinal value worldwide. Today,protecting wildlife against poachers is one of themain challenges and the participatory conservationpractices adopted by ACAP seem to be veryeffective.

The author is National Trust for NatureConservation-Annapurna Conservation AreaProject Conservation Officer; E-mail:[email protected]

| Pal

las’

Cat

in

Ann

apur

na C

onse

rvat

ion

Are

a of

Nep

al |

1 5

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

1 51 5

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION OF DEGRADED FORESTSYSTEMS IN THE TROPICS

by Jaap Kuper

The area of natural forest in the tropics isdiminishing at a rapid pace. Much of it is beingreplaced by crops that quickly bring profits to alimited number of investors. At the same time, thearea of wasteland is increasing. Much of thewasteland is the result of ongoing unsustainabletimber harvest. The annual fires that often followprevent secondary forest from developing, withthe result that forests that are degraded, or in theworst case destroyed, are unlikely to recover andso the wasteland remains.

The limited area that has been “restored to forest”has generally been transformed into treeplantations. We have tended to call these “forest”too, because they are composed of trees andproduce timber. But in no way do plantations havethe wide spectrum of values that natural forestshave and in general they serve only the interestsof individuals who have no links with local people.There are, however, some examples wheredegraded or destroyed forest systems have beenrestored to as natural a forest as possible, but theirarea is very limited. This is surprising, consideringthat many communities in remote areas are verydependent on commodities from natural or semi-natural forests, and that millions of people wholive in valleys are dependent on water resourcesthat are regulated by forest-covered mountains.

Why are there so few such examples? Why isthere so much wasteland? Typical argumentsagainst restoring forest are: “Tree planting is expensive and it takes too

long to get returns on investments.” “Nobody takes responsibility for the land, so

why invest in restoration?” “There’s no point in planting trees because

fire and livestock will prevent forest fromdeveloping.”

If we accept these arguments then there is nohope that the wastelands will ever be convertedinto forests, nor is there any hope for the remainingnatural forest: it will all be destroyed sooner orlater. (More than likely it will be sooner).

Can something be done to counter thesearguments? There are some possible solutions: Make planting cheap and with quick returns. Make people concerned about the land so they

will take responsibility for it. Ensure land management benefits those who

take responsibility.

In this article I will show that tree planting can becheap and beneficial, that people can becomeconcerned about the land use and that landmanagement can be well organized.

Make tree planting cheap

Traditionally, foresters think only of plantingplantations. They plant huge numbers (3,000 to5,000) saplings per ha so that the tree trunks willgrow optimally for industrial timber products. Afterdecades, such plantations produce large volumesof commercial timber. As well as being veryexpensive, the system is also vulnerable to fireand pests. Plantations are an investment-drivenexercise. They are applied if prospects are goodfor returns on investment; if prospects are not good,plantations are not planted and the land isabandoned after the original forest has been cut.The sole objective of plantations is to generatereturns on investment for the investors. Theprotection of water catchment, of forest resourcesfor local communities or conservation ofbiodiversity have never been arguments forestablishing plantations.

But meanwhile, it has become apparent thatworldwide, water catchments, forest resources for

| Ecological restoration of degraded forest system

s in the tropics |

1 61 6

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

(continued on p.17)

communities and biodiversity are diminishing. So,who should take responsibility for these issues?And how?

Plantations are not the answer

Let us first consider how forest could be restored.It is unrealistic to expect much of the wastelandto be converted into plantations. And that is noteven desirable! It would be much better totransform the wasteland into forest (natural orsemi-natural). Compared with plantations, semi-natural forest is far more effective as a watercatchment, as a resource providing a mix of forestproducts for local communities and as habitat forbiodiversity. To guarantee permanent soil cover,the full spectrum of forest products and also thenatural biodiversity, the forest should ideally becomposed of a variety of indigenous tree species.

Just as importantly, to restore semi-natural forestit is not necessary to plant large numbers ofsaplings: 400 to 500 per ha is sufficient (seebelow), and they could be seedlings or seedsobtained from remnant natural forests in thevicinity – for free! The seedlings or seedscollected should include the various species thatcompose the natural forest. They must be plantedin a random mix of species, but taking care thatthe characteristics of the species match theconditions of the planting site (see below).

So, compared with conventional thinking inforestry, such restoration to semi-natural forestrequires a completely different strategy thatproduces a completely different kind of forest.

Three levels of degradation

How degraded systems are converted into semi-natural forests depends on the level ofdegradation. It makes a great difference if some“forest climate” still remains on the site, and ifthere are wildings rather than completelydestroyed forest such as pure grassland.

It is useful to recognize three levels ofdegradation:A. Totally destroyed forest - no trees remain.B. Severely degraded forest - some trees and

forest climate remain, no wildings.

C. Moderately degraded forest - some trees, forestclimate and wildings occur.

A. Completely destroyed forestStrategy: plant entire area with mixed speciesin low numbers per haThe starting position is no trees and therefore tocreate the new forest, saplings must be planted.They could be seedlings collected or raised fromseeds from remnant natural forests somewhere inthe vicinity. In order to increase their chances ofsurvival after planting, the seedlings need to begrown on or in a nursery. Collected seeds mustalso be germinated and raised in the nursery.

Once the seedlings are fit for planting they areplanted in lines in the field, to make it easy to dothe weeding during the first two to three years.The saplings are planted as mixed species. Toreduce working time, the numbers are kept low:400 – 500 saplings per ha is sufficient. The mainpurpose of the planting is to have sufficient numbersto create a forest and to shade out the competinggrasses and weeds. Once the main competingvegetation has been shaded out, the forest developsby itself. Birds and mammals (notably fruit bats)will bring in new tree seeds from the natural forest.

It should be kept in mind that the microclimate ingrassland is harsh. It is only fit for pioneer speciesthat can tolerate the full light and heat. So, in suchconditions the saplings must also include pioneerspecies, among them coppicing species that cansoon be used as a source of firewood.Intermediate species can be added only in limitednumbers. It is up to the birds and bats to bring inthe tree species of subsequent succession stagesonce the grasses have been shaded out and somesort of forest climate has been created. Experiencefrom Uganda has shown that this happenssurprisingly quickly: only five years after the firstsaplings were planted, seedlings of climax treespecies appeared spontaneously!

During the first two to four years, and especiallyin the first year, competing vegetation must beweeded out. The traditional way is to slash thecompeting vegetation, but trampling it has alsoproved efficient. The most important way to reducecompetitive species that have rhizomes is repeatedweeding, to weaken the rhizomes. This means

| Eco

logi

cal r

esto

rati

on o

f deg

rade

d fo

rest

sys

tem

s in

the

trop

ics

|

1 7

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

1 71 7

investing extra effort in the first six months afterplanting the saplings. If the competing vegetationis given time to overgrow the saplings it will hampertheir growth and rhizomes of competing plants willbuild up their reserves, making them more difficultto eradicate. This must be prevented, to avoid asetback in the coming years.

Summing up, the actions needed are: Collect seedlings or seeds from nearby forest; Grow them on or raise them in a nursery; Plant a mix of sapling species; Weed for two to four years.

B. Severely degraded forestStrategy: enrichment planting.In this case some trees and forest climate remainafter the logging. Because of the sudden increasein light, climbers often become dominant and coverthe entire area. Under such conditions thedevelopment of the forest is hampered for a longperiod. Most of the tree species that were at homein this site have been cut, and so cannot supplyseed. Even if some seedlings of these trees arepresent, they will not survive competition from theclimbers. The problem can be solved by cuttingthe climbers for two consecutive years andplanting saplings of intermediate and climax tree

species in the “half-shade” of the sparse oldertrees. The saplings should have been collected asseedlings or seeds and grown on or raised in anursery, as described above. In enrichment plantingtoo, a maximum of 400 to 500 saplings per haplanted in lines suffices.

Summing up, the actions needed are: Collect seedlings or seeds from nearby forest; Grow them on or raise them in a nursery; Plant a mix of sapling species as enrichment

in the degraded forest; and Weed for two/three years.

C. Moderately degraded forestStrategy: release wildingsSome trees remain, creating a forest climate.Wildings of intermediate and climax tree speciesare present. However, similar to the previoussituation, the development of the forest is blockedby an abundance of climbers, and sometimes byless desirable pioneer trees. It is sufficient to cutthe climbers and some of the pioneer trees. Again,a maximum of 400 to 500 saplings per ha need tobe released from competitive vegetation.

Summing up, the actions needed are:


s in the tropics |(continued from p.16)

Seedlings in the natural forest, for free

1 81 8

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

Find saplings of desired tree species in thedegraded forest; and

Release the saplings from climbers and lessdesirable competitors during two/three years.

Nursery management

The seedlings or seeds collected in forestremnants need to be grown on or raised in a nurseryuntil they have reached 30 to 50 cm tall and havedeveloped a good root system. The nursery maybe simple and small. Many farmers are capableof setting up such a nursery. The seedlings shouldbe planted in polyethylene bags containing soil thatis mainly forest soil, because in order to growproperly, the seedlings need the beneficial soil fungi(mycorrhizae). Regulate the shade in the nurseryto mimic the conditions in the forest from whichthe seedlings were collected and graduallyaccustom them to the conditions at the site wherethey will be planted later on. Planting must be doneat the start of the wet season.

Make people concerned about the land use

Who will do this forest restoration? And who willprotect and manage the restored forest?The forest could, of course, be restored by theauthorities that are responsible for assuring watersupply and protecting biodiversity. But so far theyhave not done so, perhaps because they have otherpriorities. Even if they were to restore the forest,that would not solve the question of who isresponsible for the land use. For this, it is worthlooking to the local communities. After all, theylive on the spot and will benefit most from theecologically restored forest.

Let us look at the needs of local communities.These are firewood, building materials, fodder,grass and many other non-timber forest products.That is precisely the product mix that can be takenfrom restored natural or semi-natural forests.

Would local communities be capable of restoringand managing the forest? Certainly! Their strengthis that they can literally oversee their forest: theyare aware of its benefits, they can spread therestoration activities over longer periods, and theywelcome the small returns the forest brings themas individuals. Very importantly, once they have

invested in restoration they will organize themselvesin order to protect and manage their restorednatural resource.

Deadlocks to be broken

Why do local communities not engage in massiveforest restoration? Is it because they are unawareof how relatively easy and cheaply it may bedone? They may have been reluctant to actbecause they believe that forest restoration canbe done only by creating (unwanted) plantations.This could be solved by creating demonstrationplots. But someone needs to take the initiative toset these up!

A more intractable problem is the absence of landtitles. Much wasteland is neither communally norprivately owned.

Much wasteland is state-owned in one way oranother and therefore individuals or communitiesare reluctant to risk investing in such land becauseof the uncertainty about whether they will laterbe able to reap the rewards of their investment. Itis therefore necessary for communities to get intouch with the authorities so that formalagreements can be made about the long-termusufruct of the land on which communities areinvesting in forest restoration. Such agreementsshould be possible if it is acknowledged thatcommunities and authorities have compatibleinterests in forest restoration: the communitiesbecause of the mix of forest commodities producedand the authorities because they want erosioncontrol, water regulation and economicdevelopment. Both parties benefit from mountainslopes that are permanently covered by sustainablymanaged forest.

Conclusions

Ecological forest restoration is easy to apply. Itcan be done at low cost and by local communities.Not only may the ecologically restored forest besustainably used by local communities, it alsoprovides restored water catchment and habitat forthe indigenous flora and fauna.

To start ecological forest restoration on wastelandit is necessary to make long-term agreements with

| Eco

logi

cal r

esto

rati

on o

f deg

rade

d fo

rest

sys

tem

s in

the

trop

ics

|

1 9

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

1 91 9


s in the tropics |

Completely destroyed forest, showing erosion and landslide

Severely degraded forest showing climber carpet

2 02 0

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

the landowner. Forest restoration benefitseveryone.

