· PDF fileChallenges Faced in Tiger Conservation in Manas National ... Biodiversity of Bhitarkanika Mangrove Forest ... Meghalaya, Nagaland, northern West Bengal and

Contents

TIGERPAPER The Changeable Hawk Eagle in Northeast India and Bhutan.......... 1 Distribution of Chiropteran Fauna in and around the Bikaner Of Great Indian Desert.......................................................... 3 Sustainable Interventions for Suppressing Illegal Wildlife Trade in Thailand.................................................................. 9 Challenges Faced in Tiger Conservation in Manas National Park of Assam............................................ .......................... 11 Assessment of Habitat Suitability for Asian Elephants in Teknaf Game Reserve, Bangladesh.......................................... 14 Distributional Status of Hoolock Gibbon and Their Conservation In Southern Assam...................................... ......................... 26 Biodiversity of Bhitarkanika Mangrove Forest…………………….. 29 FOREST NEWS Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission to Meet in Fiji: Catch the Wave.................................................................................... 1 Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005.................................. 3 Synergies Between Reduced Impact Logging and Forest Conservation.............................................. .......................... 4 Excuse Me, What does RIL Cost?............................................. 5 Regional Workshop on Forests and Climate Change: Preparing For Decisions on Land Use and Forestry at COP 9................... 6 National Forest Programmes – Support From the Facility........... 9 New RAP Forestry Publications............................................... 10 Asia-Pacific Forestry Chips and Clips.......................................... 13 FAO Asia-Pacific Forestry Calendar............................................ 16

Tigerpaper Vol.37:No.4 Oct.-Dec.2003 1

THE CHANGEABLE HAWK EAGLE (Spizaetus cirrhatus) INNORTHEAST INDIA AND BHUTAN

by Anwaruddin Choudhury

Introduction

The Changeable Hawk Eagle (Spizaetuscirrhatus) is a large eagle with broad wings anda long and broad tail. It has a crest that may notbe conspicuous. However, the subspecies foundin peninsular India has a prominent crest. Theadults are characterized by boldly streakedunderparts, which is an unmarked pale buffy.The Changeable Hawk Eagle occurs in twomorphs in the northern race found in northeastIndia – one dark and one pale. The dark morphmay be confused in the field with the BlackEagle Ictinaetus malayensis. The species occursover the greater part of India from Himalaya toKerala, as well as the Andamans. It is also foundin Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. It has beenrecorded in India as an uncommon resident,while in Bhutan the only reference is of a 19th

century collection there (Ali and Ripley, 1987;Grimmett et al., 1998).

Distribution and Status

In northeastern India, among all the HawkEagles (Spizaetus and Hieraaetus spp.), theChangeable Hawk Eagle was relatively moreabundant. It has been recorded in Assam,Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland,northern West Bengal and Sikkim. It certainlyoccurs in Manipur, Mizoram and Tripura aswell. Although it was recorded as beinguncommon in India and scarce in Nepal(Grimmett et al., 1998), it was common at leastin Assam until the early 1990s. It used to beencountered in light forest, wooded countryside,at the edge of dense forest and in trees amidstjhum (shifting cultivation practiced by the hilltribes) clearings, salix swamps and grasslands.Seen singly or in pairs, especially duringnesting, it is still seen regularly in some of theprotected areas of Assam. It has been recordedfrom altitudes of 50 m to up to 1,900 melevation in the region. In Assam, it has beenfound to be common in Kaziranga, Manas,

Dibru-Saikhowa, Nameri and Orang nationalparks, and in Burhachapori, Laokhowa, MaratLongri and Sonai-Rupai wildlife sanctuaries. Ithas also been recorded in Chakrasila, Barnadi,Bher jan-Bora jan-Podumoni , Gibbon(Hollongapar), Nambor and Pabitora wildlifesanctuaries. There were also a large number ofsightings outside the protected areas(Choudhury, 2000). In Arunachal Pradesh, therewere records from Tezu (Singh, 1995) andPakhui (Pakke) wildlife sanctuary. InMeghalaya it was recorded in Balpakram and inJaintia Hills, with a historical record from KhasiHills. It has also been sighted in Kohima,Zunheboto and Phek districts of Nagaland(Choudhury, 2001). Although it has not beensighted in Bhutan (Inskipp et al., 1999), it hasdefinitely been observed by this author at twoplaces. A bird flew from Buxa Tiger Reserve innorthern West Bengal to Bhutan nearBhutanghat in 1995, and subsequently on manyoccasions between 1995 and 2001, lone birdswere seen at Mathangui in Royal ManasNational Park, and also in flight from Assam’sManas National Park towards the Bhutanesepark in the same location.

Breeding was recorded in the protected areas ofAssam and also outside near Dhakuakhana inLakhimpur District in 1990-91. In the lastmentioned area, the nesting was observed in alight woodland area in the countryside.

However, sightings have become less frequentthan a decade ago, indicating that the eagles arebecoming rarer.

Threats

Habitat destruction through the felling of treesand jhum cultivation, the felling of nesting trees,and opportunistic poaching for the pot are themain threats faced by the Changeable HawkEagle. Tree felling is done mainly for timber,furniture and firewood. In the hill areas or in

Tigerpaper Vol.30:No.4 Oct.-Dec.20032

northeastern India, jhum is the main form ofcultivation. With the increase in the humanpopulation, the jhum cycle has been shortenedfrom more than 10 years to less than 5 years,thus putting tremendous pressure on the forests.Many of the illegally logged areas aresubsequently encroached for settlement. In thecountryside where the species is still seen, thenesting as well as perching trees are cut forvarious domestic uses. Hunting of almost allspecies of birds for the pot is still a major factorin the hilly areas of the region, while it alsotakes place to a lesser extent in the plains.Although the impact of pesticides in this part ofIndia is not known and is also relatively lowerthan in other parts of the country, it certainly hashad some effect on raptors elsewhere, which isevident from their gradual decline, even fromthe protected areas. Pesticides are also widelyused in tea plantations and nobody knows theirimpact on the birds, especially the raptors.

Discussion

That all the larger raptors are vanishing isapparent from the decline seen in differentprotected areas such as Kaziranga and Orang,where there is regular birdwatching. Besides thegeneral causes such has habitat loss andpoaching, pesticides may be playing a majorrole in their decline as has been observedelsewhere. A detailed study is overdue in thisregard. The example shown by the vultures inrecent years was alarming and every effort needsto be made to prevent a similar fall in thepopulation of other raptors. An awareness drivefor the conservation of raptors should be

launched among the potential hunting areas inthe hills of northeast India to stop opportunisticshooting.

References

Ali, S. and S.D. Ripley. 1987. Compacthandbook of the birds of India &Pakistan. Oxford University Press,Bombay.

Grimmet, R. Inskipp, C. and T. Inskipp. 1998.Birds of the Indian Subcontinent.Christopher Helm (Publishers) Ltd.,London.

Choudhury, A.U. 2000. The birds of Assam.Gibbon Books & WWF-India NERO,Guwahati.

Choudhury, A.U. 2001. Some bird recordsfrom Nagaland, north-east India. Forktail17:91-103.

Inskipp, C., Inskipp, T. and R. Grimmett. 1999.Birds of Bhutan. Christopher Helm(Publishers) Ltd., London.

Singh, P. 1995. Recent bird records fromArunachal Pradesh, India. Forktail 10:65-104.

Dr. Anwaruddin Choudhury, The RhinoFoundation...in NE India, c/o Assam Co. Ltd. ,Bamunimaidam, Guwahati 781 021, Assam,India; E-mail: [email protected]


DISTRIBUTION OF CHIROPTERAN FAUNA IN ANDAROUND THE BIKANER OF GREAT INDIAN DESERT

Ashok Purohit and K. R. Senacha

Introduction

Bats belong to Order Chiroptera, the secondlargest order of Class Mammalia, which isfurther divided into two sub-orders, viz.Megachiroptera and Microchiroptera. Out of1,001 bat species reported from around theworld, 187 species belong to the sub-orderMegachiroptera, while Microchiroptera containsthe remaining 834 species. Bats have beenreported from almost all the geographical areasof the world except for the Arctic and Antarctic,extreme desert areas, and a few isolated oceanicislands (Mickleburgh et al., 1992; Hutson et al.,2001). Bats represent more than 20% of allmammal species of the world. In many countriesbats are major contributors to mammalianbiodiversity, while in some, particularly smalloceanic islands, they are the only indigenousmammals and may play a vital role as“keystone” species in ecosystem (Cox et al.,1992). The majority of bat species, includingmost of those in the suborder Michrochiroptera,are insectivorous, although some species arecarnivorous, a few are piscivorous, and threespecies of vampire bat are sanguivorous. Bats ofthe Old World suborder Megachiroptera arepredominantly frugivorous, but also consumenectar, flower, leaves and occasionally insects.The New World family Phyllostomidae has asimilar plant diet, but some species mayincorporate a greater proportion of insects thanthe Megachiroptera. Bats are the only mammalswith the capacity for powered flight(Altringham, 1996), and the Michrochiroptera,together with the Megachiropteran genusRousettus, have evolved a system ofecholocation, by means of which they orientthemselves and find their food, and which hasenabled them to roost in situations where lightintensity is low (Racey, 1999).

Throughout the world, bats play essential rolesin keeping populations of night-flying insects inbalance. Just one insectivorous bat can catchhundreds of insects in an hour, and largecolonies catch tons of insects nightly, includingbeetle and moth species that cost farmers and

foresters billions of rupees annually, not tomention mosquitoes in our backyards.Throughout the tropics the seed dispersal andpollination activities of fruit- and nectar-eatingbats are vital to the survival of rain forests, withsome bats acting as “keystone” species in thelives of plants crucial to entire ecosystems. Inaddition, the guano of bats, which they scatterover the farming fields and forest lands duringforaging activities, is known to be one of thebest bio-fertilizers of the world. Wild varietiesof many of the world’s most economicallyvaluable crop plants also rely on bats forsurvival. Some of the better known commercialproducts are fruits such as bananas, breadfruit,avocados, dates, figs, peaches, and mangoes.Others include cloves, cashews, carob, balsawood, kapok (filler for life preservers), and eventequila. Most of the plants from which theseproducts come are now commercially cultivated,but the maintenance of wild ancestral stocks iscritically important. They are the only source ofgenetic material for developing disease-resistantstrains, rejuvenating commercial varieties, andfor producing new, more productive plants inthe future. The value of tropical bats inreforestation alone is enormous. Seeds droppedby bats can account for up to 95 percent offorest re-growth on cleared land. Performing thisessential role puts these bats among the mostimportant seed-dispersing animals of both theOld and New World tropics. Studies of batshave contributed to the development ofnavigational aids for the blind, birth control andartificial insemination techniques, vaccineproduction, and drug testing, as well as to abetter understanding of low-temperature surgicalprocedures (Tuttle, 1988).

India harbours 109 species of bats, consisting of13 Mega and 96 Microchiropteran species(Bates and Harrison, 1997). The Great IndianDesert was known to have only twoMicrochiropteran species (Rhinopomahardwickii, and Rhinolophus lepidus) in theearly 1960s (Prakash, 1963). Since that timeuntil the middle of 2001, no one has studied thedistribution and ecology of the bats of this


region. In these four decades, this arid region ofthe Thar Desert has seen tremendous changes inits eco-biogeography. A rapid increase in thehuman population, introduction of Indira GandhiNahar in the district of Jaisalmer,implementation of advanced technology toenhance agricultural production, massive growthin construction of new buildings, renovation ofhistorical monuments and urbanization havecaused inhospitable changes in the distributionand availability of the bat species in this area.