Who will take the first steps?

It is clear from the above that once they havebeen trained in ecological restoration, the mostlogical parties to involve in ecological forestrestoration are local communities. However, theyare seldom in a position to start the restoration.The most frequent obstacle is the absence of landtitles. Local communities are rarely considered tobe serious candidates for negotiating these withthe authorities. On the other hand, the authorities

do not take the initiative either. They do notrecognize the opportunities and probably haveother priorities.

So, who can break the deadlock? YOU can,reader of this article. YOU are in a position tostart this discussion with communities andauthorities and bring both parties together. If YOUdo not take action, who will? So, if you areconcerned about forest restoration, start thediscussion TODAY.

Need more information? Need help? Get in touch!www.jaapkuper.com

| E

colo

gica

l res

tora

tion

of d

egra

ded

fore

st s

yste

ms

in th

e tr

opic

s |

Wilding hidden under competing vegetation

2 1

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

2 12 1

CITIZEN SCIENTISTS SURVEY OF URBAN BIRD DIVERSITYAT BRIXTON NATURE RESERVE IN PERTH, WESTERNAUSTRALIA

by Subas P. Dhakal

Introduction

Countries around the world are increasingly beingurbanized and the urban population is expected toreach nearly 5 billion by 2030 (Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity, 2012). Thisrapid pace of urbanization has led to a biodiversitycrisis across the globe (Loreau et al., 2006; Setoet al., 2012). For instance, with more than two-thirds of the population living in major cities,Australia is one of the most urbanized nations inthe world. While the country is one of 17 mega-diverse countries with 70% of the world’s floraand fauna (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010),urban Australia is also home to nearly half of thethreatened flora and fauna (Yencken andWilkinson, 2001). Since the places people have

chosen to live are also the preferred habitat ofnative wildlife, there is a need for concertedefforts from government agencies, academia,businesses, and citizens to protect remnant urbanbiodiversity. This is particularly urgent in cities likePerth, which is situated within one of 25biodiversity hotspots in the world (Myers et al.,2000).

A comprehensive understanding of the scale andsize of urban biodiversity is often confounded bythe scarcities of human resources such as the lackof technical expertise for long-term data collectionand analysis, financial resources (i.e., budget cutsassociated with governmental austerity measures),and institutional capital (i.e., inadequate andineffective policies). Consequently, a voluntary role

Figure 1: A typical winter wetland vista of Brixton Nature Reserve showing three layers of vegetation: a) Twine Rush [Front], b) Native Broom [Left edges], and c) Marri Trees [Back]

| Citizen scientists survey of urban bird diversity at B

rixton Nature R

eserve |

2 22 2

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

of everyday citizens has been increasinglyconsidered a viable approach to biodiversityconservation measures. The term citizenscientists generally refers to volunteers whoparticipate in various aspects of scientific inquiry(Cohn, 2008). In the case of biodiversity-relatedstudies, the term profoundly refers to theconnection between science and everyday ordinarypeople (Pandya, 2012) who are willing tocontribute their time to care for, conserve,document, monitor, and create awareness/educateabout biodiversity. It is in this context that this paperpresents: a) a case study of a citizen scientistsgroup associated with the Brixton Nature ReservePerth, Western Australia (WA); and b) the findingsof the citizen scientists’ survey of urban birddiversity at the reserve.

Citizen Scientists for Brixton NatureReserve

The Perth metropolitan area covers an area of542,300 ha and has a population of about 1.9 million(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013). Perth is ahydropolis - a city of wetlands. Almost one-quarterof Perth’s area is classified as wetlands and nearly4,000 wetlands have been officially registered, ofwhich 29 are wetlands of national importance andthree are of global significance, i.e., Ramsar sites(Environment Australia, 2001). However, two-thirds of the wetlands in and around Perth havealready been lost in the past one and half century(Davis and Froend, 1999) and remnant wetlandsare under continual threat from unsustainabledevelopment (Dhakal, 2013). The Brixton StreetWetland (BSW) is located about 14 kilometressouthwest of Perth and spreads over 19 ha (Payne,1993). BSW is home to more than 320 species ofplants, which is equivalent to more than 20% ofPerth’s flora in only 0.005% of the area (Phillimore,2003). While this seasonal wetland is waterloggedbetween late autumn and early spring, severalponds that form in deeper depressions in the heavyclay soils last much longer. These ponds arecommonly called clay-pans, which completely dryoff during the summer. Tall trees (e.g., MarriCorymbia sp.), an understorey of shrubs (e.g.,Native Broom Viminaria sp.), and seasonallysubmerged sedges (e.g., Twine-rush Leptocarpussp.) dominate the clay-pan wetlands vista (Figure1). Apart from being enlisted in the Directory of

Important Wetlands in Australia, BSW is also oneof the 287 significant urban bushland sites in Perth(Dhakal, 2013).

The Friends of BSW is one of the hundreds ofcitizen scientists groups in Perth that has beenactively engaged in biodiversity conservation sincethe late 1980s. The citizen scientists group initiallycame together to lobby for the appropriatebiodiversity assessment and recognition of thewetland’s significance. BSW was originally underthe ownership of a government-operated housingagency that revealed its plan to reclaim thewetland in order to build a medium densityresidential complex in the 1980s. Because of themounting pressure from the group, the housing planwas subjected to an environmental impactassessment. Recognizing the use and non-usevalues of the wetland, the assessmentrecommended against the development, andsupported the protection of BSW as an urbannature reserve (Keighery and Keighery, 1995).The wetland was formally designated as theBrixton Nature Reserve in 2004 with the primaryobjective to conserve biodiversity and is jointlymanaged by the WA government, localgovernment and citizen scientists group (Dhakal,2011).

Bird diversity survey

Having succeeded in increasing awareness aboutthe significance of the reserve, the citizen scientistsare now involved in maintaining the reserveamenities, i.e., fencing, paths and entrances,restoring the wetlands, documenting and monitoringbiodiversity. The group has been meeting at leastonce a month for over two decades. A dedicatedteam of volunteers has been interested insurveying flora and fauna at the reserve andkeeping photographic records. The baseline reportof the mid-nineties (Keighery and Keighery, 1995)reported that 41 bird species were found in thearea. In order to update the bird diversityinformation, a long-term and systematic birdsurvey was carried out between the February 2009and January 2012, using the Area Search Method(Department of the Environment, Water, Heritageand the Arts, 2010). Using this particular technique,citizen scientists explored set patches within the

| Cit

izen

sci

enti

sts

surv

ey o

f urb

an b

ird

dive

rsit

y at

Bri

xton

Nat

ure

Res

erve

|

2 3

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

2 32 3

reserve for birds and recorded data every monthfor three consecutive years.

A total of 63 species of birds were recorded (Table1) during this timeframe, an increase in birddiversity of nearly 35% across six orders. Thesurvey recorded six species of previouslyundocumented Psittaciformes in Brixton NatureReserve, two of which are significant species: a)the endangered Carnaby’s black cockatoo; andb) the vulnerable Red-tailed black cockatoo. Thesespecies are protected under the 1950 WesternAustralian Wildlife Conservation Act and the1999 Environmental Protection and BiodiversityConservation Act of the Commonwealth ofAustralia. Both cockatoo species were recordedon multiple occasions between the months of Apriland October, and often in groups of 4-10individuals. On the afternoon of 25th April 2011,between 500 and 1,000 Carnaby’s BlackCockatoos were observed within the reserve.

Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos weigh up to 790 gm,measure between 53 and 58 cm in length, andhave a wingspan of approximately 110 cm. TheRed-tailed Black Cockatoos are slightly larger,measuring between 55 and 60 cm in length andweighing up to 870 gm. White patches on thecheeks and white bands on their tails distinguishCarnaby’s Black Cockatoos from Red-TailedBlack Cockatoos that have broad red tail panels(Figure 2). Both of these species have strong shortbills for cracking hard nuts and seeds (e.g., Marri).Male birds have reddish eye rings, whereasfemales have greyish eye rings. The survival of

these cockatoo species has been of increasingconcern because they are endemic to WA andthreatened by the loss of native habitat associatedwith rapid urbanization in and around Perth.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to capture andcommunicate the contributions of a citizenscientists groups in Perth towards protectingsignificant urban wetlands and biodiversity,especially that of birds. The findings of the paperindicate that appropriate conservation efforts ofcitizen scientists can lead to significant increasesin biodiversity in urban areas. Because of thepersistent interest and motivation of volunteers, avaluable ecosystem was prevented from being lostforever. Most of the native vegetation in the reservehas been restored supporting at least 63 urban birds,including two protected cockatoo species. Thephotographic evidence of a significant increase in urban biodiversity is significant for cities like Perthbecause it can provide valuable information forshaping evidence-based policy to protect remnanturban habitats. The case of Brixton NatureReserve in Perth is a reminder that the role citizenscientists play in monitoring and documenting urbanbiodiversity should not be overlooked.

Acknowledgements

This paper is supported through the AustralianGovernment’s Collaborative ResearchNetworks (CRN) program at Southern CrossUniversity. The author is grateful to numerous


rixton Nature R

eserve |

Figure 2: Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos (Right); Red-tailed Black Cockatoos (Left)

2 42 4

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

| Cit

izen

sci

enti

sts

surv

ey o

f urb

an b

ird

dive

rsit

y at

Bri

xton

Nat

ure

Res

erve

| citizen scientists associated with BrixtonNature Reserve for nearly a quarter of acentury, especially, Mrs Regina Drummondand Mr Trevor Drummond. [Disclaimer: Allphotographs in this paper were taken by theauthor].

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2010. 2009-10Year Book Australia. Canberra,Commonwealth of Australia.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2013. RegionalPopulation Growth, Australia, 2011-12:Western Australia. Canberra,Commonwealth of Australia.

Cohn, J. P. 2008. Citizen Science: CanVolunteers Do Real Research? BioScience,58(3), 192-197.

Davis, J.A. and R. Froend. 1999 Loss anddegradation of wetlands in southwesternAustralia: underlying causes,consequences and solutions. WetlandsEcology and Management, 7, 13-23.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritageand the Arts. 2010. Survey guidelines forAustralia’s threatened birds. Guidelinesfor detecting birds listed as threatenedunder the Environment Protection andBiodiversity Conservation Act 1999.Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.

Dhakal, S.P. 2011. Five capitals framework forexploring the state of friends’ groups inPerth, Western Australia: Implications forurban environmental stewardship. TheInternational Journal of Environmental,Economic, Cultural and SocialSustainability, 7(2), 135-147.

Dhakal, S.P. 2013. Fragile environment inneed of resilient carers? A case ofregional natural resources managementin Perth, Western Australia. LocalEnvironment, DOI- http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.818952

Environment Australia. 2001. A Directory ofImportant Wetlands in Australia. 3rd ed.Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.

Keighery, B.J. and G.J. Keighery. 1995. Knowingand Managing the Brixton StreetWetlands. Unpublished Report for the Friendsof Brixton Street Wetlands Inc. and theWildflower Society of WA Inc. Nedlands,Western Australia.

Loreau, M., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Arroyo, M.T.K.,Babin, D., Barbault, R., Donoghue, M., Gadgil,C., Häuser, C., Heip, A., Larigauderie, K., Ma,G., Mace, H. A., Mooney, C. Perrings, P.,Raven, J. Sarukhan, P. Schei, R.J. Scholes, andR.T. Watson. 2006. Diversity withoutrepresentation. Nature, 442(7100), 245-246.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G.,Da Fonseca, G.A., and J. Kent. 2000.Biodiversity hotspots for conservationpriorities. Nature, 403(6772), 853-858.

Pandya, R.E. 2012. A framework for engagingdiverse communities in citizen science inthe US. Front Ecol Environ, 10(6), 314–317.

Payne, J. 1993. Wetlands in the city ofGosnells. Report No WP 160. Leederville,Water Authority of Western Australia.