Environment of the study site

Our study site, the Bikaner (280 01' 22 N and 730

19' 13 E) lies in the northwestern part ofRajasthan. Climatically it is a semi-arid region.During the summer the temperature rangesbetween 250 C to 450 C, while in May it can riseup to 480 C. The annual average rainfall is 300mm, distributed over less than twenty rainydays. This wide range of climatic conditions hasformed different types of habitat for theChiropterans in and around the Bikaner city.The vegetation of the area is typical deserticshrub forest represented by Acacia senegal,Prosopis juliflora, Euphorbia caducifolia,Ziziphus nummularia, Salvadora persica,Capparis decidua, Callotropis procera,Anogeissus pendula, Maytenus emarginatus,Calligonum polygonoides and Commiphorawightii. The main crops of the region includeVigna radiata, Vigna aconitifolia, Cyamopsistetragonoloba, Sesamum indicum andPennisetum typhoides. Wheat (Triticum sativum)and barley (Hordeum vulgare) have been addeddue to the introduction of Indira Gandhi Canal.(Rahamani,1997).

Material & methods The authors made a meticulous survey ofBikaner and its surroundings within the limits ofa 20 km radius from October 2001 to October2002 to find out the current status of bat roosts.After locating the sites, a few specimens werecollected by using an insect net and preserved inseventy percent alcohol. They were identified onthe basis of morphological measurements ofvarious body parts. This identification wasfurther confirmed by two leading Indian battaxonomists, Dr. Y. P. Sinha of ZSI Patana, andDr. Paul Bates of Harrison Zoological Museum,Kent England. A well-planned survey was undertaken during

which information about the various bat roostswas collected from the local people. A batdetector was used to locate the minute roosts anda Global Position System (GPS) was used toassess the global position of the roosting sites. ADigital Minimum-Maximum Thermometer anda Digital Lux Meter were used for themicroclimatic study of the bat roosting sites andvideo-graphic counts, and the capture re-capturemethod was followed for the populationdynamics.

Observations and discussion

Not much more has been done towards batresearch in Bikaner district of the Great IndianDesert. Prakash (1963) did the initial work onthe bat ecology of this region during the early1960s and reported the two species ofMicrochiropterans, viz. Rhinopoma hardwickiihardwickii and Rhinolophus lepidus lepidusfrom the deep and dark tunnels in the earth,which are excavated for “Fuller’s earth”. But hehad not mentioned the exact location and nameof these sites. After his report, no further studiesof the eco-status of bats of this region weremade.

From October 2001 onwards, the authors startedto work on this aspect and located nine newroosting sites of four Microchiropteran batspecies, viz. Rhinopoma hardwickii, Rhinopomamicrophyllum kinneari, Rhinolophus lepidus andPipistrellus tenuis. This study is the first toreport the presence of Greater mouse tailed batRhinopoma microphyllum kinneari and Indianpygmy bat Pipistrellus tenuis (P. mimus) fromBikaner. Detailed accounts of each roosting siteare described below:

(1) Junagarh Fort (280 01' 22 N and 730 19'13 E):

The biggest historical monument ofBikaner city. The construction of thismonument was started by Maharaja Sh.Rai Singh in 1588 and was completedby Maharaja Sh. Ganga Singh in theyear 1943. Nowadays the Maharaja Sh.Rai Singh Trust manages it. Like otherforts of the Great Indian Desert, thisone also serves as a permanent roostingsite for the microchiropterans. Variousold and unattended sections of the forthave big colonies of Rhinopomahardwickii (Fig.– 3). Ghantaghar Kee


Pedi Kee Nal and various ruinedunattended rooms of Rani Mahal arethe portions of the Main Palace whichcontain the solitary roost ofRhinopoma hardwickii, whereas FansiKhana, Kal Kothari, Chhapakhana andthree rooms attached to the fort wallcontain mixed colonies of Rhinopomamicrophyllum kinneari and Rhinopomahardwickii.

(2) Jalmahal, Sagar Village (280 01' 14 N

and 730 23' 35 E):A semi-underground and unattendedbuilding lies on a bank of DevikundSagar of Sagar Village. It has three longrows partially divided into varioussections. The last and inner-most row isserving as a permanent roost for threemicrochiropteran species, viz.Rhinopoma microphyllum kinneari,Rhinopoma hardwickii and Rhinolophuslepidus. We found individuals of allthree species roosting close to eachother.

The roosting behaviour of Rhinolophuslepidus is quite different than that of theother two species at the site. The formeris shy in nature and preferably roosts onthe ceilings rather than walls (Fig.- 5)While facing external stimuli(especially human intruders) they movetheir ears very frequently and remain atthe same place, looking towards theintruder until it approaches nearer. AsThen they become disturbed and start tomake rounds here and there inside theroost. In contrast, Rhinopomamicrophyllum kinneari and Rhinopomahardwickii face the external stimulus ina different way. As soon as a humanintruder enters the roost, they becomealert. At first they watch the intruder,moving their tails in a pendulum-likemanner (R. m. kinneari), and then theyeither crawl away or finally fly awayinto another compartment.

(3) Water Overflow Tunnel, DevikundSagar, Sagar Village (280 01' 11 N and730 23' 34 E):Devikund Sagar is the only public waterreservoir of Sagar village and issurrounded by a huge boundary wall on

its three sides. As mentioned above, ithas a big temple on one of its banks thatis a site for Rhinopoma microphyllumkinneari, Rhinopoma hardwickii andRhinolophus lepidus. Fifteen metersfrom the temple is a man-made wateroverflow tunnel. It is dark, unattended,forty feet long, four feet wide and sevenfeet high. The ceiling and the upperportion of the inner-most walls of thistunnel is occupied by a colony ofRhinopoma hardwickii consisting ofalmost one hundred and fiftyindividuals. Although Jalmahal and thistunnel lie almost adjacent to each other,no individuals of Rhinopomamicrophyllum kinneari or Rhinolophuslepidus have been found to roost in thetunnel. It is noteworthy to quote herethat this tunnel is not as spacious as thatof the Jalmahal and the humidity iscomparatively high, whereas thetemperature is lower at the Jalmahalthan in the tunnel.

(4) Public Well, Sagar Village (280 01' 10N and 730 23' 35 E): A deep, dark and unattended publicwell, situated almost thirty meters awayfrom the water overflow tunnel ofDevikund Sagar, is serving as one of thebiggest Microchiroptran roosts of SagarVillage. The circular periphery wall ofthis well is demarcated into twentysections of about five feet length each.Section numbers three to fifteen areoccupied by a mixed colony ofRhinopoma microphyllum kinneari andRhinopoma hardwickii, out of which R.m. kinneari dominates. This well iscompletely dried out and is has not beenused for water draining for many years.As a result it has become surrounded bythe wild growth of Prosopis juliflora.

The number of bats fluctuates fromwinter to summer at all three of theMicrochiropteran sites of this village.The comparative study of theirpopulation fluctuation at three sites hasrevealed that this well serves as thewinter roosting site for theseMicrochiropterans.


(5) Annapurana Mata Mandir, Pawan Puri

(270 59' 33 N and 730 20' 19 E): Annapurana Mata Mandir of Pawan

Puri area is one of the temples of thecity and is sited near the most famousNagalechia Mata temple. It is situatedin a deep pit and one of the sandysidewalls of its yard has a man-madetunnel forty feet long, four feet wideand seven feet high. From the back ofthis temple to the entrance of a secondopening, the sandy ceiling of this tunnelis thinly populated with individuals ofthe Microchiropteran bat speciesRhinopoma hardwickii. According totalks held with the temple authority,these bats have been living here formore than fifty years, but every yearduring the winter they disappear fromthe site and reappear in February orMarch. So we can predict that this is apermanent roosting site for themicrochiropterans, which shows thelocal migration of the species during thewinter.

(6) Laleshwar Mahadev Mandir, Shiv Badi(280 00' 01 N and 730 21' 13 E):Laleshwar Mahadev Mandir, situated inthe Shiv Badi area, is a famous templeof the city, which exhibits an exclusiveprototype of carved art. It has a bigcampus adorned with various types offlowering plants cultivated in itsbackyard. Just adjacent to the backsideof the cultivated area is a ruined muddybuilding meant to provide shelter forthe temple cows. Various crevices haveappeared in the boundary wall of thisbuilding and serve as the preeminentroost for the Indian pygmy batPipistrellus tenuis. As these bats live indark, unapproachably deep crevices, itis not easy to estimate their population,but repeated visual and videomonitoring of the roost at the time ofemergence have revealed that there aremore than thirty in number.

(7) Dauji ka Mandir, Near Kot Gate (280

00' 56 N and 730 18' 21 E):A temple situated in the heart ofBikaner city, it lies in the main marketnear Kot gate. The backside corridor

walls of the temple and ceiling of thecovered gallery of the mini market lyingjust adjacent to this corridor have beenserving as permanent roosting sites forthe Microchiropterans for many yearsnow. The roosting place of these batshas become completely dark due to thedeposition of their excreta over thecourse of time. The species identifiedfrom this roost are the Greater mouse-tailed bat Rhinopoma microphyllumkinneari and Lesser mouse-tailed batRhinopoma hardwickii. The bats of thisroost, especially those roosting in thegallery of the mini market, are a livingexample of the fact that the few coloniesof bats of this species have becomeadapted to living in very closeproximity to the human population.

(8) Girdhari Lal Ji ka Lakadi Ka Bada (280

04' 38 N and 730 19' 21 E):It is the private premises of Sh. GirdhariLal, situated almost forty to fifty metersaway from the Dauji ka Mandir.Basically it is a wooden workshopestablished by the owner almost fiftyyears back. One of its storerooms isoccupied by the Lesser mouse-tailed batRhinopoma hardwickii. According tothe owner, these bats have been livingthere for the last forty-five years anddisplay a seasonal fluctuation in theirpopulation.

(9) Session Court Building (280 00' 18 Nand 730 19' 21 E):The sidewalls and the ceiling of thestaircase of the Session Court buildingof this city were found to be sparselypopulated with a spread out colony ofthe Microchiropteran bat Rhinopomahardwickii. Interestingly, whileinteracting with the humans, bats at thissite show a distinctive behaviour. Wehad seen that these bats do not react todisturbances in the same way as bats ofthe same species roosting at the isolatedroosting sites.

In summary, it can be said that the Bikaner, oneof the biodiversity hot spots of the Great IndianDesert, is not well bestowed with chiropteranbiodiversity. It lags far behind Jodhpur (theentrance gate of the Great Indian Desert) in


terms of the number of bat species livingthere.Whereas Jodhpur is known to have sevenMicrochiropteran species (i.e. Rhinopomamicrophyllum kinneari, Rhinopoma hardwickii,Taphozus perforatus, Taphozus nudiventris,Hipposideros fulvus, Rhinolophus lepidus andPipistrellus tenuis) and one Megachiropteran(Pteropus giganteus giganteus) species, Bikanerhas only four Microchiropteran species viz.,Rhinopoma microphyllum kinneari, Rhinopomahardwickii, Rhinolophus lepidus and Pipistrellustenuis (Purohit and Senacha, 2002). But it isworthwhile to note here that in contrast toJodhpur, which has lost three Microchiropteranspecies (Megaderma lyra lyra, Hipposiderosfulvus and Tadarida aegiptiaca) in last fourdecades, Bikaner has added two new speciesviz., Rhinopoma microphyllum kinneari andPipistrellus tenuis to what was reported in 1963(Purohit and Senacha, 2002; Prakash, 1963).Rhinopoma hardwickii dominates the remainingmicrochiropteran species of the study area. Atotal of nine microchiopteran roosting sites werelocated at Bikaner in this study.

Conservation Status

All four Microchiropteran species reported fromthis region viz., Rhinopoma microphyllumkinneari, Rhinopoma hardwickii, Rhinolophuslepidus and Pipistrellus tenuis are assessed asbeing of the least concern in South Asia (MolurS. et al., 2002). But, if we talk about theconservation status of these Microchiropteransin and around Bikaner of Great Indian Desert,these species might face a severe threat in thenear future because out of nine existing roosts,two are surrounded with the wild growth ofProsopis juliflora, which has proven its fatalityto the Microchiropteran species at Jodhpur(Purohit et al., 2002). It is also worthwhile tono te here tha t twenty- f ive deadMicrochiropteran bats (Rhinopomamicrophyllum kinneari) were reported entangledin the thorns of Prosopis juliflora (Vilaiti Babul)grown at the only entrance of the Mandoretunnel (A permanent Microchiropteran roost),Jodhpur (Purohit et al., 2002).

Conclusion

Overall, we can say that Rhinopomamicrophyllum kinneari, Rhinopoma hardwickii,Rhinolophus lepidus and Pipistrellus tenuis arethe only Microchiropteran species inhabiting the

area in and around Bikaner of the Great IndianDesert (The Thar). No Megachiropterans havebeen reported to date. Rhinopoma microphyllumkinneari and Pipistrellus tenius are beingreported here for the first time from this region;thus, it seems that this region is not very rich inchiropteran biodiversity.

Acknowledgments

We are extremely thankful to the Department ofScience and Technology, New Delhi, forproviding us with equipment and a financialgrant for this study under Project No.- SP/SO/C-28/99. We are also grateful to the wildlifeofficials of the city for granting permission toconduct the study and Dr. Q. H. Baqri,Additional Director, ZSI, Jodhpur, for providinga GPS Unit. We also wish to express our deepgratitude to Dr. B.S. Gaur for his guidance andto Dr. Anil Chhangani and Mr. Vijay KrishnaVantipalli of our department for their valuablehelp during the study. Mr. Amit Sharma andKeshav Bihari Vyas of our laboratory also are tobe thanked for their help in finalizing the paper.

References

Altringham, J. D. 1996. Bates – Biology andbehaviour. Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Bates, P. J. J. and D. L. Harrison. 1997. Bats ofthe Indian Subcontinent. HarrisonZoological Museum, pp. 1-258. England.

Cox, P.A., Elmqvist, T., Pierson, E.D. and W.E.Rainey. 1992. Flying foxes as pollinatorsand seed dispersers in Pacific Islandecosystems. In: D.E. Wilson & G.L. Graham(Eds). Pacific Island Flying Foxes:Proceedings of an InternationalConservation Conference, pp. 18-23. USFish and Wildlife Service Biological Report90(23). US Department of the Interior, Fishand Wildlife Service, Washington DC.

Hutson, A.M., Mickleburgh, S.P. and P.A.Racey. (compilers).2001. MicrochiropteranBats: Global Status Survey andConservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSCChiroptera Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK.

Mickleburgh, S.P., Hutson, A.M. and P.A.Racey (Eds). 1992. Old World Fruit Bats.


An Action Plan for their Conservation.IUCN/SSC Chiroptera Specialist Group.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Molur, S., Marimuthu G., Sriniwasulu C.,Mistry S., Hutson A.M., Bates P.J.J., WalkerS., Priya K.P. and A.R.B. Priya (Eds). 2002.Status of South Asian ChiropteraCo n serv at ion Asses sment a n dManagement Plan. Workshop Report, heldat Department of Animal Behaviour andPhysiology, M.K.University, Madurai, 21-25 January 2002.

Prakash, I. 1963. Taxonomic and biologicalobservation on the bats of the Rajasthandesert. Records of the Indian Museum, 59(parts 1&2): 149-170.

Purohit, A., Gaur, B. S. and K. R. Senacha.2002. Prosopis juliflora, an emergingthreat for the microchiropterans of theThar desert. Bat net – CCINSA Newsletter,3(2): 7-8.

Purohit, A. and K. R. Senacha. 2002. A reviewof microchiropteran eco-status inMandore garden, Jodhpur. Journal ofNature Conservation, 14 (2) : 251-262.

Racey, P.A. 1999. Bats. The UFAW Handbookon the Care and Management of LaboratoryAnimals, Seventh Edition (Ed. TrevorPoole): 246 – 261.

Rahmani, A. R. 1997. The effect of IndiraGandhi Nahar Project on the avifauna ofthe Thar desert. J. Bombay Natural HistorySociety, 94(2): 233-266.

Tuttle, M. 1988. The World of Bats.America’s Neighborhood Bats, Universityof Texas Press.

Authors’ address: Department of Zoology,J.N.V. University, Jodhpur (India) -342001; E-m a i l : p u r o h i t 1 4 1 1 @ y a h o o . c o m ;[email protected]

Greater mouse-tailed bat (Rhinopoma microphyllum kinneari) at Junagarh Fort, Bikaner. (Photo: AshokPurohit)


SUSTAINABLE INTERVENTIONS FOR SUPPRESSINGILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE IN THAILAND

by John Parr

At the time of writing (November 2003), acombination of high profile raids andcomplimentary statements focusing on illegalwildlife trade have been made by concernedgovernment agencies. These initiatives clearlyindicate that the Thai Government is making adetermined effort to stamp down hard on theseillegal activities in the run-up to the 13th

convening of Parties to the Convention ofInternational Trade in Endangered Species to beheld in Bangkok in October 2004.

The Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(1973) regulates international trade in wildanimals and plants which are listed in threeAppendices to the Convention. The treatyprohibits international commercial trade inspecies that are threatened with extinction. It isalso a trade regulation treaty in the sense that itallows a controlled international trade in specieswhose survival is not yet threatened, but maybecome so (as long as critical management andscientific determinations of sustainability aremade).

The Convention operates by a permit system.With a few exceptions, it prohibits internationaltrade in specimens of species included in any ofthe Appendices without the prior granting of aCITES permit. It lays down strict managementand scientific conditions that must be satisfiedbefore a permit is granted, and it requires eachParty to establish one or more ManagementAuthorities and Scientific Authorities which,between them, are responsible for ensuring thatthe conditions have been satisfied and, if theyhave been, for granting permits.

If one looks at the interpretation of theConvention by convening Parties, throughreviewing national legislation on wildlife tradein different countries, it appears that only thosegovernment agencies with a direct mandate for

wildlife trade have responded to the Conventionby modifying their own particular piece ofnational legislation. For example, in Thailand,the Plants Act (1975), establishes a ManagementAuthority, establishes an advisory ScientificAuthority, and shoulders the responsibility ofissuing permits. The Wild Animals Reservationand Protection Act (1992) made progress toaddress similar responsibilities concerning thefaunal issues.

Apart from specifying the requirements forManagement and Scientific Authorities, theConvention does not prescribe or recommendother aspects of the institutional arrangementsfor implementing CITES at the national level,which are specific to each country’s system. Inparticular, there is no reference to what hasemerged as a clear need - the need for aninteragency committee. As a direct consequence,the all-important law enforcement agencies -particularly the police and customs - have beenlargely left out of “the debate” in numerouscountries, and have consequently had difficultygrasping CITES issues.

Indeed, these interagency committees have onlyjust been initiated in places like the UK, andSweden for approximately a decade, althoughthe US has had an informal committee of thisnature for even longer. A quite extraordinaryand fascinating scenario that seems to haveevolved from the content of the CITESConvention itself.

If one takes time to dwell on the governmentagencies in Thailand that should be mostactively involved in tackling the illegal wildlifetrade issues, it is relatively straightforward tocome up with a short-list of concernedgovernment agencies. Immediately, the threeDepartments that handle the listings ofthreatened and endangered species, namely theDepartment of National Parks, Wildlife and


Plant Conservation - for terrestrial fauna, theFisheries Department - for aquatic fauna, and theDepartment of Agriculture - for plants spring tomind. All three agencies have established theirrespective management authorities with directresponsibilities for handling the permit systemsoperated under the Convention.

In addition, the two law enforcement agencies -the Customs Department and the PoliceDepartment - both have substantial numbers ofofficers operating at entry points (airports, portsand border crossings) as well as throughout thecountry, with particularly strong mandates toapprehend offenders dealing in illegal (wildlife)trade. Furthermore, individuals from the JusticeDepartment will have the ultimate task ofdetermining the seriousness of the crimescommitted and the penalties imposed.

Undoubtedly, an interagency committeecomprising representatives from these sixgovernment departments has the potential, onpaper, to draw up a holistic, powerful, long-termstrategy to address illegal wildlife trade.

Indeed, if a checklist of possible activities, orpolicies, is drawn up in which these six agenciesmight cooperate, the full potential of this bodyis appreciated. Some areas where cooperationwould be helpful include the production ofeducational materials about schedules of speciesby the three management authorities for lawenforcement agencies; production of educationmaterials and outreach strategies by the threemanagement authorities for the general public;advice from scientific authorities on specieslistings, possible additions, and trends inpopulations of near-threatened species;interagency cooperation at airports, ports andborder crossings; interagency cooperation for

domestic trade, particularly rural markets andtrading outlets; information exchange anddatabases on illegal wildlife traders; promotinginformants’ networks at community/provinciallevel on illegal traders; training courses bymanagement authorities for law enforcementofficers; and training courses for protected areastaff by police/border patrol police in lawenforcement issues.

Of direct relevance to the significance ofestablishing an interagency committee, anofficial CITES Mission visited Thailand from26-30 August 2002, at the behest of the CITESStanding Committee (Switzerland, 2002). Thismission produced a report of its findings.Interestingly, it’s first recommendation was that“Thailand should consider a multi-agencyspecialized crime unit, led by the police, butincorporating customs and CITES officials(RFD, Fisheries and Plants) and perhaps FDA,to coordinate enforcement and internationalliaison. Such a unit need not be operational butcould focus on intelligence gathering, anddissemination, risk assessment, target profiling.”

Ultimately, unless an interagency body isestablished and fully functional, we maycontinue to witness piecemeal interventions,which may not be conclusive in suppressingillegal wildlife trade within the country in thelong-term. Fortunately, the commitment isclearly present to move forward within our ThaiGovernment

John Parr is Director of Conservation, WWF-Thailand. His address is: 104 OutreachBuilding, AIT, Klong Nung, Klong Luang,Pathum Thani 12121, Thailand; E-mail:[email protected]


CHALLENGES FACED IN TIGER CONSERVATION INMANAS NATIONAL PARK OF ASSAM, INDIA

by Bibhab Kumar Talukdar

Introduction

Manas Wildlife Sanctuary was established in1928 with an area of 391 km2. It became aWorld Heritage site in 1985 under Criterias ii, iiiand iv of the World Heritage Convention.Subsequently, its area was increased to 500 km2

when it was upgraded to a national park in 1990by the Assam government. The park spans theManas River and is bounded in the north by theinternational border with Bhutan, to the south bythe populated regions of North Kamrup, and tothe east and west by forest reserves.

The three major types of vegetation in the parkare:a. tropical semi-evergreen forests in the

northern part of the park, with commontrees including Aphanamixis polystachya,Anthocephalus chinensis, Syzygium cumini,S. oblatum, Bauhinia purpurea,Cinnamomum tamala and Actinodaphneobvata;

b. tropical moist and dry deciduous forests (themost common type), characterized by treessuch as Bombax ceiba, Sterculia villosa,Dillenia indica, D. pentagyna, Careyaarborea, Lagerstroemia parviflora, L.speciosa, Terminalia bellirica, T. chebula,Trewia polycarpa and Gmelina arborea;and

c. extensive alluvial grasslands in the westernpart of the park, comprising many differentgrass species, together with a variety of treeand shrub species (e.g. Dillenia pentagyna,Phyllanthus emblica, Bombax ceiba,Clerodendrum sp., Leea sp., Grewia sp.,Premna sp. and Mussaenda sp.). Thegrasslands can be subdivided into wetalluvial and highland savanna types. Thereis also a considerable variety of aquaticflora along river banks and in the numerouspools (Jain and Sastry, 1983).