Phillimore, R. 2003. Volunteers give wetlandsa helping hand. LANDSCOPE, 18(4), 45-47.

Secretariat of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity. 2012. Cities and BiodiversityOutlook. Montreal, Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity.

Seto, K.C., Güneralp, B., and L.R. Hutyra. 2012.Global forecasts of urban expansion to2030 and direct impacts on biodiversityand carbon pools. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, 109(40), 16083-16088.

Yencken, D. and D.Wilkinson. 2001. Resettingthe compass. Australia’s Journey towardsSustainability. Collingwood, CSIROPublishing.

Author’s address: Postdoctoral ResearchFellow, Southern Cross University BusinessSchool, Bilinga-4221, Australia. E-mail ID:[email protected]

2 5

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

2 52 5


rixton Nature R

eserve |Table 1: List of Birds at Brixton Nature Reserve

S. N. Common Name Scientific Name Order: Anseriformes 1 Australian Shelduck* Tadorna tadornoides 2 Australian Woodduck Chenonetta jubaia 3 Grey Teal Anas gibberifrons 4 Mallard* Anas platyrhynchos 5 Pacific Blackduck Anas superciliosa Order: Pelicaniformes 6 Little Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax melanokucos 7 Great Egret Ardea alba 8 White Faced Heron Egretta novaehollandiae 9 Australian White Ibis Threskiornis molucca Order: Falconiformes 10 Australian Hobby* Falco longipennis 11 Black-shouldered Kite* Elanus axillaris 12 Brown Goshawk* Accipiter fasciatus 13 Little Eagle Hieraaetus morphnoides 14 Nankeen Kestrel Falco cenchroides 15 Wedge-tailed Eagle Aquila audax Order: Gruiformes 16 Eurasian Coot Fulica atra Order: Columbiformes 17 Common Bronzewing* Phaps chaloptera 18 Feral Pigeon* Columba livia 19 Laughing Turtle-dove Streptopelia senegalensis 20 Spotted Turtle-dove Streptopelia chinensis Order: Psittaciformes 21 Australian Ringneck Barnardius zonarius 22 Carnaby's Black Cockatoo* Calyptorhynchus latirostris 23 Galah* Eolophus roseicapilla 24 Rainbow Lorikeet* Trichoglossus haematodus 25 Red-tailed Black Cockatoo* Calyptorhynchus banksii 26 Red Capped Parrot* Purpureicephalus spurius 27 Western Corella* Cacatua pastinator Order: Cuculiformes 28 Pallid Cuckoo Cuculus pallidus Order: Coraciiformes 29 Laughing Kookaburra* Dacelo novaeguineae 30 Rainbow Bee-eater Merops ornatus 31 Sacred Kingfisher Halcyon sancta Order: Passeriformes 32 Australasian Pipit Anthus asutralis

2 62 6

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

| Cit

izen

sci

enti

sts

surv

ey o

f urb

an b

ird

dive

rsit

y at

Bri

xton

Nat

ure

Res

erve

|

33 Australian Magpie Gymnorhina tibicen 34 Australian Raven Corvus coronoides 35 Australian Reed-warbler* Acrocephalus australis 36 Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Coracina novaehollandiae 37 Black-faced Woodswallow Artamus cinereus 38 Brown Honeyeater Lichmera indistincta 39 Grey Butcherbird Cracticus torquatus 40 Grey Fantail Rhipidura fulginosa 41 Magpie-lark Grallina cyanoleuca 42 Masked Woodswallow Artamus personatus 43 Mistletoebird Dicaeum hirundinaceum 44 New Holland Honeyeater* Phylidonyris novaehollandiae 45 Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata 46 Red-eared Firetail* Stagonopleura oculata 47 Rufous Whistler Pachycephala rufiventris 48 Scarlet Robin* Petroica boodang 49 Silvereye Zosterops lateralis 50 Singing Honeyeater Lichenostomus virescens 51 Splendid Fairy-wren Molarus splendens 52 Striated Pardalote Pardalotus striates 53 Tree Martin Hirvndo nigricans 54 Weebill* Smicrornis brevirostris 55 Western Gerygone Gerygone fusca 56 Western Thornbill* Acanthiza inornata 57 White Browed Scrubwren* Sericornis frontalis 58 White Cheeked Honeyeater Meliphaga virescens 59 White-backed Swallow Cheramoeca leucosternus 60 White-breasted Robin Eopsaltria georgiana 61 White-fronted Chat Epihianura albifrons 62 Willie Wagtail Rhipidura leucophrys 63 Yellow-rumped Thornbill* Acanthiza chrysorrhoa *Newly recorded species

2 7

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

2 72 7

| Status and nature of human-w

ildlife conflict in Shivalik Hills, H

imalayas |

STATUS AND NATURE OF HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT INSHIVALIK HILLS, HIMALAYAS: A CASE STUDY FROMLANSDOWNE FOREST DIVISION, UTTARAKHAND, INDIA

by Mohan Kukreti and Dinesh Bhatt

Introduction

It is believed that human-wildlife conflicts are theproduct of negative interactions between humansand wildlife. These conflicts arise because of thesocio-economic and political landscapes. They areoften controversial because the concernedresources involved have economic value and thespecies involved are of extreme concern andlegally protected (Woodroffe, 2000 & 2001;Treves & Karnath, 2003, Woodroffe et al., 2005;Messmer, 2009). The hills of Uttarakhand have arich cultural heritage and scenic natural beauty;however, with expanding habitation and otheranthropogenic disturbances, the frequency ofhuman-animal conflicts has increased in recentyears. In general, the severity of the conflicts hasincreased in India (Marker & Sivamani, 2009) andespecially in Uttarakhand (Johnsingh & Negi,2003; Mishra, 2010). Other states that have conflictareas include the hills of Himachal Pradesh,Jammu-Kashmir, Junnar in Maharashtra and thescrubs of Andhra Pradesh (Athreya & Belsare,2007). The hills of Uttarakhand are the worstaffected by this problem because after becominga new state there was increasing construction ofnew highways, housing and agricultural activitynear the boundaries of protected areas, resultingin a higher frequency of man-wildlife interactionsas seen in India (Madhusudan, 2003) and otherregions of the world (Woodroffe & Ginsberg, 1998;Ogada et al., 2003). This paper discusses thestatus and nature of human-animal conflicts withspecial reference to leopard (Panthera pardusLinnaeus, 1758), elephant (Elephas maximusLinnaeus, 1758), black bear (Ursus thibetanusCuvier, 1823) and wild boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus,1758) in the worst affected villages lying in thevicinity of Lansdowne forest division, Uttarakhand.We made an attempt to generate statistical dataon the magnitude of human-animal conflicts in the

area, as no national or state level statistical dataare available about the effects of damage causedby wild animals on the social and economic statusof the villagers. We also suggest a few measuresfor policy makers, the concerned forestdepartment and other stakeholders.

Materials & methods

Study area

Lansdowne forest division is situated between 29°

37’ to 30° 2’ North latitude and 78° 19’ 13" to 78°43’0" East longitude in Uttarakhand state of India.The forest division lies in the southwest portion ofPauri Garhwal district and includes Jaiharikhal,Dwarikhal, Yamkeshwar and Dugaddadevelopment blocks. The headquarters is locatedat Kotdwar. The forest division is situated betweenRajaji National Park on its western side andCorbett Tiger Reserve to the east. The divisionincludes protected forest area of 453.66 km2. Inthe northeastern part of Lansdowne range, pine(Pinus roxburghii) and oak (Quercusleucotrichophora) can be found. The remainingparts are occupied by sal (Shorea robusta) andassociated species. This forest division is dividedinto five forest ranges namely, Kotdwar, Dugadda,Lansdowne, Laldhang and Kothri range (Lal,2004). Physically, Lansdowne forest division canbe divided in two types of landscapes viz., Sub-Himalaya or Shivalik and Lesser Himalaya.

Sub Himalayas or Shivaliks includes low foothillshaving the main boundary fault of the LesserHimalayas, consisting of older rocks. This restrictsthe Shivalik hills in north and because of this fault,older rocks have thrusted over Shivalik. Thealtitude of the forest division varies from 200 m to2,000 m; the slope and relief of the forest divisionis somewhere less than 200 m/km and in some

2 82 8

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

| S

tatu

s an

d na

ture

of

hum

an-w

ildl

ife

conf

lict

in

Shiv

alik

Hil

ls, H

imal

ayas

| places between 200-400 m/km. Climatically thearea is divided into three distinct seasons viz., rainyseason (June to September), winter (October toFebruary) and summer (March to May).

Villages studied

The survey was carried out in 94 villages withreports of conflicts in various development blocks,namely Jaiharikhal, Dwarikhal, Yamkeshwar andDugadda of Pauri Garhwal District of UttarakhandState. These villages lie in the Kotdwar, Dugadda,Lansdowne, Laldhang and Kothri ranges ofLansdowne forest division.

Methodology

A door-to-door questionnaire survey was carriedout from 7 September 2008 to 31March 2009 in94 villages in five forest ranges of Lansdowneforest division and information was collected onsighting records about attacks/killings, time,season, area and gender, etc. by problematic wildanimals in the area. The informal and unstructuredinterviews and public meetings were carried outwith the help of local people, community leadersand members of village panchayats (local self-government at the village level or small town levelin India) to get more information about the conflictstatus and nature in the area.

Results and discussion

Nature and status of conflict

The problem of human-animal conflicts in the fiveforest ranges of the division studied showsnegative interactions between humans and wildlifeand may include retaliatory killing as evidenced inour study and elsewhere (Saberwal et al., 1994;Mishra, 1997). There was loss of 74 human livesand 134 incidences of attacks (with injuries) within12 years (1997 - 2009). The number of man-eatingtigers/leopards killed with government permissionbecause of pressure from the local people wasapproximately 12 between the years 1999 to 2009.Of the five forest ranges of Lansdowne forestdivision, the problem is severe in the low elevationranges, for example in Kotdwar, where 104 casesof man-wildlife conflicts were recorded. This isbecause of high anthropogenic disturbances in

low-lying areas and also human disturbances inreserved forest areas for gathering fuel and fodder,livestock grazing and illegal wood cutting(Balakrishnan & Ndhlovu, 1992; Pitkin, 1995;Stander, 1997; Madhusudan, 2003).

Our survey revealed that tigers and leopards arethe major problem animals in the study area andalso in protected areas like Gir (Vijayan & Pati,2002) and other parts of the country (Athreya &Belsare, 2007). About 47 people were killed andabout 55 people were attacked by leopards; wedid not find any confirmation about killings by tigerand only 9 cases of attacks were found. Elephantskilled 19 and attacked about 23 people. Bears killed8 and attacked 44 individuals. Wild boars attackedonly 3 people and killed none. In forest rangeswhere conflicts were reported, it was found thatadolescent females comprised the highestpercentage of victims that were killed/attackedby wild animals. The main reason for this is thatin rural areas women are generally responsiblefor household work, which includes visiting forestareas to gather fuel and fodder more often thanmale members of the family. Out of 208 casesobserved in the survey, the highest percentage(72.22%) of attacks/killing by leopards was nearhabitations. This could be due to the fact that ruralareas have agricultural fields and home gardensclose by. 60.42% of attacks took place in scruband adjoining degraded forest used by the localpopulation for fuel, fodder, etc. This may be dueto the presence of high foliage cover in and aroundvillages which may provide better cover for attacksand predation. After leopards, bears committedthe highest number of attacks: 34% in the forestinterior; 21.87% in degraded forest and 22.22%near habitations. This species usually keeps to theforest interior and only a few cases were knownaround habitations in the area. In the case ofelephants, higher attacks were observed in forest(54%), than in scrubs (11.46%) and habitations(5.56%); this area is protected but humanincursions for fuelwood and fodder are commonand result in negative interactions. A lowerpercentage of elephant attacks was also observedin habitations/agricultural fields; these attackswere common during the harvesting time of paddyduring Rabi and Kharif seasons in the area. Thewild boar had a similar attack pattern in agriculturalfields (19.21%), probably due to close households

2 9

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

2 92 9

and scrubs on the boundaries of villages andforests. Since the overall attacks by tiger werelow (9) and uncommon in the area, high attackswere found in degraded forest/scrub (6.25%)compared to forest (4%).

The percentage of attacks showed variations alongseasons; tiger, leopard and wild boar attacks/killings were high in the rainy season and then inthe winter season. It has been noted that most ofthe areas are under thickets and heavy growth ofweeds like Lantana, Xanthium and Eupatoriumspecies, which in the rainy season provide goodcover to leopards and other species for attacks.Elephants and bears were responsible for a highpercentage of attacks in the winter season(55.26%) compared to the rainy season (34.21%).This is attributed to the interaction with humans,which are elevated during the winter seasonbecause of high pressure for fuelwood collectionfor household usage. A high percentage of attackstook place in the evening and night time, i.e.,between 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm for leopard and tiger.These attacks/killings coincide with the timings ofdaily activities of people; in the evening womenusually return from the jungle after collectingfodder and fuelwood and children return fromschool. In winter, when the day length is short,the chances of attacks increased because of heavygrowth of weeds and shrubs in village boundariesdue to the preceding rainy season. Agriculturalactivities near scrubs or adjoining forest duringmidday may be one of the probable reasons ofattacks. Also, in villages there are usually no toiletsand morning and evening attacks may occur whenpeople used toilets close to scrubs at these times.

Elephant attacks occurred more often in earlymorning and daytime, while bear attacks werehigher in the morning and evening. A highpercentage of wild boar attacks occurred in themorning. In the area, out of the total number ofcases of bear attacks, females were the most likelyvictims. Human mauling by bear was also foundcommon in some cases because of the vulnerabilityof the area. There is need of behavior studiesrelated to attacks/killings.

In the case of elephant-human conflicts, a mainreason is the increased human population around

the boundaries of protected areas, especially inlower forest ranges like Kotdwar, Laldhang andKothri. This area is used as a corridor for elephantmovement in and around adjoining Corbett andRajaji National Parks for their feeding and breedingplaces, but is continuously encroached on byhumans.

Sometimes uncontrolled fire is also responsible forthe movement of wild animals into adjoiningvillages.

Because of increasing human-wildlife negativeinteractions the economic losses are also growing.Between April 1997 to March 2009 about4,493,000 Indian Rupees were paid by the ForestDepartment in compensation for people killed orattacked.

In nature, the leopard’s prey is usually barking deerMuntiacus muntjak (Zimmermann, 1780) spotteddeer Axis axis (Erxleben, 1777), langur Presbytisentellus (Eschscholtz, 1821) and sometimespeafowl Pavo cristatus (Linnaeus, 1758) andother nesting birds during stress periods. Do theincreasing attacks on humans and livestockindicate a change in their food habits?

Conservation implications

The present study aimed to obtain a representativepicture of wildlife issues affecting localcommunities throughout the forest division. Theresults indicated that villages with reportedconflicts mainly lie in low and middle elevatedforest ranges like Kotdwar, Laldhang andLansdowne of Lansdowne forest division. Theseforest ranges are part of the Rajaji-Corbettcorridor, in the case of elephants. The regularheavy traffic on National Highway 119 (Kotdwar- Pauri) and nearby roads to protected areas likeLaldhang-Chilla are also a reason of conflict, asthe animals’ regular movement routes are affected(Johnsingh, 1990). Sightings of leopards crossinghighways are also reported by tourists and locals.There should be immediate consideration by thegovernment department on traffic control to strictlyenforce the speed limit. Night traffic should becontrolled as there is heavy movement of wildanimals during the night.



imalayas |

3 03 0

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

| S

tatu

s an

d na

ture

of

hum

an-w

ildl

ife

conf

lict

in

Shiv

alik

Hil

ls, H

imal

ayas

| As most of the crop raiding and resultant man-elephant conflicts take place during the harvestingof Rabi and Kharif crops, special efforts must bemade to monitor areas previously identified assensitive during these months. With an expandingpopulation in the lower forest ranges, constructionof industrial zones and infrastructure developmentnearer to these protected areas increase thecompetition for resources. Thus it is necessary tosafeguard the corridors, movement routes andbuffer zones, and to ensure that local communitiesobtain substantial and tangible benefits fromwildlife conservation.

Better communication between the ForestDepartment and local people on conflict andconservation issues should be encouraged. Theadministration needs to involve the affected peopleand other stakeholders actively in theirconservation and management programmes tocontrol the problem effectively. Forest officialsneed to be trained and equipped with wirelesscommunication sets, binoculars, etc. for betterpatrolling of the area to collect and generate datafor better understanding of the problem. Deterrentmethods to control wildlife should be non-lethal innature such as electric fencing, firecrackers,trenches, etc. There should be better officialmanagement for providing immediate medical andeconomic compensation to people killed orattacked and for losses of livestock and crops toavoid building a negative attitude toward wildlifeand the Forest Department and ensure communityparticipation. A development approach is neededthat integrates better design and management ofpolicies because in the absence of long-term andaccurate data, the multi-faceted nature of thehuman-wildlife conflict becomes a matter ofpersonal opinion (Mishra et al., 2003; Nyhus etal., 2003; Graham et al., 2005; Ogra & Badola,2008; Anthony et al., 2010).

The media plays an important role in publishingnews on man-wildlife conflicts, but should consultwildlife professionals for accuracy.Sensationalizing the issue could result in a negativeattitude toward wildlife.

The results from this study provide a sketch ofthe extent and likely development of human-wildlifeconflict (HWC) in Lansdowne forest division.There is immediate need to provide conservation

education and awareness of wildlife behavior thatwill help local communities to better manage andreduce human-wildlife conflicts.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the villagers of thestudy area and forest officials of Lansdowneforest division for providing valuableinformation, suggestions and generous supportduring field visits.

References

Athreya, V and A.V. Belsare. 2007. Human-leopard conflict management guidelines.Pune, India, Kaati Trust.

Anthony, P.B., Scott, P. and A. Antypas. 2010.Sitting on the fence? Policies and practicein managing human-wildlife in Limpopoprovince, South Africa. Conservation andsociety, 8, 225-240.

Balakrishnan, M. and D.E. Ndhlovu. 1992.Wildlife utilization and local people: a casestudy in Upper Lupande Gamemanagement Area, Namibia.Environmental Conservation, 19, 135-144.

Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking community-basedconservation. Conservation Biology, 18,621-630.

Graham, K, Beckerman, A.P. and S. Thirgood.2005. Human-predator-prey conflicts:ecological correlates, prey losses andpatterns of management. BiologicalConservation, 122, 159-171.

Johnsingh, A.J.T., Prasad, S.N. and S.P. Goyal.1990. Conservation status of the Chilla-Motichur corridor for elephantmovement in Rajaji-Corbett NationalParks areas, India. BiologicalConservation, 51, 125-138.

Johnsingh, A.J.T. and A.S. Negi. 2003. Status oftiger and leopard in Rajaji–CorbettConservation Unit , Northern India.Biological Conservation, 111, 385–393.

Lal, S. 2004. Working plan of Lansdowneforest division, Uttarakhand (2004-2005to 2013-14).Vol.1. Uttarakhand ForestDepartment, Dehradun, India.

3 1

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

3 13 1

Marker, L. and S. Sivamani. 2009. Policy forhuman-leopard conflict management inIndia. CAT News, 50, 23-25.

Madhusudan, M.D. 2003. Living amidst largewildlife: livestock and crop depredationby large mammals in the interior villagesof Bhadra Tiger Reserve, South India.Environmental Management, 31, 466-475.

Mishra, C. 1997. Livestock depredation bylarge carnivores in the Indian trans-Himalaya: Conflict perceptions andconservation prospects. EnvironmentConservation, 24, 338-343.

Mishra, C., Allen, P., McCarthy, T., Madhusudan,M.D., Bayarjargal, A. and H.H.T. Prins. 2003.The role of incentive programs in HumanDimensions of Wildlife conserving thesnow leopard. Conservation Biology, 17,1512-1520.

Mishra, S. 2010. Leopard’s last stand. IndiaToday, 27, 48-49.

Messmer T.A. 2009. Human–wildlife conflicts:emerging challenges and opportunities.Human-Wildlife Conflicts, 3, 10-17.

Nyhus, P., Fisher ,H., Madden, F. and S. Osofsky.2003. Taking the bite out of wildlifedamage: the challenges of wildlifecompensation schemes. Conservation inPractice, 4, 39-41.

Ogra, M. and R. Badola. 2008. Compensatinghuman-wildlife conflict in protected areacommunities: Ground-level per-spectives from Uttarakhand, India.Human Ecology, 36, 717-729.

Pitkin, B. 1995. Protected Area ConservationStrategy (PARCS): Training needs andopportunities among protected areamanagers in Eastern, Central andSouthern Africa. Washington, DC, USA,Biodiversity Support Program.

Saberwal, V.K., Gibbs, J.P., Chellam, R. and A.J.T.Johnsingh. 1994. Lion-Human Conflict inthe Gir Forest, India. ConservationBiology, 8, 501-507.

Stander, P.E. 1997. The ecology of lions andconflict with people in north-easternNamibia. In: (Ed. Penzhoorn BL) Asymposium of lions and leopards as gameRanch Animals, pp. 10-17. Wildlife Group ofthe South African Veterinary Association,Onderstepoort, SA,

Treves, A. and K.U. Karanth. 2003. Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives oncarnivore management worldwide.Conservation Biology, 17, 1491-1499.

Vijayan, S. and B.P. Pati. 2002. Impact ofchanging cropping patterns on man-animal conflicts around Gir protectedarea with specific reference to Talala sub-district, Gujrat, India. Population andEnvironment, 23, 541-559.

Woodroffe, R. and J.R. Ginsberg. 1998. Edgeeffects and the extinction of populationsinside protected areas. Science, 280, 2126-2128.

Woodroffe, R. 2000. Predators and people:using human densities to interpretdeclines of large carnivores. AnimalConservation, 3, 165-173.

Woodroffe, R. 2001. Strategies for carnivoreconservation: Lessons fromcontemporary extinctions. In: (Eds.Gittleman JL, Funk S, Macdonald DW, WayneRK) Carnivore Conservation, pp. 61-92.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,

Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S. and A. Rabinowitz.2005. The impact of human–wildlifeconflict on natural systems. In: (Eds.Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A)People and Wildlife: Conflict orCoexistence? pp. 1–12. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK,

Authors’ addresses: Mohan Kukreti,Department of Zoology and EnvironmentScience, Gurukula Kangri University,Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India; Dinesh Bhatt,Department of Zoology and EnvironmentScience, Gurukula Kangri University,Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India, E-mail:[email protected]



imalayas

3 23 2

Vol. 41: No. 1 2014

| F

irst

obs

erva

tion

s of

Sca

ly-b

reas

ted

Mun

ia fr

om A

ndam

an a

nd N

icob

ar I

slan

ds |

FIRST OBSERVATIONS OF SCALY-BREASTED MUNIA FROMANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS

by C. Sivaperuman, J. Dinesh, G. Gokulakrishnan & K. Venkataraman

The Andaman and Nicobar archipelago comprises572 islands, extending over 800 km and runningnorth to south between 6o45’ N and 13o 30’ N and90o20’ E and 93o56’ E with an extent of 8,249km2. As a part of major ecological studies on birdcommunities of South Andaman initiated duringthe year 2012 sponsored by INS-Utkrosh, theMinistry of Defence and Science EngineeringResearch Board (SERB), Department of Scienceand Technology, Ministry of Science &Technology, Government of India, the authorshave been surveying the area frequently. Duringthese surveys, we recorded four individuals ofadult male and female Scaly-breasted Munia(Lonchura punctulata punctulata) in the PortBlair airport premises (11o 37’ N; 92o 43.08’E) inJune 2013 along with House Sparrow (Passerdomesticus Linnaeus) and Common Myna(Acridotheres tristis Linnaeus). The species wassighted again in June 2013; August 2013 andSeptember 2013, along with House Sparrows inthe same vicinity. The observed bird species hadchocolate brown color upper parts with faint paleshaft streaks. The upper tail color was olive yellow.The underparts were whitish with bold blackscaling on the breast and edges. The bill and legswere black.