Dry deciduous forests represent early stages insuccession and are replaced by moist deciduousforests away from water courses, which in turnare succeeded by tropical semi-evergreen climaxforest. Grasslands cover about 50% of the park.Some 393 species of dicotyledons, including197 trees, and 98 species of monocotyledonshave been identified (Jain and Hajra, 1975).

Manas has also been declared as a tiger reserveunder Project Tiger. Besides Royal Bengal Tiger(Panthera tigris), it harbors over 50 species ofmammals, 21 of them under Schedule 1 of theWildlife (Protection) Act 1972. The park ishome to over 450 species of birds (Deb Roy,1990), 36 species of reptiles and 7 species ofamphibians. Among the avifauna, the Bengalflorican population was estimated at 34 in 1984in the national park (Ali et al., 1985) and 80individuals with 24 male territories wereidentified within the park during 1988 and 1989,the first confirmed record for India (Narayan etal., 1989). Manas was a potential site for tigerconservation, but during 1990-1996, due topolitical unrest in the area, the populations ofmany key species including rhinoceros, tiger andelephant were reduced due to poaching. In thepresent study, an analysis was made of thecurrent state of the tiger in Manas TigerReserve, taking into account the pre-1990 andpost-1990 period of political unrest. The studywas done through field visits to the national parkand also through discussions with forestofficials, villagers and other personsknowledgeable about Manas to assess thesuccesses and failures of tiger conservation bythe state government. The study was conductedfrom June 2002 to December 2002.

Tiger Estimates in Manas

The first attempt to estimate the tiger populationin Manas was carried out by the Assam ForestDepartment in 1972. Only 10 tigers were


recorded, and although the official figures listedall of them as males, the presence of femalesmight have been overlooked due to

shortcomings in the survey methods. Asummary of tiger estimates in Manas is given inTable 1.

Table 1: Tiger estimates in Manas National Park, Assam (Source: Forest Dept.)

Year Males Females Cubs Total

1972 10 0 0 10

1975 20 16 5 41

1976 28 17 6 51

1988-89 18 31 4 53

1991-93 32 37 12 81

1994-95 29 (+ 4 in Buffer Zone) 44 (+ 8 in BufferZone

7 (+ 2 in BufferZone)

80 in core & 14in Buffer Zone

1996-97 27 54 8 89

2000-01 22 38 5 65

Manas is often regarded to be one of the keysites for tiger conservation. However, since theethnic disturbance erupted in 1988, the killing oftigers and rhinos has continued unabated. The

rhino population was almost exterminated bypoachers and there was a significant loss oftigers to poachers during the period.

Table 2: Tigers killed by poachers in Manas National Park (Source: Forest Department of Assam)

Year Number of tigers killed

1988-89 3

1991-93 8

1994-95 9

2001 1

The number of tigers in Manas showed a sharpdecline between 1997-2001. That may havebeen due to intense poaching and also becauseof other causes like habitat destruction, whichhas forced the tigers to move to other, lessoptimal habitats where they are more vulnerableto poachers.

The problem of tiger poaching in Manas seemsto be acute and many more cases probably go

undetected by the park managers as nothingremains after the tigers are killed, making itdifficult to estimate the actual number of tigerskilled. There is a tendency to blame the parkmanagers for not keeping accurate records oftigers poached, but it is a difficult task whenthere is no evidence if the poachers leavenothing behind. In the case of rhinos andelephants, at least the carcasses are usually leftbehind so it can be estimated how many were


killed and whether the deaths were due topoaching or natural causes. For instance, if arhino is found dead with no horn, then it couldbe assumed that poachers were involved.Similarly, if an elephant is killed and the ivoryor body parts are left untouched, then the animalprobably died of natural causes. But if a tiger iskilled by poachers, everything from skin tobones is taken away. Hence, tiger protection hasbecome more difficult for the park managers asthe animals can be killed by silent methods likepoisoning.

Tiger conservation has been found to be a verychallenging task, especially in areas with highethnic disturbances. When forest camps areattacked and staff are killed, the morale of thepark managers is low and they become moreconcerned for their own safety then that of theanimals. Moral support from the ForestDepartment would improve the morale of thestaff and a greater understanding of the traumaof the field staff is needed. If the problems facedby the park staff are understood and follow-upactions are initiated, Manas could still become akey site for the conservation of tiger and otherkey mammals.

Villagers living on the fringes of the park needto be motivated to support tiger protection. Inaddition, joint patrolling with the staff of RoyalBhutan Manas National Park and the Assamcounterparts in the international border areasand sharing of intelligence may help to reducetiger poaching. The state government of Assamneeds to establish a special task force to dealwith tiger poaching, not only in Manas but alsoin other parts of the region.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the Field Directorand staff of Manas Tiger Project for theirsupport during the study. He is also grateful tothe Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology andthe Environment for encouragement andsupport.

References

Ali, S., Daniel, J.C. and A.R. Rahmani. 1985.Study of ecology of certain endangeredspecies of wildlife and their habitats. TheFloricans. Annual Report 1, 1984-85.Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay.p.79-83.

Deb Roy, S. 1990. Manas – A monograph.Regional Expert Consultation onManagement of Protected Areas in the Asia-Pacific Region. Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations. 31 pp.

Jain, S.K. and A.R.K. Sastry. 1983. Botany ofsome tiger habitats in India. BotanicalSurvey of India, Howrah. 71 pp.

Jain, S.K. and P.K. Hajra. 1975. On the botanyof Manas Wildlife Sanctuary in Assam.Bulletin of the Botanical Survey of India,17:75-86.

Narayan, G., Sankaran, R., Rosalind, L. andA.R. Rahmani. 1989. The FloricansHoubaropsis bengalensis and Sypheotidesindica. Annual Report 1988-89. BombayNatural History Society. 39 pp.

Author’s address: Ashoka Trust for Research inEcology and Environment, Eastern HimalayanProgramme, Bungalow No.2, Bhujiapani, PO:Bagdogra, West Bengal - 734422, India; E-mail: [email protected]

Tigerpaper Vol.XXX:No.4 Oct.-Dec.200314

ASSESSMENT OF HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR ASIANELEPHANTS IN TEKNAF GAME RESERVE, BANGLADESH

by Richard E. Salter and M. Khairul Alam

Introduction

Asian elephants occur in Bangladesh primarilyalong the northern and eastern borders, both asyear-round residents and moving seasonallybetween the adjacent hill tracts of India andMyanmar and similar habitats in the Garo Hills,Chittagong Hill Tracts, and Teknaf Peninsula(Santiapillai and Jackson, 1990; IUCNBangladesh, 2000). Most of the availableestimates put total numbers at perhaps a fewhundred animals. Although the population ofelephants occurring in Bangladesh is small incomparison to most of the 12 other countrieswithin this species’ range, it represents asignificant management challenge in terms ofmaintaining sufficient areas of habitat, andmitigating human-elephant conflicts in croplandand adjacent forest areas. The current status ofAsian elephants is listed as endangered overtheir total range (Hilton-Taylor, 2000), and ascritically endangered in Bangladesh (IUCNBangladesh, 2000).

The Teknaf Peninsula of extreme southeasternBangladesh, and immediately adjacent areas tothe north, represent some of the most importantelephant habitat remaining in the country. Inrecognition of this, the Government ofBangladesh established the Teknaf GameReserve in 1983, comprising ~11,000 ha of landunder the administrative control of Cox’s BazarForest Division. Although this designationprovides only very limited (and largelytheoretical) protection for elephants and otherwildlife populations, and no protection ofhabitat beyond normal forest managementpractices, it does provide a basis for furtherconservation planning, and possible upgradingto a higher protection status. Managementrecommendations have been developed underthe Forestry Master Plan (GoB 1992), the ForestResources Management Project (BCAS 1997;Rosario 1997) and most recently under theForestry Sector Project (Tecsult 2001). The

latter recommended expansion of the protectedarea to 22,632 ha, upgrading of the area’s statusto wildlife sanctuary (which would providemore scope for the protection of both wildlifeand habitat), and adoption of a participatoryapproach to management including sustainableuse of forest resources by the surrounding ruralpopulation.

Long-term retention and balancing ofconservation and resource production values inthe Teknaf area will require a spatially-basedland use planning and management approach. Acornerstone of this approach needs to be a clearunderstanding of the value of the area forelephants, including quantitative assessments of:1) population size and distribution; 2) currentsuitability of habitats for use by elephants; and,3) how future habitat suitability might change asa result of human land use. The first of theserequirements, elephant population estimates anddistributional assessments, has recently beenaddressed (Islam, 1998; IUCN Bangladesh,2001), and the methodology can easily bereplicated in the future for monitoring purposes.This paper addresses the related planning andmanagement requirements of assessing currenthabitat suitability for elephants, and how habitatsuitability can be retained and improved throughthe implementation of land use managementmeasures.

Description of the Area

The Teknaf Game Reserve as currently gazettedoccupies the middle part of the TeknafPeninsula, from Ukhia south to the town ofTeknaf. It consists of gently sloping to ruggedhills and cliffs running down the central part ofthe peninsula, with a north-south length of 30km and an east-west width of 2-6 km. TheReserve is accessible from Cox’s Bazar along itsentire eastern edge by an all-weather road, andfrom the western side along an unbroken stretchof beach from Cox’s Bazar to Teknaf, which is

Tigerpaper Vol.XXX:No.4 Oct.-Dec.2003 15

currently used as a road by light four-wheeldrive vehicles during low tide.

The Reserve and immediately adjacent coastalareas comprise a broad variety of habitats withina relatively compact area, includingrepresentative but increasingly fragmented anddegraded examples of evergreen and semi-evergreen hill forests within the Reserve, tidalmudflats and mangrove vegetation along the NafRiver to the east, and broad sandy and rockybeaches along the Bay of Bengal bordering theReserve to the west. These habitats support whatis considered to be the highest biodiversity inBangladesh –a documented total of 290 speciesof plants, 55 species of mammals, 286 species ofbirds, 56 species of reptiles and 13 species ofamphibians (Wahab and Faizuddin, 1984; Khan,1989; Rashid et al., 1990; Khan et al., 1994).The wildlife fauna includes approximately halfof the mammal species found in Bangladesh(including 8 of the 10 primate species), and 4species of nesting marine turtles.

The Reserve area has long been known for itselephants, and was established specifically fortheir protection. Elephants are still widelydistributed in the area, and although numbersvery likely have declined the Reserve andadjacent parts of the Teknaf Peninsula stillsupport an important population, with totalnumbers variously estimated as 15-56 (Islam1998) to 100 or more (1983 estimate in Rashidet al. (1990) and current estimates by ForestDepartment personnel). These elephants arepart of a larger population scattered over theChittagong Hill Tracts and down through theTeknaf Peninsula, and contiguous withpopulations in adjacent parts of India andMyanmar. Estimates of both the Reservepopulation and the total country population ofelephants are very crude, but the Teknafpopulation probably represents 20-30% or moreof the total number of elephants currentlyremaining in Bangladesh (most recentlyestimated as 74-205 animals by Islam (1998)).