The sighted species differs from the other twosubspecies, namely Lonchura punctulatasubundulata and Lonchura punctulata topela,which are distributed in Bhutan, Bangladesh,northeast India (Assam), west and southernMyanmar, Thailand, southeast China, Taiwan, Laos,Cambodia and Vietnam. According to Ali andRipley (1983) and Robson (2008), this species isresident in the Indian subcontinent, southeast Tibet,southern China, Taiwan, Sundas, Philippines,Sulawesi and was introduced to the MascarneIslands, Seychelles, Australia, Caroline Islands andHawaii. The Scaly-breasted Munia has 11subspecies across their range which differ slightlyin size and color (Collar, 2010). A review of

literature revealed that Ali and Ripley (1983),Tikader (1984) and Grimmett et al. (2011) havenot reported this species from the Andaman andNicobar Islands. The present sighting is the firstreport of Scaly-breasted Munia from SouthAndaman Islands.

References

Ali, S. & S.D. Ripley. 1983. Hand Book of theBirds of India and Pakistan. Oxford Univ.Press, Oxford. 737 p.

Collar, N, Newton, I., Clement, P. & V. Arkhipov.2010. del Hoyo, Josep, Andrew Elliott &David Christie (Ed). Handbook of the birdsof the world. Volume 15. Finches.Barcelona: Lynx Edicions

Grimmett, R., Inskipp, C. & T. Inskipp. 2011.Birds of the Indian Subcontinent (SecondEdition), Oxford Univ. Press. 528 p.

Robson, C. 2008. A field guide to the birds ofSouth-East Asia. New Holland Publishers,London. 544 p.

Tikader, B.K. 1985. Birds of Andaman andNicobar Islands. Zoological Survey of India,Kolkata. 167 p.

Authors’ address: Zoological Survey of India,Andaman and Nicobar Regional Centre, PortBlair 744 102, Andaman and Nicobar Islands;Email: [email protected]

1

Vol. 28: No. 1 2014

1

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

Vol. 28: No. 1 2014

CELEBRATING THE IMPORTANCE OF FORESTS!

The United Nations General Assembly hasproclaimed 21 March to be celebrated as theInternational Day of Forests each year. TheInternational Day of Forests was established toraise awareness of the importance of forests andtrees in ensuring the sustainability of ecosystems,providing valuable goods and services, supportinglivelihoods, and reducing hunger.

What did the FAO Regional Office for Asiaand the Pacific do to celebrate?

To mark the International Day of Forests, the FAORegional Office for Asia and the Pacific (RAP)collaborated with RECOFTC – The Center forPeople and Forests and the United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP) in organizinga forestry debate under the theme of Forestry ina changing world!

The event was presided over by Mr Vili Fuavao,Deputy Regional Representative of FAO RAP,Mr Thomas Enters, UN-REDD ProgrammeCoordinator for UNEP and Ms Caroline Liou,Communications Manager for RECOFTC.

Participants in the debate were drawn from twotertiary educational institutes (King Mongkut’sUniversity of Technology Thonburi and theAsian Institute of Technology) and two Bangkokhigh schools (Anglo Singapore InternationalSchool and Garden International School).

The elder group of students debated the prosand cons of whether ‘keeping people out offorests’ is the best approach for protecting andconserving forests, while students from the twointernational secondary schools debated aproposition ‘that trees should be preserved, notlogged.’

Prepared by Wirya Khim, FAO RAP

Vol. 28: No. 1 2014

22


S tudent debate teams in action on International Day of Forests

3

Vol. 28: No. 1 2014

3


The debate was attended by 55 participants andresulted in an informative and interestingdiscussion. The constructive and rebuttal speecheswere well-prepared with good fundamentalanalyses. Each speaker possessed very goodspeaking skills, which helped to stimulate thediscussion to a highly interactive level.

The students, ranging from high school to post-graduate studies (from 13 to 35 years of age),stressed that forests and forestry issues are highlyimportant and that concrete actions must be takennow, today. In addition, they demonstratedexcellent knowledge of forests and forestry issues.Both sides (affirmative and negative teams) wereable to present the current issues and challengesfaced by the forestry sector and how they couldbe addressed jointly by relevant stakeholders.Each team debated the topics based on differentviews of how forests could be managedsustainably. These included participatoryapproaches versus command and controlmeasures.

Key observations from the debates

Forestry is not a stand-alone sector; it requiresthe active involvement and participation ofstakeholders at cross-sectoral levels.

People depend on forests for their survival andwell-being; therefore, they must be placed atthe centre of sustainable natural resourcemanagement.

Rights of access to forests for local people isa fundamental requirement for sustainableforest management and poverty reduction offorest-dependent communities in the ruralareas.

The equitable sharing of benefits betweenindigenous and local communities and externalentities operating in forests must be ensured.

Indigenous or traditional forest-relatedknowledge should be reconciled with scientificknowledge and intellectual property rights.

There are no viable alternatives to timber formany products. Even when there arealternatives (e.g., plastic), the use of such

materials may have a larger environmentalfootprint than timber.

Forestry (logging) generates income,contributes to the Gross Domestic Product(GDP) and creates employment for localpeople.

Forests could be logged in a sustainable mannerthrough careful planning of logging activitiesand conservation of biologically andenvironmentally sensitive areas.

Trees come not only from natural forests butcan also be grown in plantations. Manycountries have planted new forests to ensurethat we have enough timber for society in thefuture.

Rather than categorizing all forms of loggingas bad practice, more emphasis should beplaced on promoting sustainable forestmanagement, preserving forests with highconservation values, reducing deforestation andtackling illegal logging by strengtheninggovernance and law enforcement.

Promoting certified timber (timber fromsustainably-managed forests) offersopportunities to enhance sustainable forestmanagement, in contrast to banning the use oftimber altogether.

Message from the Organizers

Sustainable forest management requires acarefully coordinated long-term perspective,and it therefore depends not only on the actionsof today’s adults, but is also in the hands ofthe younger generations.

According to Hiroyuki Konuma, FAOAssistant Director-General and RegionalRepresentative for Asia and the Pacific,“Awareness must be coupled with concreteaction.” FAO is calling on member countriesto implement sustainable forest managementpolicies without further delay.

Vol. 28: No. 1 2014

44


CLIMATE CHANGE AND FOOD SECURITY

A High-Level Forum was organized by the FAORegional Office for Asia and the Pacific andhosted by the Ministry of Industry and Agricultureof Mongolia on 12 March 2014 in Ulaanbaatar,Mongolia. A total of 70 participants attended theForum, which included ministers, vice ministersand senior officials from the LandlockedDeveloping Countries, Small Islands DevelopingStates and other Asia-Pacific countries. Thecountries briefed the Forum on their status withregards to food security in the face of climatechange. Delegates also discussed issues pertainingto impacts of climate change on food security,which included: evidence for climate change,activities for overcoming the impacts, publicperception and awareness raising, national andregional initiatives, adaptation and mitigationmeasures, and climate-smart agriculture. This wasfollowed by a discussion on the appropriate policiesthat would be needed for addressing the impactsof climate change on food security among theLLDCs and SIDS. A set of recommendationsfor follow-up by the countries and regionalorganizations was issued.

Background

While climate change threatens most countries inthe Asia-Pacific region, some are more vulnerable.The Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs)(which, except for Mongolia, also belong to theLeast Developed Countries) and Small IslandDeveloping States (SIDS) are worse off comparedto others. The irony of the situation is that LLDCsand SIDS are not big emitters of greenhouse gases(GHG), and their contribution to climate changeis negligible, yet the people of these countries willsuffer considerably.

Changing weather patterns, especially floods anddroughts, will bring untold misery to millions ofpeople in LLDCs, while the rising sea level andother climatic changes will threaten the verysurvival of many SIDS. It is estimated that globally,

some 860 million people in LLDCs and SIDS willbe affected, and many among the SIDS may evenbecome environmental refugees. Considering thatLLDCs and SIDS are far more vulnerable toclimate change impacts, the Office of the HighRepresentative for the Least Developed Countries,Landlocked Developing Countries and Small IslandDeveloping States (UN-OHRLLS) undertook aspecial study on the issue. The study looked intothe effects of climate change on LLDCs andSIDS, the environmental and socio-economicimplications, and the adaptation strategies underthe framework of UNFCCC. As a follow-up tothe above global study, FAO/RAP organized aHigh-Level Forum on “Climate Change and FoodSecurity in the Landlocked Developing Countriesand Small Island Developing States in Asia andthe Pacific Region”.

Objectives

The key objectives of the Forum were to: Share and promote knowledge and experience

on the impact of climate change on foodsecurity in the countries;

Promote successful climate change adaptationand mitigation interventions for ensuring foodsecurity in vulnerable areas;

Identify effective policy options to minimizenegative impacts of climate change andenhance food security; and

Develop concrete recommendations andactions for climate change adaptation andmitigation for food security followingsustainable development and blue and greengrowth pathways.

Based on those objectives, the expected outputsof the Forum were to: Exchange information on the status and

preparedness of countries in theirmanagement of the impact of climate changeon food security;

By Simmathiri Appanah and Wirya Khim

5

Vol. 28: No. 1 2014

5


Identify successful climate change adaptationand mitigation interventions for ensuring foodsecurity;

Identify effective policy options and actionsthat could be taken to minimize the negativeimpacts of climate change and enhance foodsecurity;

Make key recommendations to reduce thenegative impacts of climate change on foodsecurity in LLDCs and SIDS in Asia and thePacific Region; and

Produce a report summarizing thepresentations and discussions at the Forum,including conclusions and recommendations.

All the countries briefed the Forum on their statuswith regard to food security in the face of climatechange. In addition, the delegates also discussedissues pertaining to the impacts of climate changeon food security, which included: evidence ofclimate change; activities for overcoming theimpacts of climate change; public perception andawareness raising; national and regional initiatives,adaptation and mitigation measures; and climate-smart agriculture.

The Dialogue was followed up with a discussionon the appropriate policies that would be neededto address the impacts of climate change on foodsecurity among the LLDCs and SIDS.

After the discussions, the delegates deliberatedon a set of recommendations for follow-up by thecountries and regional organizations. The closingspeech by Dr. José Graziano da Silva, Director-General of FAO, was read by Mr. H. Konuma(ADG, FAO). The Director-General pointed outthat FAO possesses the technical expertise tosupport climate change adaptation in agro-ecosystems, forests, inland waters and coastal andmarine ecosystems, and would respond to theneeds of the LLDCs and SIDS to ensure theirfood security.

Summary of conclusions

The following summarizes the conclusions andrecommendations of the Forum: Climate change is real and its impacts on the

LLDCs and SIDs are severe.

Food security is one of the most challengingissues currently faced by LLDCs and SIDs,which is further exacerbated by the impact ofclimate change.

To mitigate the impact of climate change onfood security, there is an urgent need forcountries to create an enabling environmentwith appropriate policies, laws, infrastructureand finance, and incentive-led technologies foradoption by farmers.

Concrete country actions must be implementedon community-based disaster risk managementapproaches which are coupled with awarenessraising at all levels.

Strategies to support food security at variouslevels are required; these could be done throughdemonstrations of climate-smart agriculturepractices and community-based agriculturesystems.