Intensive human use has resulted in the

degradation or conversion of much of theoriginal wet evergreen and semi-evergreenforest cover in the Reserve. The most recentlyavailable mapping (based on 1995 aerialphotography, and mid-1999 field checking)indicates that “scattered trees” is now thepredominant cover type (Table 1), with highforest being limited to areas that are at leastpartially protected by steep topography. Levelsof human use are very high, and there iscurrently a downward trend in forest conditionfrom high forest to low forest, and from lowforest to scattered trees and brushland. Mainhabitat conversion and/or degradation factors areincreasing development of a road network,resulting in increasing ease of access andremoval of forest resources; illegal logging ofvaluable timber species; conversion of degradedforest areas to plantations, including clearingand burning of extensive areas andestablishment of monocultures of exotic species;grazing by livestock; repeated burning ofunderstory vegetation; widely dispersed butintensive harvest of fuelwood, bamboo and otherforest products for subsistence use and for saleby the surrounding rural population; heavy (andillegal) use of fuelwood by adjacent brickfields;conversion of riparian and lowland habitat toagriculture by forest villagers; andencroachment by agriculture along the edges ofthe Reserve. Extensive hunting and trapping ofwildlife also occurs, including poaching ofelephants.

Management proposals prepared by the ForestrySector Project included regazettement to includean additional 11,670 ha of Forest Departmentland immediately to the north of the currentReserve area. This extension would add largeareas of high forest, low forest and long-rotationplantations to the Reserve (Table 1). Theproposals also included a buffer zone along theeastern edge of the extension, comprising mostlylow forest and plantations where themanagement focus would be on intensiveproduction of replacement resources,particularly fuelwood, poles and timber, and onmaintaining suitability as elephant habitat.

Table 1: Forest and land use cover in Teknaf Game Reserve, and proposed extension and buffer


zone Gazetted

Reserve areaProposed extension Proposed buffer

zoneLand use/cover type1 Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) %

High forest 887.5 8.1 2790.5 23.9 9.4 0.2Low forest 1511.1 13.8 3636.0 31.2 1368.3 33.0Scattered trees 4393.4 40.1 119.4 1.0 67.3 1.6Brush 423.4 3.9 269.7 2.3 230.8 5.6Long-rotation plantations: >50 years old 22.6 0.2 68.4 0.6 0.0 0.0#50 but >25 years old 398.6 3.6 1607.9 13.8 12.1 0.3 #25 but >10 years old 546.2 5.0 1235.7 10.6 396.8 9.6 #10 years old 1154.8 10.5 796.2 6.8 605.0 14.6Short rotation plantations:>10 years old 106.6 1.0 61.1 0.5 80.8 2.0#10 years old 164.2 1.5 121.4 1.0 401.7 9.7Failed plantations 713.0 6.5 531.5 4.6 905.3 21.9Forest Research Institute area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.4Agriculture/encroachment 640.2 5.8 415.3 3.6 46.8 1.1Open/eroded areas 0.0 0.0 6.7 <0.1 0.0 0.0Water/pond/swamp 1.1 <0.1 9.9 <0.1 0.0 0.0

Total 10,962.7 100 11,669.7 100 4141.0 100

1cover type and area based on 1995 aerial photography, mid-1999 field checking and updated plantation areas2long rotation plantations are mostly teak mixed with other species3short rotation plantations are mostly Acacia mixed with other species

Elephant Habitat Requirements

The first step in developing the elephant habitatsuitability assessment was a review of relevantfield studies and other literature (primarilySeidensticker (1984), Sukumar (1989), Dudley(1993) and included references) to identify whatenvironmental features are the best descriptorsof habitats used by this species. This focussedon: 1) the life requisites of food, cover andspecial habitat requirements such as space(minimum area) and juxtaposition of habitatcomponents; and, 2) the effects of habitatchange.

In summary, high quality elephant habitat ischaracterized by:C close proximity of seasonal foraging areas,

water (for drinking and bathing) andmineral licks;

C availability of a mosaic of habitat types,including forests, forest clearings, forestscrub, savanna, grasslands and alluvialfloodplains;

C availability of preferred food plants(primarily grasses, but including browse,

fruits, palms and succulents);C low levels of habitat alienation and

fragmentation (e.g., as resulting frompermanent agriculture; plantation forestry;clear-felling; overharvesting of plantresources for fodder, fuel and timber;competition from domestic livestock;human settlement; road construction);

C contiguous areas of habitat sufficiently largeto support a genetically viable population(probably several hundred km2 over theshort-term); and,

C retention of seasonal movement corridors.

With regard to habitat change, keyconsiderations are that:C conversion of evergreen forest from climax

to seral stages can result in an increase inbrowse and forage production and henceincreased carrying capacity for elephants,but carrying capacity may subsequentlydecrease if secondary forest is furtherdegraded to the scrub stage;

C selective logging in closed canopy forestcan result in positive habitat changes, to theextent that light-demanding plants that also


are elephant food species (e.g., bamboosand other grasses) become established indisturbed areas;

C occasional ground fires in forested areas canincrease forage availability, but regular firesreduce carrying capacity by degrading treecover and species composition;

C clear-felling for plantations causes adversehabitat changes, although elephants mayalso forage to some extent on plantationspecies such as teak and Eucalyptus, andadverse changes may be reduced where thescale of plantations is limited, and forageplants are maintained in the understory;

C heavy removal of fuelwood ultimatelydegrades natural vegetation cover, reducesstanding biomass, and reduces foodavailability for elephants; and,

C elephants that lose parts of their home rangeto agricultural production, or that otherwiseare confined to highly fragmented habitats,are prone to becoming crop raiders.

Assignment of Habitat Suitability Values

The Bangladesh Forest Department maintains acentrally-operated database (RIMS, or ResourceInformation Management System) that containsgeo-referenced information on land use type,land use area and (for plantations) year ofestablishment and species planted. This database

and associated mapping covers all forest land inCox’s Bazar Forest Division, dividing it intoland units (map polygons) having uniformvegetation cover. The gazetted Game Reservearea, proposed extension and buffer zone aredivided into a total of 435 polygons, providingan established spatial framework for habitatsuitability assessment.

As noted above, the first step in the habitatsuitability assessment was to identify whatenvironmental features are the best descriptorsof habitats used by elephants. The next step inthe assessment was to develop a standard tablefor assigning habitat suitability values to eachland use type. Measures of habitat structure(stand maturity, canopy closure, foodabundance) are not available for individualpolygons, but were inferred from cover type,species composition and stand age descriptors inthe database, and on the basis of limited fieldchecking. A judgement of how well theseinferred measures match the habitatrequirements of elephants was then used toassign generic habitat suitability index (HSI)values to each generalized land use type (Table2). This provides a first approximation of theoverall suitability of habitat in any givenpolygon, on a scale of 0.0 (indicating no habitatvalue) to 1.0 (the best possible habitatconditions).

Table 2: Generalized descriptors of land use types and assigned Habitat Suitability Index values

Inferred value of:Land use type Predomina

nt stand ageCanopyclosure

Availabilityof browse,

fruit and/orsucculents

Availabilityof bambooand other

grasses

AssignedHSI value

forelephants

High forest old closed, largecrowns

moderate low-moderate

0.7

Low forest mid to old near closed,small

crowns

moderate-high

moderate-high

1.0

Scattered trees young open low-moderate

high 0.8

Brush young no canopy low-moderate

moderate 0.6

Long-rotationplantations: >50 years old old closed moderate low 0.5#50 but >25 years old mid near closed moderate low 0.5 #25 but >10 years old young-mid open low-

moderatelow 0.3

#10 years old young open low low 0.1


Short rotationplantations:>10 years old young-mid near closed low-

moderatelow 0.3

#10 years old young open low low 0.1Failed plantations young no canopy low low 0.2Forest Research Institutearea

young-mid open-nil low low 0.2

Agriculture/encroachment

young no canopy nil nil 0.0

Open/eroded areas notapplicable

no canopy nil nil 0.0

Water/pond/swamp notapplicable

no canopy nil low 1.0

In assigning HSI values, consideration wasgiven to existing models of habitat carryingcapacity, primarily those of Olivier (1978) andSukumar (1989). Olivier’s model depicts anincrease in elephant density across forestformations, from evergreen forest (low carryingcapacity and low elephant density) to deciduousforest (high carrying capacity and high density),and along a second gradient within forestformations, with carrying capacities andelephant densities increasing from climax forestwith closed canopies through to seral forestswith open canopies. Sukumar’s model shows: 1)a curvilinear increase in observed elephantdensities, from evergreen to semi-evergreen tomoist deciduous through dry deciduous forests,with densities declining in scrub vegetation; and,2) higher densities in secondary as compared toprimary stages of evergreen, semi-evergreen andmoist deciduous forests, approximately equaldensities in primary and secondary stages of drydeciduous forest, and reduced densities insecondary as compared to primary stages of dryscrub. Key factors underlying carryingcapacities in both of these models areforage/browse production, and the proportion ofthat production that is physically available(within foraging/browsing height) to elephants.

Consistent with these models, the assignment ofHSI values in Table 2 assumes that there is adirect relationship between habitat structure(i.e., as described by stand age, canopy closureand food abundance) and utility as elephanthabitat, and that there is a continuum from thebest habitats (open forest with high foodabundance) downward to habitats having littleor no value (disforested habitats with low foodabundance). It also needs to be borne in mindthat the assigned HSI values in Table 2 are

“averages” for the given land use type. Actualvalue as elephant habitat is likely to differamong polygons of the same land use type (e.g.,within low forest, one patch will have asomewhat higher or lower value than any otherpatch, depending on the distribution andabundance of preferred foods and otherresources) but these differences are consideredunlikely to be important within the overallaccuracy level of the assessment.

Land use type descriptions and the rationalebehind assignment of HSI values are as follows:

Low Forest (HSI 1.0): Low forest polygons aresegregated during air photo interpretation asareas of largely continuous forest covercharacterized by trees with “small crowns”. Lowforest polygons may include both opendeciduous forest typical of west-facing slopes,and evergreen forests in which the overstory hasbeen removed. Numerous gaps and openingsinvaded by secondary vegetation are likely to bepresent due to illicit timber felling, and in somelocations as a result of cyclonic damage.

Observations indicate that low forest is likely toretain an optimum mix of foods derived frommature trees and associated understories, andfrom early to mid-seral growth in open areas. Aslow forest represents the highest carryingcapacity available in the study area, it isassigned an HSI value of 1.0, and HSI values ofall other types are scaled against this.


Scattered Trees (HSI 0.8): Areas designated asscattered trees are typically former forestdegraded by timber felling and fuelwoodcutting, to the extent that only scattered trees oflow economic value (e.g., Ficus spp., Swintoniafloribunda) remain. Dense secondary vegetationis more or less continuous, comprising bamboos,bananas, and tree and shrub regeneration. Thescattered trees cover type can be considered tobe equivalent to low forest with most of the treecover removed, and with correspondinglydenser growth in the shrub/understory stratum.It is assigned a reduced HSI value relative tolow forest, as it represents a reduction indiversity (but not necessarily overall quantity) offoods available from mature trees and theunderstory stratum.

High Forest (HSI 0.7): High forest polygonsare segregated during air photo interpretation asareas of largely continuous forest covercharacterized by trees with “large crowns”. Theycomprise multi-storied evergreen forestscharac ter ized by emergent gar jan(Dipterocarpus turbinatus) up to 60 m in height.Numerous gaps and openings invaded bysecondary vegetation are likely to be present dueto illicit felling of garjan and other high valuespecies. Remaining stands are limited toinaccessible areas and/or steep topography.Relative to low forest and scattered trees, highforest is assigned a reduced HSI value becausegrowth of bamboos and other preferred foragescan be expected to be relatively poor beneathhigh, closed canopy cover, and also becausesome fruits and browse may be out of reacheven to elephants where tree growth is high.

Brush (HSI 0.6): The brush cover typecomprises secondary growth resulting fromcontinuous and heavy felling for fuelwood, orregrowth following burning and/or shiftingcultivation. Remaining cover is devoid of treesand consists primarily of bamboos, sun grass(Imperata spp.), assam lota (Eupatoriumodoratum) and other invasive species typical ofcleared and/or burned areas. The brush covertype is assigned a reduced HSI value relative toforest and scattered trees because it represents amore or less complete loss of tree cover andfood species associated with the tree stratum,and an advancing stage of habitat degradation.Although in some areas of brush cover theavailability of bamboos and other preferredforages may remain high, in others coarse

grasses and weedy growth predominate.