There is an urgent need to strengthen capacityto monitor the progress in agriculturalproductivity and provide timely assistance tofarmers to reduce losses.

There is a need to strengthen regionalcollaboration and coordination to build capacityand transfer climate-smart agriculturetechnology from Asian countries to the PacificIsland Countries (PICs).

Regional actions to strengthen the capacity ofnational governments and communities arerequired.

Enforcement of forestry- and fisheries-relatedregulations to minimize illegal logging and illegalfishing is urgently needed.

A regional policy framework for strengtheningthe fisheries sector is needed.

A resilient and adaptive fishery managementsystem needs to be developed.

The lack of financial and human resourcesposes difficulties for countries to implement thepolicies efficiently.

There is a need to improve institutional capacity. Support is requested from the international

donor community for strengthening climatechange adaptation and mitigation and theirsynergies.

A collective act to improve information sharingand networking and to identify joint internationaldevelopment mechanisms is called for.

Vol. 28: No. 1 2014

66


A multi-sectoral approach is required todevelop an integrated approach to increaseresilience and adaptive capacity.

FAO is requested to act as a catalyst toincrease information sharing for SIDs.

Recommendations

Special emphasis should be placed on bluegrowth development in the Pacific Region, andresilient and adaptive fishery managementsystems should be developed.

Cooperation between Small Island States mustbe strengthened in their advocacy of regionalinterests at international forums on climatechange and agriculture.

Funding commitment from the donorcommunity and UN agencies, including FAO,should be explicitly committed, allocated, andexpeditiously disbursed in alignment withstrategic national plans.

Support for capacity building on climatechange adaptation and mitigation as well asfood security should be enhanced.

Research capacity in livestock production anddevelopment, forestry, and animal health shouldbe increased.

Sustainable management of natural resourceson a landscape basis, including watersheds,rivers, forests, grasslands and rangelands,should be promoted.

Climate-smart agriculture is increasingly gainingrecognition as an innovative approach toaddress the challenges of climate change andfood security. It is recommended that FAOlead international efforts in promoting theadoption of climate-smart agriculture amongthese countries with a well-defined plan ofaction.

Climate monitoring and forecasting and earlywarning systems as well as disaster riskreduction mechanisms should be developed andstrengthened, including in the Himalayan region.

Investment in agriculture research, includingstudies on stress tolerant varieties, should beincreased.

The number of members representing theSouthwest Pacific region in the FAO Councilshould be increased to better reflect the voiceof the region and the countries concerned.

Quality water resource management and thepromotion of water conservation technologyshould be strengthened.

FAO SUPPORTS MONGOLIA TO CARRY OUT NATIONALLAND USE ASSESSMENT THROUGH UN-REDD

By Joel Scriven, Forestry Officer, UN-REDD Programme

The Government of Mongolia recently completedits first accurate national land use assessment,using free software and data, with the support ofthe Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO) through the United NationsCollaborative Programme on Reducing Emissionsfrom Deforestation and Forest Degradation inDeveloping Countries (UN-REDD Programme).

Mongolia became a partner country of the UN-REDD Programme in 2011 and in 2012 FAO/UN-REDD began its support on the development oftheir national forest monitoring system for

REDD+. REDD+ is a set of five forestry activitiesthat developing countries are encouraged toimplement under the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Among the lines of support delivered to Mongoliaby FAO/UN-REDD is support to the design andimplementation of a new national forest inventory(NFI) methodology. The traditional objective ofan NFI is to gather information from a country’sterritory on the condition of their forests andcommercial parameters such as the volume oftimber stocks.

7

Vol. 28: No. 1 2014

7


The objective of Mongolia’s new NFI methodologyis to gather information that will not only supportforest management planning and policy making,but also collect information on forest carbon stocksand forest carbon stock changes, to allowMongolia to assess the levels of greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions and sequestration resulting fromforestry activities over time. In this way, theinformation gathered through Mongolia’s NFI willbe input directly into their national GHG inventoryand reported to the Secretariat of the UnitedNations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC), as part of their NationalCommunication on climate change.

As part of the design phase, the governmentdecided in 2013 that it will adopt a two-phasedapproach to the implementation of the NFI. Thefirst phase would be based on an analysis of landuse through remote sensing data. This would allowNFI decision makers to see the location and typeof forest present in the country, as well asundertake a preliminary assessment of humanimpacts on forests and determine how field teamswill reach forest measurement plots. The secondphase will be based on ground-basedmeasurements of forest plots.

The first phase of the NFI was completed betweenJune 2013 and March 2014 by 20 national remotesensing and geographical information systems(GIS) experts of the Mongolian Government (theEnvironmental Information Centre (EIC) and theForest Research and Development Centre),resulting in the first accurate assessment of landuse across Mongolia.

A first training workshop was delivered by FAO/UN-REDD to national experts in June 2013, witha focus on the specialist land use assessmentsoftware developed by FAO, Open Foris CollectEarth. This software application does not requirea use license and is free of charge. Open ForisCollect Earth is a Java-based application that openswithin Google Earth and provides a user-friendlyinterface for a sampling-based approach to landuse assessment based on visual interpretation ofsatellite remote sensing data. This softwareapplication also offers a geo-spatial link to GoogleEarth Engine that provides access to the entireLandsat data archive, and also links to Microsoft-

Nokia Bing Maps that provides access to veryhigh resolution satellite data. In this way, astatistically accurate national land use assessmentcan be carried out using software and data thatare free of charge.

Following the first training, FAO/UN-REDDworked with the Mongolian operators to tailor thesoftware to Mongolia’s national circumstances, forexample by determining which forest, crop andgrassland types to use in the assessment. A second,follow-up training workshop was then deliveredby FAO/UN-REDD in February 2014, duringwhich support was delivered to finalize the nationalassessment, manage the data and begin statisticalanalysis of the data.

The national land use assessment was carried outfollowing a sampling design based on systematicgrids (using the Geographic Lat-Long projectionwith WGS-84 as datum). A 0.1° x 0.1° grid wasused for high-forest provinces (such as Selenge,To’v, Uvs, Xentii and Zavan); with a lowersampling intensity (0.2° x 0.2°) used for provinceswith lower forest cover (such as O’mnogovi,Su’xbaatar and Xovd). For assessing areas ofsaxaul forest cover a stratified approach wasadopted, using a systematic grid with 0.1° x 0.1°spacing only for the areas where this type offorest is found. The national assessment wascarried out at two time intervals: 2001 (as this isthe first year for which full Landsat 7 datacoverage is available for Mongolia) and 2013, toallow an assessment of land use change over time.

This national land use assessment determined thatforest land covers 15,434,530 hectares ofMongolia’s territory, with grassland being thedominant land use – covering 127,434,040 hectares,wetlands covering 4,309,407 hectares, croplandcovering 1,667,867 hectares, settlement covering468,806 hectares and other land – such as sandand bare rock – covering 7,185,351 hectares. Theassessment shows that only 1.43 percent of theterritory has changed land use over the past 13years. The only notable changes that wererecorded were the expansion of settlement area– which has doubled in size since 2001 – and theexpansion of cropland, in particular into grasslandareas.

Vol. 28: No. 1 2014

88


STUDY OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF FORESTPRODUCT LEGALITY REGULATIONS AND REDD+ ONFOREST PRODUCTION AND TRADE IN THE ASIA-PACIFICREGION

While the figure of 15,434,530 hectares of forestcover includes more than 2 million hectares ofsaxaul forests/shrublands and almost one millionhectares of forest with less than 10 percent crowncover, it can be concluded that the extent of forestland in Mongolia is greater than what has beenreported in previous years and through otherassessments. For example, through FAO’s GlobalForest Resources Assessment, Mongolia reporteda net annual loss of 81,900 hectares of forest from

the year 2000 (11,717,000 hectares of forest) to2010 (10,898,000 hectares).

FAO/UN-REDD will continue their support to thedevelopment and implementation of Mongolia’sNFI through 2014, including through support toundertake statistical analysis of the data andcompile the national GHG inventory report forsubmission to the UNFCCC Secretariat.

Contributed by Chris Brown, FAO Forestry Consultant

A study of the potential impacts of forest productlegality regulations and REDD+ on forest productsproduction and trade in the Asia-Pacific region hasbeen completed. The project reviewed trends inforest resources, production and trade in the Asia-Pacific region with a focus on countries affectedby forest product legality regulations (the EUTimber Regulation and amendments to the USLacey Act) and REDD+ initiatives. A modelingapproach was used to quantitatively assess theirpotential impacts on production and trade in theAsia-Pacific region.

The analysis confirmed expectations that REDD+is likely to have significant impacts on log suppliesfrom Asia-Pacific forests, but minimal effects on

processed wood products. Given the assumptionsused in the model, Asia-Pacific countries withsignificant production shortfalls due to REDD+were able to access log supplies from othersources, reducing the impacts on processed woodproducts. Impacts of forest products legalityrestrictions on trade flows were found to beminimal and resulted in diversion of a proportionof Asia’s secondary processed wood productsfrom the EU and USA to other markets. The studyhas been published in two parts (Working PapersAPFSOS II/WP/2014/37 and APFSOS II/WP/2014/38) as contributions to the knowledgeassembled in the Asia-Pacific Forestry SectorOutlook Study. Copies of the papers are availableat http://www.fao.org/asiapacific/forestry-outlook/en/

9

Vol. 28: No. 1 2014

9


SUMMARIES OF PARTNER EVENTS AT THE 25th APFCSESSION

FOREST RESTORATION AT LANDSCAPELEVEL IN ASIA-PACIFIC

Twenty participants convened on 3 November2013 in Rotorua, New Zealand, to discuss thecurrent shift towards managing forests for multiplevalues and ecosystem services. Central to this shiftis the focus on forest restoration at the landscapelevel (FLR). This focus emphasizes the need tomove aggressively beyond the limited view oftimber production as the principal goal of forestmanagement. In this context, workshoppresentations and discussions dealt with initiativesaimed at addressing rural poverty, increasingbiodiversity, ensuring stable supplies of water, andproviding other environmental services.Additionally, the participants noted the relevanceof sustainable forest management (SFM) and FLRto climate change and carbon sequestration.

Three senior resource persons offeredpresentations highlighting key aspects of FRLplanning and implementation, along withexperiences gained, lessons learned, options formoving forward and issues to consider.

In the first presentation: “A review of forestrehabilitation in the Asia-Pacific region –lessons from the past,” Dr. UnnaChockkalingam, Executive Director, Forest CarbonAsia, summarized policies that have led to negativeimpacts on forests and forest-based communities,biodiversity and the environment in general. Citing(among others) examples from teak plantationdevelopment in Myanmar, and tree-plantingdirectives in Vietnam, Dr.Chockkalingam identifiedfactors that should be considered now and in thefuture, in order to avoid problems, conflicts andrepetition of past failures.

Dr. David Lamb, University of Queensland,offered the second presentation: Shifting fromforest rehabilitation to forest and landscapelevel restoration: why, how and what?”

Underscoring the needs and opportunities inherentin an FLR-oriented strategy, Dr. Lamb highlightedthe results of analysis and research that lookedinto the potentially-positive outputs of changes inrestoration approaches. He also explained howcertain factors could either contribute to theattainment of restoration objectives or (on the otherhand) make it more difficult for those objectivesto be achieved. In respect of environmentalservices that can be produced through efficientforest management, Dr. Lamb pointed out theimportance of “scale” in thinking, planning andimplementation, noting that isolated patches offorest would not adequately provide theenvironmental services envisioned in a carefully-designed FLR approach.

In the third presentation: Forest and LandscapeLevel Restoration: We need more thantechniques”, Dr. Don Gilmour, RECOFTC,recounted how community forestry in Nepalevolved, over almost two decades, from a project-level set of activities into a national movement.Significant gains have resulted from this condition,in terms of expanded forest cover, reduction insoil erosion and alleviation of rural poverty.

Dr. Gilmour pointed out however that, as in manyother areas of human endeavor, success can breedenvy and problems. For instance, forestrydepartment officers are currently seeking a changein policies that would require Nepalese farmersto surrender to the government a major portion ofincome earned from timber harvested on foreststhey restored over many years. Dr. Gilmour alsodescribed two contrasting situations in Indonesia.Whereas tree-planting is an integral part oftraditional farming systems in West Java, theopposite case prevails in part of Northern Sumatrawhere insecure tenure on some clan-owned landsis complex, unclear and contested.

Open forum type discussions were conductedfollowing the presentations. These discussions

Vol. 28: No. 1 2014

1 01 0


were stimulated by the following questions posedby Dr. Andrew Ingles, The Nature Conservancy: What types of collaboration and what sorts of

mechanisms are needed to bring abouteffective FLR planning and implementation?

Are there practical ideas and an appetite forcollaboration?

How can FLR investments be secured in anoisy, competitive environment?

Do target audiences and the general publicknow enough about FLR to enable the conceptto grow into a social movement?

Do we have a sufficient understanding of therole of markets in FLR?

Are land managers sufficiently represented inpolicy decisions at multiple levels of policydevelopment?

Participants contributed enthusiastically to thediscussions and developed a list of options for

collaboration. They reflected on the current statusof FLR and requirements for success. Participantswere unanimous in agreement on the crucialimportance of tenure security as a foundation forsuccessful FLR. There was also commonagreement on the need for strategic spatialplanning and multi-stakeholder consultation.Pooling experiences and insights, the participantsdiscussed what people are doing and why in thecontext of FLR to improve livelihoods andbiodiversity. They identified key actors, andsuggested opportunities for sharing knowledge,including the creation of new communicationplatforms and materials, along with options forenlisting media support to increase awareness ofFLR among decision-makers, political leaders andthe general public.

ASIA-PACIFIC FOREST INVASIVESPECIES NETWORK (APFISN)WORKSHOP ON TOOLS FORECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMICIMPACT ASSESSMENT OF INVASIVEALIEN SPECIES IN FORESTECOSYSTEMS

The APFISN Workshop was organized on 4November 2013 at the Energy Resources Centre,Rotorua, New Zealand. The opening remarkswere made by Patrick Durst, Senior ForestryOfficer, FAO; Gary Man, USDA; and KenichiShono, Forest Resources Officer, FAO.

The first session focused on Import RiskAssessment Techniques. An overview of the U.S.approach was presented by Gary Man and theNew Zealand approach was presented by MelanieNewfield. The presentations focused on multi-leveltracking systems to assess the import risk. Ithighlighted the need for real time information flowacross countries so as to enable risk assessmentassociated with imports. The presentations werefollowed by discussions on how to adapt the riskassessment techniques for other countries in theAsia-Pacific region.

The second session focused on the InternationalPlant Protection Convention (IPPC) system e-

learning. An overview of the IPPC system waspresented by Shiroma Satyapala, New Zealandfollowed by comments and contributions from theparticipants. There was an exercise in applyingIPPC techniques which generated good discussionand an array of new information from participantsthat was shared among them, paving the way fornew solutions and management options.

The third session was on Evaluation of EmergingRisks. An overview of economic impactassessment techniques was presented by ChrisBaddeley and an overview of ecological impactswas presented by Eckehard Brockerhoff. Thepresentations highlighted that there are morestudies on economic impacts than on ecologicalimpacts. Of those fewer studies on ecologicalimpacts, most are from the U.S.A. Most of theecological impact studies focused on speciesimpacts (92 percent) while there are only fewstudies on genetic (2 percent) and ecosystem (6percent) impacts. It was also reported that manyof the ecosystem impacts are poorly known. NewZealand’s approach to evaluating emerging risksto biosecurity was presented by Melanie Newfield.The participants were divided into four groups foran exercise in using emerging risks techniques ledby Melanie Newfield. The session had a reportback period, which showed that the participantshad been exposed to a variety of new methods

*******************

1 1

Vol. 28: No. 1 2014

1 1


which would go a long way in planning invasivespecies management in APFISN membercountries.

Country reports from the participating countrieswere presented in the fourth session. Thecountries which presented country reportsincluded Bangladesh, Cambodia, Fiji, Indonesia,Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Philippines, SriLanka and Vietnam.

Mimosa, Lantana and Cleome are the mostserious emerging problems in Bangladesh.

Cambodia reported their activities regarding theongoing Global Environment Facility project,wherein Mimosa pigra, Mimosa diplotricha andChromoleana odorata are being considered forrapid management. A pest and disease survey isongoing and the database preparation has started.

Fiji has a large number of reported invasives butthere is need for empirical impact assessments.The Fiji invasive species task force has been setup and there exists a database on woody plantinvasive species list. Fiji requested technicalsupport in managing invasive species, a consultantfor species identification and capacity buildingactivities.

Acacia nilotica and Meremia peltata werereported as the most important invasives inIndonesia. The country reported its need for bestpractices in forestry to ward off invasives andsharing of success stories in invasion management.

No new invasive species assessments have beenconducted in Malaysia; however, there exists acheck list of fungi and fact sheets on importantinvasive species.

Maldives reported that a comprehensiveassessment is yet to be done for invasives in thecountry and requested capacity building supportfrom APFISN to accomplish this.

The work in Myanmar using the water hyacinthfor preparation of biochar through hydrothermalcarbonization was explained. Mimosa diplotrichawas reported as the most pressing invasiveproblem in Myanmar.

Philippines reported the interesting case ofMahogany becoming a major invasive species andthe efforts to contribute to the EcosystemResearch and Development Bureau (ERDB)invasive species database.

Sri Lanka has updated its invasive plant list andthe current scenario is that Miconia, Lantana andProsopis are emerging as new problems.

It was reported that a total of 957 non-nativespecies have been identified in Vietnam whichinclude plants, insects and fungi. Mimosa pigrahas been identified as the most serious emergingproblem.

The concluding session was addressed by GaryMan, who highlighted the need for closer workwith small groups of countries on similar problems.He advised the participants to come up withsuggestions on this. Dr TV Sajeev announced thata Google-group of member countries will beestablished for faster communication and invitedthe participants to contribute to the APFISNNewsletter-Invasives.

*******************

THIRD FORESTRY COLLEGE DEANSMEETING IN THE ASIA-PACIFICREGION

On 4 November 2013, the Third Forestry CollegeDeans Meeting in the Asia-Pacific Region washeld in the Rotorua Energy Events Center, NewZealand, gathering 14 deans and chancellors from13 regional economies. Facing the emergingchallenges of forestry and education development,the deans and professors this time addressed themeeting theme of “Evolving methods ofcurriculum delivery in post-secondary foresteducation” and reached in principle a concreteaction plan for advancing the Forestry CollegeDeans’ Meeting Mechanism in the Asia-PacificRegion (the Mechanism). As the third gatheringof deans under the Mechanism, this meeting wasorganized by the Asia-Pacific Network forSustainable Forest Management (APFNet), co-organized by FAO, Beijing Forestry University of

Vol. 28: No. 1 2014

1 21 2


What happens to our forests today and in thefuture will essentially depend on how effectivelywe communicate with one another to bringabout positive change in order to achievesustainable forest management.

China, University of British Columbia of Canada,and supported by University Putra Malaysia,Melbourne University of Australia and Universityof Philippines - Los Banos, and it was one of thepre-sesssion events of the 25th session of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission of FAO.

In his Opening Speech, Mr. Qu Guilin, ExecutiveDirector of APFNet, said that pragmatic actionshave been implemented under the Mechanism,which reflect the “action-oriented” principles thatAPFNet always follows. Now facing an enablingenvironment, the Mechanism will be able to movefurther forward, with APFNet’s continuoussupport and potential support from other entitiesand the synergy of all the forestry colleges. Ms.Mette Loyche Wilkie, Deputy Director, ForestAssessment, Management and ConservationDivision of FAO, introduced FAO’s commitmentin promoting forestry education and said FAOwould continue to support APFNet’s efforts in thisaspect.

The meeting was divided into four sessions; thefirst two were aimed at giving the deans and otherparticipants a better understanding of the newtrends of forestry education. In the third session,the first project under the Mechanism, “InnovativeSustainable Forest Management Education in theAsia-Pacific Region” was officially launched viasigning the project agreement between APFNetand Beijing Forestry University, the CoordinationOffice for the Mechanism. The project has a totalfund of USD770,000 and covers 11 forestryschools in the region. It aims to develop six classic

on-line forestry courses to be incorporated intothe curriculum of regional forestry colleges andopen to students. An online forum for interactionbetween faculty and students will be set up, andinternational workshops will be convened to extendthe experiences to help promote the innovationand reform of the forestry education in the Asia-Pacific region.

Keynote presentations were presented on“Advanced forestry education: new methodology”along with case studies on innovative sustainableforest management education.

Holding the meeting as a partner event of theAPFC session took advantage of the manydelegates from forestry agencies of differenteconomies who came to attend the APFC meetingand also attended the forestry deans’ meeting andparticipated in the discussion.

The Forestry College Deans’ Meeting Mechanismin the Asia-Pacific Region was proposed byAPFNet, Beijing Forestry University andUniversity of British Columbia in the first meetingheld in July 2010, and was strongly supported byAPFNet. Its second meeting was held during thesecond Asia-Pacific Forestry Week in Beijing inNovember 2011, when the Mechanism wasofficially set up to include 11 forestry colleges inthe region and a coordination office wasestablished in Beijing Forestry University topromote forestry education development in theAsia-Pacific Region.

A CALL FOR BETTER COMMUNICATION FOR THE FUTUREOF OUR FORESTS

Prepared by Wirya Khim, FAO RAP

Why communication is important?

“Communication” in general is the most crucialpart of the society. Paul Watzlawic in 1969 statedthat, “One cannot not communicate!”

1 3

Vol. 28: No. 1 2014

1 3


Communication challenges in the forestrysector

Challenges faced in the forestry sector are notlimited to deforestation, forest degradation or theincreasing attention given to other sectors suchas climate change, water, bioenergy, fisheries andlivelihoods. Finding the best and most effectiveways of communicating with key actors andstakeholders is also a major challenge.

Individuals have different perceptions, needs andpriorities. Just as there is no simple approach foreffective forest management and sharing forestresources or benefits equally, there is no singlemethod or tool for effective communication inforestry.

Responding to the challenge

Communication was a key element of the 2011International Year of Forests and there is a growingrecognition of the need for a more strategicapproach to strengthen forest-relatedcommunications. The 24th session of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, convened inNovember 2011, in Beijing, highlighted the pressingneed for improvement and recommended stepped-up efforts to strengthen forestry communicationin the region.

FAO responded to this recommendation byorganizing a regional workshop on “StrengtheningForestry Communication in Asia and the Pacific,”17-19 September 2013, in Hanoi, Vietnam. Theworkshop was co-organized by FAO and theForestry Administration of Viet Nam, and co-sponsored by the UNECE- Forest CommunicatorsNetwork, with financial support from FAO andthe Governments of Austria and Finland.

Twenty-six participants attended the workshop,half of which were women. Participants reflectedthe perspectives of government agencies andNGOs from 16 countries, namely Bangladesh,Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Fiji, India, Indonesia,Malaysia, Nepal, Laos, Pakistan, Papua NewGuinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and VietNam.

The workshop was designed to: (i) share bestpractices and tools to implement effectivecommunication campaigns, programs and forestryprojects in the region; (ii) promote learning throughparticipation and interaction and generate newcontacts and alliances; and (iii) exchangeknowledge and experiences and explore thepossibility of creating a regional network ofcommunicators working on forest issues.