Long-rotation Plantations (HSI 0.1-0.5): Thiscover type comprises plantations of high valuetimber species (primarily teak (Tectona grandis)but including dhakijam (Syzigium grande),garjan, mahogony (Swietenia mahogoni), telsur(Hopea odorata) and other species). Preparationfor planting involves felling and burning of allexisting vegetation (ecologically equivalent topreparation for shifting cultivation) followed byperiodic hand weeding of potentiallycompetitive volunteer regrowth for up to threeyears. Harvesting is via a clear-felling systemtypically when the stand is 40-50 years of age,and is normally followed by immediatereplanting. Long-rotation plantations areassigned only low to mid-range HSI valuesbecause although they include some species thatprovide browse and fruits (e.g., teak, Artocarpuschaplasha), species diversity is much reducedcompared to natural forest. Also, periodicweeding greatly decreases the potentialavailability of bamboos and other preferredforages, at least in young stands.

Mid-aged to mature stands of long-rotationplantations (25 to 50+ years old) are comprisedof trees similar in stature to natural forest, andwith the cessation of weeding and thinning somestands will have a relatively well-developedunderstory of volunteer species. Hence mid-agedto mature long-rotation plantations areconsidered to have potentially moderate value aselephant habitat (assigned HSI 0.5), but lessvalue than natural cover types as a result ofreduced species diversity. Younger stands oflong-rotation plantations are assigned steppeddown HSI values to reflect lower speciesdiversity and standing biomass relative both toolder stands and natural cover types.

Short-rotation Plantations (HSI 0.1-0.3): Thiscover type comprises plantations of fast-growingspecies, primarily akashmoni (Acaciaauriculiformis), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.)and koroi (Albizia spp.). As for long-rotationplantations, preparation for planting involvesfelling and burning of all existing vegetation,followed by hand weeding of potentiallycompetitive volunteer regrowth for a period ofup to three years. Harvesting is via a clear-felling system typically when the stand is 10-15years old. Short-rotation plantations areassigned low HSI values because fruiting trees


are not normally planted as short-rotation crops,and the rotation period is too short for thenatural ingress and maturation of fruitingspecies. Short-rotation plantations do provide apotential source of browse, but only from a verylimited species mix, and primarily in near-mature plantings that have the tallest and best-developed trees. As in long-rotation plantations,availability of bamboos and other preferredforages can be expected to be minimal due tomanagement interventions.

Failed Plantations (HSI 0.2): Failed plantationsrepresent lands from which all natural cover hasbeen removed, and on which planted tree coverhas failed to develop due to site conditions orcompeting land uses (e.g., livestock grazing,agricultural encroachment). Plantations that failare likely to do so within the first few years oftheir establishment. They can subsequently beexpected to have a greater diversity and biomassof volunteer vegetation growth than tendedplantations of the same age due to cessation ofweeding, and hence are assigned a higher HSIvalue (0.2 vs 0.1 for young plantations).Depending on site conditions and whether or notthey are replanted, failed plantations would beexpected to continue to develop toward thebrush vegetation type.

FRI Area (HSI 0.2): The Forest ResearchInstitute area comprises research plots (38.8 ha)in the proposed buffer zone used forexperimentation with plantation species. It hasbecome heavily degraded recently and iscurrently almost denuded of tree cover. To avoidan unnecessarily detailed breakdown of thissmall area, it is assigned an average HSI valueof 0.2, equivalent to failed plantations.

Agriculture (HSI 0.0): Agricultural areascomprise former forest land that has beenconverted to cropland, primarily for theproduction of rain-fed rice or vegetables.Although such areas may be very attractive toelephants when crops are ripening, the presenceof agricultural areas is actually deleterious asthey are a direct cause of increased human-elephant conflicts. All agricultural areas areassigned an HSI value of 0.0 to reflect their nullvalue as “natural” elephant habitat.

Open/Eroded Areas (HSI 0.0): These comprisesmall unvegetated areas, presumably resultingfrom human land use, and are assumed to haveno value as elephant habitat.

Water/Pond/Swamp (HSI 1.0): Wheredelineated as a separate cover type, waterbodiesare assigned an HSI value of 1.0, reflecting theneed for permanent water sources as an essentialcomponent of elephant habitat. Other permanentwater sources (springs and permanent streams)are most likely to be maintained undercontinuous forest cover, and their value isincorporated in the overall assigned HSI valueof the low and high forest types.

Habitat Suitability Assessment

A key feature of the HSI approach to habitatassessment is that it permits the incorporation ofarea measurements; multiplying the HSI valueby area yields habitat units (HUs), which can besummed to obtain a measure of the habitat valueof large, diverse areas within which a series ofHU values has been calculated. This permits anevaluation of spatial changes in habitatavailability over time, and/or in response todifferent management regimes.

For purposes of this habitat suitabilityassessment, the standard HSI ratings (Table 2)and calculation of habitat unit values wereapplied to two scenarios:

1. A “pre-development” scenario representing arecreation of conditions that would prevail hadno plantation development or other human usesof forest occurred in the area (i.e., if all of thearea had remained covered by mature evergreenand semi-evergreen forest). For purposes of thisscenario, it was assumed that all of the area hadan HSI value of 0.7 (i.e., equivalent to highforest) prior to development.

2. A “current” scenario representing currentarea and types of forest cover, includingplantations and other land uses, as determinedfrom the RIMS database and limited fieldchecking. This scenario utilized the cover typeareas in Table 1, and the HSI values in Table 2,to derive HU values for each land use type(Table 3).

Table 3: Current Habitat Units in Teknaf Game Reserve, and proposed extension and buffer zone


GazettedReserve area

Proposed extension

Proposedbuffer zone

Land use/cover type1 HSI HUs % HUs % HUs %High forest 0.7 621.2 9.4 1953.4 26.8 6.6 0.3Low forest 1.0 1511.1 23.0 3636.0 49.9 1368.3 68.4Scattered trees 0.8 3514.7 53.4 95.5 1.3 53.8 2.7Brush 0.6 254.0 3.9 161.8 2.2 138.5 6.9Long-rotation plantations: >50 years old 0.5 11.3 0.2 34.2 0.5 0.0 0.0#50 but >25 years old 0.5 199.3 3.0 804.0 11.0 6.0 0.3 #25 but >10 years old 0.3 163.9 2.5 370.7 5.1 119.0 5.9 #10 years old 0.1 115.5 1.8 79.6 1.1 60.5 3.0Short rotation plantations:>10 years old 0.3 32.0 0.5 18.3 0.3 24.2 1.2#10 years old 0.1 16.4 0.2 12.1 0.2 40.2 2.0Failed plantations 0.2 142.6 2.2 106.3 1.5 181.1 9.0Forest Research Institute area 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.2Agriculture/encroachment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Open/eroded areas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Water/pond/swamp 1.0 1.1 <0.1 9.9 0.1 0.0 0.0

Total current habitatavailability1

6583.1 100 7281.8 100 2001.5 100

1pre-development habitat availability is estimated as 7674 HUs in the gazetted Reserve area, 8169 HUs in theproposed extension, and 2899 HUs in the proposed buffer zone

Observations from Habitat SuitabilityAssessment

1. Current habitat availability for elephants inthe gazetted Reserve is an estimated 86% of theoriginal (pre-development) level (i.e., 6583 of7674 HUs). Although vegetation cover has beenaltered substantially, the estimated net loss ofelephant habitat has been relatively modestbecause human use of the area has improvedhabitat suitability for elephants where highforest has been converted to low forest andscattered trees, which are more preferredhabitats. However, where further conversion hasoccurred (i.e., to brush, plantations, othercleared areas) there has been a reduction inhabitat suitability, and hence overall availability,to below pre-development levels. At present,most of the elephant habitat within the Reserveis provided by the scattered trees cover type(~53% of HUs), followed by low forest (~23%of HUs) and high forest (~9% of HUs). 2. Addition of the proposed extension to theReserve would more than double the amount ofelephant habitat under conservation management(i.e., from 6583 HUs to 13,865 HUs). Most ofthe extension area habitat is in the low forest andhigh forest cover types (~50% and 27% of HUs,respectively). Similar to the gazetted Reserve, an

estimated 89% of the pre-development elephanthabitat that originally occurred in the proposedextension area remains (i.e., 7282 of 8169 Hus).3. Within the gazetted Reserve area andproposed extension area combined, 8590 ha ofnatural vegetation cover (38% of area) havebeen converted to other land uses, primarilyforest plantations and agriculture. Although theycomprise a large proportion of theReserve/extension, these primarily low andmoderate suitability areas currently provide only~15% of total HUs.4. Within the gazetted Reserve and proposedextension, 1062 ha (~5% of area) are classifiedas non-habitat, 5431 ha (~24%) as lowsuitability habitat (HSI=0.1-0.3), 6469 ha(~29%) as moderate suitability habitat(HSI=0.4-0.7), and 9671 ha (~43%) as highsuitability elephant habitat (HSI=0.8-1.0).5. In the proposed buffer zone, elephant habitathas been reduced to ~69% of pre-developmentlevels. Two-thirds of current habitat in this zoneis provided by low forest. A total of 2465 ha ofthe original natural vegetation cover has beenconverted to plantations and agriculture;although these currently occupy ~60% of theland area, they provide only ~22% of totalbuffer zone HUs.


Discussion

The habitat suitability assessment systempresented herein provides a quantitative,defensible basis for: 1) extending the Reservearea to create a more viable conservation unit; 2)developing and implementing managementprogrammes for the extended Reserve area; and,3) monitoring the impacts of habitatmanagement, and modifying managementprogrammes as necessary. The main caveats inits use are that it assumes that the land coverdatabase is accurate and up-to-date, and thatassumptions regarding “average” values of standage, canopy closure and food availability, andhence the derived HSI value for each cover type,are valid.

Rationale for Reserve ExtensionThe habitat suitability assessment shows thatextending the Reserve as proposed would morethan double the amount of elephant habitatunder conservation management. Although eventhe extended Reserve would not provide all ofthe habitat needs of a viable elephantpopulation, it would better guarantee habitatsecurity for a much larger proportion of theelephants that currently use the area. Assumingthat these elephants are primarily migratory, thiswould be a major contribution to both nationaland international (trans-border) elephantconservation efforts. Also, because the extensionarea consists largely of closed canopy forest, itis likely to be of high conservation value to abroad array of plant and animal species thatrequire densely forested areas. Given the veryhigh levels of biodiversity that have previouslybeen documented in this part of Bangladesh, theestablishment of effective conservationmanagement over an extended area is a highpriority for the conservation of both elephantsand other elements of biodiversity. Development of Management ProgrammesThe results of the habitat assessment suggestsome first principles for the development ofelephant habitat management programmes:C the focus of habitat protection and

improvement activities in the extendedReserve area would most profitably be onhabitat areas that are currently classified ashaving high or moderate suitability forelephants. These include all remainingnatural cover types and long-rotationplantations more than 25 years old.

Management programmes in these areasshould focus on maintaining or improvinghabitat suitability for elephants, and otherspecies where possible, using a combinationof natural succession and habitatmanagement interventions such asenrichment planting, thinning and controlledburning.

C current short-rotation plantation areas andyoung long-rotation areas in the extendedReserve area can continue to be used forproduction forestry by Forest Department,and/or converted to sustainable productionareas for use by the surrounding ruralpopulation, without significant additionalimpacts on habitat availability for elephants.