Using presentations, plenary sessions, group andpanel discussions, and field visits, the workshopfocused on forest communication challenges andpractices in the Asia-Pacific region,communication principles, strategiccommunications, social media and working withtraditional media. Case studies provided real-worldexperience and insights on participatorycommunications and communicating forestry withsocial media.

Participants improved their understanding andsharpened their skills for effective communication.Communication issues and challenges wereidentified and new contacts were established.Lessons from the European ForestCommunicators Network and other regionalnetworks in East and Southern Africa, and LatinAmerica were widely shared. This gaveparticipants the opportunity to learn and betterunderstand the importance of the communicationnetworks, their roles and functions, and potentialbenefits.

The need for a network to improve forestrycommunications in the region

The workshop reaffirmed the need for a networkin Asia and the Pacific to support improvedforestry communications. The network will serveas a regional platform for information andexperience sharing, peer learning/capacitybuilding, regional exchange and collective outreachon key themes and messages related to forestry.

The workshop created a 9-person working groupto support the network’s formation and growth.This working group consisted of communicationsofficers/specialists/managers from the followingorganizations:

Vol. 28: No. 1 2014

1 41 4


ASIA-PACIFIC FORESTRY CHIPS AND CLIPS

RECOFTC – The Center for People andForests

LEAF - Lowering Emissions in Asia’s Forests(USAID-funded program)

FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific(FAO-RAP)

EU-FLEGT Facility Non-Timber Forest Products - Exchange

Programme (NTFP-EP) Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) IUCN Viet Nam Office Vietnam Forests and Deltas Program, Winrock RECOFTC Vietnam

The working group was tasked with elaborating aproposed mission statement, goals, structure and

operating modalities for the emerging regionalnetwork. The group is now working to identifypotential network activities, including capacitydevelopment/trainings, experience sharing, jointcommunications products, and development of aforestry game app. Consideration is also given tohow the network could be sustained. Suggestionsare focused on the value of a structured leadership,joint activities of mutual benefit, and face-to-facemeetings – to provide initiative, establish andmotivate social networking groups and connectwith various other local networks.

2 BILLION NEW TREES TO BE PLANTEDIN INDIA

India’s Rural Development Ministry announced anew afforestation plan to plant 2 billion trees alongthe nation’s highways in an effort to tackle youthunemployment. The country’s Road Transport,Highways, Shipping and Rural DevelopmentMinister Nitin Jairam Gadkari said in a meeting inNew Delhi that the new initiative would also helppreserve the environment.

“The length of National Highways in the countryis one lakh kilometer (about 62,137 miles). I haveasked officials to come out with a plan to plant200 crore (2 billion) trees along these stretcheswhich in turn would create jobs for the unemployedon the one hand and protect the environment onthe other,” Gadkari stated, according to Indiannews agency PTI.

The plan could potentially employ 300,000 youths,Indian outlet NDTV reports.

Youth unemployment has been a large focus ofthe country’s development goals in recent years.According to the United Nations, unemployment

among Indian men and women ages 15 - 24 was10.2 percent in 2010, the most recent year forwhich data is available. Indian Staffing FederationVice President Rituparna Chakraborty, who spoketo the Times of India in January 2014 aboutunemployment, suggested the government tacklejoblessness among young people through a“complete overhaul of our education systemclosely integrating it with an effectiveapprenticeship regime.”

Gadkari also met with another group of officialson Friday to discuss the idea of bringing the planto more rural areas as part of the MahatmaGandhi National Rural Employment GuaranteeAct, an Indian labor law and safety net establishedin 2005 which seeks to guarantee 100 days of paidmanual labor for adults facing poverty in ruralareas.

“MNREGA funds can be utilized for planting treesalong roads in rural areas. It has a lot of promise,”a top official attending the meeting said perGadkari’s suggestion, NDTV reports.

– Huffington Post 06/14/2014 –

1 5

Vol. 28: No. 1 2014

1 5


NEW RAP FORESTRY PUBLICATIONS

EDIBLE INSECTS IN LAO PDR:BUILDING ON TRADITION TOENHANCE FOOD SECURITY

By Yupa Hanboonsong and Patrick B. Durst

To meet the challenge of feeding the world’sexpanding population, greater emphasis will clearlyneed to be given to increasing yields and overallproduction of traditional staple crops. But prioritywill also need to be given to increasing theproduction and consumption of currently under-utilized and under-appreciated foods.

This publication chronicles the fascinatingtraditions and modern efforts to enhance thecontribution of edible insects to food security andimproved nutrition in Lao PDR. It describes themost commonly consumed insects, details aboutcollecting and management practices, introducesthe fledging insect farming sector and presentsexperience related to food safety, processing,handling, marketing and consumption of edibleinsects in Lao PDR.

FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGEAFTER WARSAW: AN ASIA-PACIFICPERSPECTIVE – IMPLICATIONS OF THEUNFCCC COP 19 ON FOREST POLICYAND PRACTICE

The 19th Conference of Parties (COP) of theUnited Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC) was held in Warsaw, Poland,11-22 November 2013. The outcomes of COP 19are expected to have a significant impact on

The percentage of the population of Lao PDR thatregularly consumes insects is among the highestin the world. Recognizing that edible insectsprovide many health, nutrition, environmental andlivelihood benefits, recent efforts have been madeto build upon these traditions and increaseawareness and appreciation of the benefits ofedible insects. FAO is pleased to have supportedthese efforts and by documenting Lao PDRexperiences related to edible insects in thispublication, FAO hopes others will benefit and bemotivated to identify similar opportunities.

Vol. 28: No. 1 2014

1 61 6


FAO ASIA-PACIFIC FORESTRY CALENDAR

FOREST NEWS is issued by the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific as part of TIGERPAPER. This issue ofFOREST NEWS was compiled by Patrick B. Durst, Senior Forestry Officer, FAO/RAP.

developments in the field of forests and climatechange over the coming year. In view of this,forest sector stakeholders in the Asia-Pacificregion require succinct and accurate informationon the implications of COP 19 discussions andtheir significance to forest policy decisions andpractice.

In February 2014, RECOFTC – The Center forPeople and Forests in collaboration with FAO

brought together 11 climate change and forestryexperts in Chiang Mai, Thailand. The panel ofexperts discussed the key outcomes of COP 19negotiations in Warsaw and identified the potentialimplications for forestry and climate changesectors in the Asia-Pacific region.

This booklet summarizes their responses to a setof 12 key questios raised at the consultation.

8-16 September 2014. Forest Tenure Training Workshop. Bangkok, Thailand. Contact: Yurdi Yasmi, FAO RegionalOffice for Asia and the Pacific, 39 Phra Atit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand; E-mail: [email protected]

20-22 October 2014. 5th UN-REDD Regional Lessons Learned Workshop: Forest monitoring systems and referencelevels for REDD+. Venue to be confirmed. Contact: Ben Vickers, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 39Phra Atit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand; E-mail: [email protected]

27-29 October 2014. Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission Executive Committee Meeting. Bangkok, Thailand. Contact:Patrick Durst, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 39 Phra Atit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand; E-mail:[email protected]

November 2014. Regional Workshop on Drivers of Change Affecting forests in Mekong. Hanoi, Vietnam. Contact:Yurdi Yasmi, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 39 Phra Atit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand; E-mail:[email protected]

12-19 November 2014. IUCN World Parks Congress 2014. Sydney, Australia. Contact: Congress Secretariat,Australasia, GPO Box 3270, Sydney NSW 2001, Australia; E-mail: [email protected]

7-11 September 2015. XIV World Forestry Congress. Durban, South Africa. Contact: Tiina Vahanen, AssociateSecretary-General of the XIV World Forestry Congress, Forestry Department, FAO, Rome, Italy; E-mail: [email protected]

The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time isnow. –Chinese Proverb

FORESTRY PUBLICATIONS: FAO REGIONALOFFICE FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (RAP)

For copies please write to: Senior Forestry Officer for Asia and the Pacific,FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 39 Phra Atit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand.

Or visit the FAO website for an electronic version: http://www.fao.or.th/publications/publications.htm

East Asian forests and forestry to 2020 (RAPPublication 2010/15)

Forests beneath the grass: Proceedings of theregional workshop on advancing the application ofassisted natural regeneration for effective low-costforest restoration (RAP Publication 2010/11)

Forest policies, legislation and institutions in Asiaand the Pacific: Trends and emerging needs for2020 (RAP Publication 2010/10)

Report of the Asia-Pacific Forestry CommissionTwenty-third session (RAP Publication 2010/09)

Asia-Pacific forests and forestry to 2020. Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study II (RAPPublication 2010/06)

Forest law enforcement and governance: Progressin Asia and the Pacific (RAP Publication 2010/05)

Forest insects as food: humans bite back.Proceedings of a workshop on Asia-Pacificresosurces and their potential for development(RAP Publication 2010/02)

Strategies and financial mechanisms forsustainable use and conservation of forests:experiences from Latin America and Asia (RAPPublication 2009/21)

Asia-Pacific Forestry Week: Forestry in achanging world (RAP Publication 2009/04)

The future of forests: Proceedings of aninternational conference on the outlook for Asia-Pacific forests to 2020 (RAP Publication 2009/03)

Re-inventing forestry agencies. Experiences ofinstitutional restructuring in Asia and the Pacific(RAP Publication 2008/05)

Forest faces. Hopes and regrets in Philippineforestry (RAP Publication 2008/04

Reaching consensus. Multi-stakeholderprocesses in forestry: experiences from the Asia-Pacific region (RAP Publication 2007/31)

Trees and shrubs of Maldives: An illustrated fieldguide (RAP Publication 2007/12)

A cut for the poor: Proceedings of theInternational Conference on Managing Forests forPoverty Reduction Capturing Opportunities inForest Harvesting and Wood Processing for theBenefit of the Poor (RAP Publication 2007/09)

Trees and shrubs of the Maldives (RAPPublication 2007/12)

Developing an Asia-Pacific strategy for forestinvasive species: The coconut beetle problem –bridging agriculture and forestry (RAP Publication2007/02

The role of coastal forests in the mitigation oftsunami impacts (RAP Publication 2007/01)

Taking stock: Assessing progress in developing andimplementing codes of practice for forestharvesting in ASEAN member countries (RAPPublication 2006/10)

Helping forests take cover (RAP Publication 2005/13)

Elephant care manual for mahouts and campmanagers (RAP Publication 2005/10)

Forest certification in China: latest developmentsand future strategies (RAP Publication 2005/08)

Forests and floods – drowning in fiction or thrivingon facts? (RAP Publication 2005/03)

In search of excellence: exemplary forestmanagement in Asia and the Pacific (RAPPublication 2005/02)

What does it take? The role of incentives in forestplantation development in Asia and the Pacific(RAP Publication 2004/27)

Advancing assisted natural regeneration (ANR) inAsia and the Pacific (RAP Publication 2003/19) -2nd edition

Practical guidelines for the assessment,monitoring and reporting on national level criteriaand indicators for sustainable forest managementin dry forests in Asia (RAP Publication: 2003/05)

Applying reduced impact logging to advancesustainable forest management (RAP Publication:2002/14)

Trash or treasure? Logging and mill residues inAsia-Pacific (RAP Publication: 2001/16)

Regional training strategy: supporting theimplementation of the Code of Practice for forestharvesting in Asia-Pacific (RAP Publication: 2001/15)

Forest out of bounds: impacts and effectivenessof logging bans in natural forests in Asia-Pacific:executive summary (RAP Publication: 2001/10)

Trees commonly cultivated in Southeast Asia: anillustrated field guide - 2nd edition (RAPPublication: 1999/13)

Vol. XLI: No. 1 2014 - Home | Food and Agriculture ... · 4 Vol. 41: No. 1 2014 gardens, conversion...

Documents

Transcript of Vol. XLI: No. 1 2014 - Home | Food and Agriculture ... · 4 Vol. 41: No. 1 2014 gardens, conversion...