C all natural and converted cover types in thebuffer zone can also continue to be used forproduction forestry by Forest Department,and/or used for sustainable harvest of forestproducts by the surrounding ruralpopulation, without significant additionalimpacts on habitat availability for elephants.However, overall habitat availability in thebuffer zone needs to be maintained andmonitored to ensure that seasonal migrationroutes on the north and east are not cut off.

The preliminary land use zoning schemedeveloped for the Reserve by the Forestry SectorProject (Tecsult 2001) is compatible with theseprinciples, and provides an initial basis forspatially based habitat management. Thefollowing zones have been roughly delineated:C a large ecosystem management zone

totalling approximately 11,500 ha, or ~51%of the gazetted Reserve and proposedextension (Figure 1). This zone would bedivided into a northern part comprisingmostly low forest and high forest, and asouthern part comprising mostly scatteredtrees, but also incorporating all remaininghigh forest and low forest that still occurs inthe currently gazetted Reserve area. Themain management objectives would be: 1)long-term protection and rehabilitation ofremaining forest cover; and, 2) consistentwith objective 1, retention of habitatsuitability for elephants.

C the ecosystem management zone would belargely surrounded by a habitatmanagement/sustainable use zone of~11,000 ha, comprising mostly existinglong and short-rotation plantations, failedplantations, brush, and areas already


converted to agriculture. The primaryobjective in areas zoned for habitatmanagement would be restoration and/ormanipulation of habitat for elephants andother selected wildlife species. The primaryobjectives in sustainable use areas would besustainable use of plantations, sustainableuse of natural vegetation cover where suchuse is compatible with biodiversityconservation objectives, and management ofagricultural use and habitation, all alsoincluding implementation of measures tominimize human-elephant conflicts.

C a large external buffer zone (4141 ha)comprised primarily of plantations and lowforest along the northeastern edge of theextended Reserve, providing for sustainableuse of plantations and natural vegetation asa means of relieving human use pressures onthe Reserve proper, and potentiallyproviding a linkage with habitat used byelephants for seasonal migrations into andout of the Reserve area. This would requireactive management to ensure that a mix ofhabitats appropriate for multiple useobjectives is maintained.

C an elephant movement corridor linking thebuffer zone with forested lands to the northand east in Lama Forest Division, theChittagong Hill Tracts, and Myanmar. Ascurrently delineated this corridor consistsprimarily of forest plantations andagricultural (including encroached) land, butit has not been included in the habitatassessment because much more work needsto done on selecting the optimal location,including ground surveys and interviewswith local residents to determine actualareas used by elephants for migratorymovements.

It is anticipated that assessment of current andpotential habitat suitability for elephants will bea critically important tool both for fine-tuning allzonal boundaries and for guiding thedevelopment and implementation ofmanagement activities.

It needs to be emphasized that although ourassessment indicates that elephant habitatavailability in the proposed extended Reserve isstill high, this is primarily because elephantsprefer secondary habitats. However, in theabsence of management intervention, habitatavailability can be expected to decline as

existing low forest and scattered trees aredegraded to brush cover, and as an increasingarea is converted to plantations and agriculture.Also, current habitat availability is already muchlower for other species that require mature,contiguous forest cover (e.g., only an estimated25% of pre-development habitat remainsavailable for hoolock gibbons, and ~42% forcapped langurs), and all indications are thatremaining forest cover is rapidly being degradedby uncontrolled land use, resulting in continuinghabitat loss. Hence management interventionswill also need to consider the needs of otherspecies, especially those that require closedcanopy forests, to ensure a balance betweenmaintenance of productive successional habitats,as preferred by elephants, and the climaxhabitats that will be critically important forattaining broader biodiversity conservationobjectives. An optimal management strategymight be to keep a large part of the area underhigh suitability elephant habitat (but still largelyusable by capped langurs), other parts of thearea under high suitability capped langur habitat(but still largely usable by elephants), and theremainder, including the buffer zone, for forestproducts production/sustainable use (but stillusable by elephants to the extent possible).Attention also needs to be paid to maintainingcorridors and linkages between habitat patches.

Monitoring and Modification of ManagementProgrammesThe RIMS database on which the habitatsuitability assessment is based is updatedperiodically to reflect plantation fellings, theestablishment of new plantations, and anyplantation failures, based on reporting from FDfield staff. Because it is a map-based system, thevegetation cover at any given point can easily bechecked on the ground, and changes to thedatabase made as appropriate. Gross vegetationcover can also be monitored by means of newaerial photography or satellite imagery.Updating of the database also permits repetitionof all or part of the habitat suitabilityassessment, simply through changing theassigned HSI value of polygons where a changein vegetation cover has occurred, andrecalculating HU values.

It is anticipated that monitoring andmodification of management programmes wouldinvolve a three step process:1. setting of management targets; i.e., what


mix of vegetation cover types is desired,when and where, and calculation andmapping of habitat suitability values/habitatunits on this basis;

2. periodic reassessment of existing vegetationcover, and recalculation and mapping ofhabitat suitability values/habitat units toassess progress against targets; and,

3. revision of management initiatives asnecessary to meet targets and objectives.

Modification of management programmes alsocould involve further development and fine-tuning of the assessment methodology. Forexample, the model used in this analysisemployed just one variable (land use/cover type)for determining habitat suitability for elephants.This provides an adequate first approximation ofhabitat suitability for the purposes of regional-scale planning and management implementation,but the model could also be fine-tuned byadding additional variables (e.g., measuredabundance of preferred forages, habitat patchsize, habitat contiguity) for more local level, onthe ground application.

Conclusions

Habitat suitability assessments focussing on keywildlife species are currently widely employedfor attaining biodiversity conservationobjectives within the context of sustainable landuse management (e.g., USFWS, 1981; Verner etal., 1986; Roloff and Haufler, 1997; Roloff andKernohan, 1999). In Bangladesh, habitatsuitability assessments for capped langurs andhoolock gibbons have recently been developedas an aid to management planning andimplementation in protected areas in SylhetForest Division (Tecsult, 2000a, 2000b; Salterand Alam, 2003), and are applicable in otherevergreen and semi-evergreen forest areaselsewhere in the country.

The habitat suitability assessment proceduresdescribed herein add the capability forestimating and monitoring the value of the(primarily) secondary vegetation inhabited byAsian elephants. With appropriate modificationsto account for additional cover types, themethodology could also be widely applicableelsewhere within the regional distribution of thisspecies.

References

BCAS. 1997. Biological survey. Final report.Prep. for Forest Resources ManagementProject by Bangladesh Centre for AdvancedStudies, Dhaka.

Dudley, J.P. 1993. Community ecology of theAsiatic elephant. Gajah 10: 5-10.

GoB. 1992. Forestry Master Plan.Conservation. Ministry of Environment andForests, Government of Bangladesh. AsianDevelopment Bank TA No. 1355-BAN.

Hilton-Taylor, C. (compiler) 2000. 2000 IUCNred list of threatened species. IUCN,Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.xviii + 61 pp.

Islam, M.A. 1998. Elephant population surveyin Chittagong and Cox’s Bazar areas ofBangladesh. Prep. for Bangladesh ForestDepartment by Department of Zoology,Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka,Bangladesh.

IUCN Bangladesh. 2000. Red book ofthreatened mammals of Bangladesh.IUCN – The World Conservation Union. xii+ 71 pp.

IUCN Bangladesh. 2001. Action research forconservation of Asian elephants inBangladesh. IUCN – The WorldConservation Union.

Khan, A. 1989. Wildlife of Cox’s Bazar ForestDivision and its potential as a biodiversityreserve. Pages 118-112, in: G.M.M.E.Karim, A.W. Akonda and P. Sewitz.Conservation of wildlife in Bangladesh.Proc. First International Symposium cumWorkshop for Conservation of Wildlife inBangladesh, Dhaka, 1-4 December 1986.

Khan, M.S., M.M. Rahman, A.M. Huq, M.M.K.Mia and M.A. Hassan. 1994. Assessment ofbiodiversity of Teknaf Game Reserve inBangladesh focussing on economicallyand ecologically important plant species.Bangladesh J. Pl. Tax. 1:21-33.

Olivier, R.C.D. 1978. On the ecology of theAsian elephant. D.Phil Thesis, CambridgeUniversity, U.K. 454 pp.


Rashid, S.M.A., A. Khan and M.A.R. Khan.1990. Mammals of Cox’s Bazar ForestDivision (South), Bangladesh, with noteson their status and distribution. J.Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 87(1).

Roloff, G.J. and J.B. Haufler. 1997.Establishing population viabilityplanning objectives based on habitatpotentials. Wildlife Society Bulletin25(4):895-904.

Roloff, G.J. and B.J. Kernohan. 1999.Evaluating reliability of habitatsuitability index models. Wildlife SocietyBulletin 27(4):973-985.

Rosario, E.A. 1997. The conservationmanagement plan of the protected areasother than those in the Sundarban forestsin Bangladesh. Final report. GOB/WBForest Resources Management Project,Technical Assistance Component. MandalaAgricultural Development Corporation,Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Salter, R.E. and M.K. Alam. 2003. Use ofcapped langur habitat suitability analysisin planning and management of uplandprotected areas in Bangladesh. TigerpaperXXX(1):13-22.

Santiapillai, C. and P. Jackson. 1990. The Asianelephant: an action plan for itsconservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Seidensticker, J. 1984. Managing elephantdepredation in agricultural and forestryprojects. A World Bank Technical Paper.The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Sukumar, R. 1989. The Asian elephant:ecology and management. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Tecsult. 2000a. First Five Year ManagementPlan for Lawachara National Park.Volume 1: Management Plan and Volume 2:Background and Support Material. Forestry

Sector Project (1997/8-2003/4), ForestDepartment, Ministry of Environ-ment andForests, Dhaka. ADB Project BAN No.1486. TECSULT in association withSODEV, NRP, HCL and EPC.

Tecsult. 2000b. First Five Year ManagementPlan for Rema-Kalenga WildlifeSanctuary. Vol.1: Management Plan andVolume 2: Background and SupportMaterial. Forestry Sector Project (1997/8-2003/4), Forest Dept., Min. of Environmentand Forests, Dhaka. ADB Project BANNo.1486. TECSULT in association withSODEV, NRP, HCL and EPC.

Tecsult. 2001. Participatory conservationmanagement planning for Cox’s BazarForest Division. Teknaf Game Reserve.Forestry Sector Project (1997/8-2003/4),Forest Department, Ministry of Environ-ment and Forests, Dhaka. ADB ProjectBAN No. 1486. TECSULT in associationwith SODEV, NRP, HCL and EPC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981.Standards for the development of habitatsuitability index models. U.S. Dept. Int.Fish Wildl. Serv. Rel. No. 1-81, 103 ESM.

Verner, J., M.L. Morrison and C.J. Ralph. 1986.Modeling habitat relationships ofterrestrial vertebrates. University ofWisconsin Press, Madison.

Wahab, M.A. and M. Faizuddin. 1984.Mammals of Cox’s Bazar Forest Divisionwith their status and distribution. Univ. J.Zool. Rajshahi Univ. 3:35-41.

This paper is based on work undertaken while theauthors were Biodiversity Conservation andManagement Specialists, Forestry Sector Project,Bangladesh. Current addresses: R. E. Salter, 3955-55 Street, Edmonton, Ab, Canada T6L 1C1; M.K.Alam, Forest Botany Division, Bangladesh ForestResearch Institute, Sholashahar, Chittagong-4000,Bangladesh.


DISTRIBUTIONAL STATUS OF HOOLOCK GIBBON(Bunopithecus hoolock) AND THEIR CONSERVATION IN

SOUTHERN ASSAM, INDIA

by Jayanta Das, Jihosuo Biswas, Rekha Medhi, Joydeep Bose, Dilip Chetry, Pranab Bujorborua andFarzana Begum

Introduction

Southern Assam is the most diverse primatehabitat of the entire Indian subcontinent. Cachar,Karimganj and Hailakandi are the three southernmost districts of Assam with areas of 3,786 km2,1,327 km2 and 1,839 km2 respectively. FifteenReserved Forests come under the jurisdiction of2 Forest Divisions (Silchar and Karimganj) inthe above three districts. Eight species of non-human primates, viz. Slow loris (Nycticebusbengalensis), Assamese macaque (Macacaassamensis), Rhesus macaque (Macacamulatta), Stump-tailed macaque (Macacaarctoides), Pig-tailed macaque (Macacaleonina), Capped leaf monkey (Trachypithecuspileatus), Phayre’s leaf monkey (Trachypithecusobscurus phayrei) and Hoolock gibbon(Bunopithecus hoolock) are found in these forestdivisions, but no conservation efforts have beentaken up to preserve the richest primate habitatof India.

Field studies on the distribution on non-humanprimates of southern Assam had been carried outby Choudhary (1988, 1996), but the findings arefrom fragmented or isolated field observations.This study aims to find out the distributionalstatus of Hoolock gibbon in southern Assam,and try to identify their habitats for theconservation of non-human primates in general,and Hoolock gibbon in particular.

Method

Two observers in each group, along with localguides, followed on an average 12 km ofexisting forest trails each day. The presence ofgibbons was confirmed by direct sightings andsong records. Whenever Hoolock groups weresighted details of the age, sex and the groupcomposition were recorded. Age and sex

categories were identified following the ageclassification of gibbons proposed by Leighton(1987).

Study Areas

Southern Assam is bounded by the North CacharHills district of Assam and Meghalaya in thenorth, by Bangladesh to the west, Mizoram andTripura states in the south, and Manipur andNagaland states to the east.

Results

The results of the study were calibrated from the509.48 km walk in Silchar Forest Division in the1,520.94 km2 Reserved Forest area, and the537.02 km walk in Karimganj Forest Division inthe 881.30 km2 Reserved Forest.

Distribution of Hoolock Gibbon

Distribution of Hoolock gibbon was confirmedin 3 out of 7 Reserved Forests in SilcharDivision, and 5 out of 8 Reserved Forests inKarimganj Division. Sighting density ofHoolock gibbon was highest in PathariaReserved Forest and lowest in Singla ReservedForest, both in Karimganj Forest Division.

Group Structure and Composition

The median group size of gibbons in this areawas found to be 3 (range 2-6) from the 15 well-identified groups, excluding 7 solitaryindividuals. The gibbon population of southernAssam was comprised of 74.42% adults, 16.28%juveniles and 9.3% infants. The sex ratio was1.28:1. Since the Innerline Reserved Forest inboth the divisions is a continuous forestbordering Mizoram, the calculations were madeconsidering both the Reserved Forests as a


single unit.

Threats to Hoolock Gibbon

Habitat destruction was observed to be the pre-eminent threat factor to the gibbons, along withhunting in the bordering areas. Felling of treesfor commercial use, bamboo extraction for papermills, reduced cycle length of juhm cultivation,pan juhm (piper leaf cultivation) and clearing offorests for agricultural land use are the majorfactors for the habitat loss. Moreover, there is noprotected area that can provide legal protectionfor this species and its habitat.

Discussion

Hoolock gibbon is a canopy-dependent arborealspecies, and the sole representative of the lesserapes in India. The westward distribution of thisspecies is restricted by the Debang-Brahmaputrariver system in northeast India (Tilson, 1979).Habitat loss and breaks in the continuity of theforest canopy restricts the Hoolock gibbon tosmaller pockets, even within a forest, makingthe population more prone to extirpation at afaster rate than other primates, as they haveintergroup spacing, small group sizes, a longerbirth interval and late sexual maturity(Geissmann, 2001).

During the 1046.5 km transect walk, only 14groups of Hoolock gibbon were sighted, with anaverage density of 0.014 groups per km walk.The local abundance of the species in only 8Reserved Forests, low sighting density, and lessinfants in the groups (9.3%), are clearindications of a stressed population.

A few of the factors that have been identified asbeing responsible for this stress are as follows:– illegal infiltration of people, either from the

neighboring states or countries, and clearingof forest, especially in Singla, Tilbhum,Patharia, Innerline Reserved Forest foragriculture;

– increased family members of the forestvillagers clearing forest for more cultivableland;

– “pan” juhm practiced by the Khasi tribes,especially in Barak Reserved Forest;

– reduced cycle length of juhm cultivation due

to increased population;– conversion of local tribes to Christianity,

with the change in culture emerging as amajor threat to primates;

– expansion of tea estates in Tilbhum, NorthCachar Reserved Forest; and

– cross border hunting in Innerline and UpperJirry Reserved Forests by the Mizo andManipuri tribes.

These two Forest Divisions of southern Assamare most important from the conservation pointof view, as they are the abode of 8 non-humanprimate species and hence, the most diverseprimate habitats in the country. For the effectiveconservation of non-human primates of thisregion, specific areas must be brought under theProtected Area network. The followingReserved Forests with a total area of 1,578.45km2 have been identified as potential habitats forthe primates and they should be upgraded toWildlife Sanctuaries for the conservation of theprimate diversity of this region:a. North Cachar Reserved Forestb. Innerline Reserved Forests (of both

divisions)c. Patharia and the Reserved Forestd. Longai Reserved Forest.

As Hoolock gibbon is a canopy-dependentspecies, protection of the forest canopy willautomatically protect the species therein,whether primates or other wildlife species.Therefore, Hoolock gibbon must be focused onas a ‘flagship species’ for the futureconservation efforts in this region.

Acknowledgment

The authors are thankful to Prof. P.C.Bhattacherjee and Dr. S.M. Mohnot forproviding technical and moral support duringthe study. They are also express their gratitudeto the Principal Chief Conservator of Forestsand Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife) ofAssam for granting permission to carry out thestudy, and to other forest officials of Silchar andKarimganj Forest Divisions, especially Mr.Sargaary and Mr. A. Rava, for providinglogistical support during the fieldwork. Thanksare also extended to Prabal Sarkar, all the fieldassistants, Mahadeo Das, Uttam Talukdar,


Kanak Thakuria and the people who provided uswith accommodations. This research is part of acooperative program of the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forest, Government of India,and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (GrantAgreement No. INT/FWS-22).

References

Choudhary, A. 1988. A primary survey insouthern Assam, India. PrimateConservation. 9:123-125.

Choudhary, A. 1996. A survey of Hoolockgibbon (Hylobates hoolock) in southernAssam, India. Primate Report. 44:77-85.

Geissmann, T. 2001. Preliminary results of aprimate survey in northeastern Vietnam,with special reference to gibbons. AsianPrimates. 7(3 and 4):1-4.

Leighton, D.R. 1987. Gibbons: Territory andMonogamy. In: Smuts, BB, Chenny, D.L.,Seyfarth, R.M., Wrangham, R.W. and T.T.Strusaker (Eds.) Primate Societies. TheUniversity of Cambridge Press, Chicago andLondon. pp.135-145.

Tilson, R.L. 1979. On the behavior of hoolockgibbons (Hylobates hoolock) duringdifferent seasons in Assam, India. J.Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 76:1-16.

Primary author’s address: Jayanta Das, AnimalEcology and Wildlife Biology Lab., Departmentof Zoology, Gauhati University, Guwahati - 7810 1 4 , A s s a m , I n d i a ; E - m a i l :[email protected]. All of theauthors are associated with the PrimateResearch Centre, Northeast Centre, Guwahati,Assam, India.

Table 1: Distribution and sighting density of Hoolock gibbon in Reserved Forests of southern Assam

Division Reserved Forest Area(km2)

Presenceof

Hoolockgibbon

Presence ofother diurnalprimates

Transect length(km)

Sightingdensity ofHoolockgibbon

Silchar

Karimganj

1. Upper Jiri (63.26)2. Lower Jiri (36.43)3. Barak (204.38)4. Sonai (35.95)5. Innerline (966.01)

6. Kathakhal (140.98)7. Barail (73.93)1. Innerline (113.96) 2. Longai (151.51) 3. Singla (138.04) 4. Badsahitila (75.13)5. Patharia (76.47) 6. Dohalia (38.74)7. Tilbhum (17.95) 8. North cachar (270.50)

XNSXX

yes

yesyesyesyes

yes

Xyes

XX

yes

RMN.SCLX

CL,RM,AM,PLM,CLRM

CL,PTM,PLM,STM

CL,RM,AM,PLM

CL,RMRM

CL,RM,AM,PLM,RM

RM,PLM

CL,RM,AM,STM

28.5N.S.9710

258.48

51.564

31.02

83.5101.5

3215.5

10.527.5

235.5

0000

0.031

0.0190.0310.031

0.0360.01

00.065

00

0.017

Note: X=no; NS=not surveyed; sighting density=individual/km; CL=Capped langur; PLM=Phayre’s leaf monkey;RM=Rhesus macaque; AM=Assamese macaque; PTM=Pig-tailed macaque; STM=Stump-tailed macaque


Table 2: Group structure and composition of Hoolock gibbon

Group Reserved Forest Adult Juvenile Infant Grand Total

M F Total

123456789101112131415Total

Longai

North Cachar

BarailInnerline

11131111111121118

1111111111

111114

222422222212322

32

11

1

1

1117

111

1

116

333532233222433

43

BIODIVERSITY OF BHITARKANIKA MANGROVE FOREST

by Dileswar Nayak

Introduction

The state of Orissa has extensive mangroveforests located in the deltaic formation of majorrivers along the coastal plain. Bhitarkanikamangrove forest is situated at the confluence ofthe Baitarani and Brahmani rivers and comprisesa single continuous patch of estuarine forest inOrissa. The mangrove of Mahanadi in the southof Bhitarkanika extends from the Hansua Riverin the north to the Devi River mouth in thesouth. Both these mangrove areas are beingmanaged by an extensive mangrove forestdivision (Wildlife) of Orissa, with headquartersat Rajnagar in Kendrapara District. Bhitarkanikaand the northeastern part of Mahanadi delta arecontiguous and form a single ecological unit.Bhitarkanika still has a rich mangrove forest

with diverse flora and fauna, but the mangrovesof the Mahanadi delta have begun to degradeconsiderably due to habitat destruction byhuman settlement, prawn culture and over-exploitation of the forest for fuel fodder andtimber, as well as the establishment of a port andfactories at Paradeep. Efforts are beginning to bemade to restore degraded mangrove areas alongwith the conservation of existing mangrovevegetation.

Distribution of mangrove in Orissa

As per satellite survey mapping (Orissa RemoteSensing Application Center, 1989), thedistribution of mangrove vegetation in differentregions of Orissa is given in Table 1.


Table 1: Distribution of mangrove vegetation in different river mouths and estuaries of Orissa

Location Area (km2)

Subarnarekha mouth 2.250

Banipahi area from Chudamani to Dhamara mouth in Bhadrak coast 15.787

Bhitarkanika area between Dhamara and Maipur River 70.999

Bhitarkanika area near Hansua River 88.562

Mahanadi delta area between Hansua mouth up to Paradeep port 38.562

Devi and Jatadhar Rive mouth 1.999

Total 218.059

Flora

The mangroves of Bhitarkanika are luxuriantand contain the maximum number of mangrovespecies in the Indian subcontinent. Haines(1921-1925) has reported the occurrence of 45mangrove taxa and their associates from theMahanadi delta, Chandipur and Chilika Lake.Mooney (1950) collected and added twelvemore mangrove taxa during a short trip toMahanadi delta. As many as 63 mangrovespecies and their associates are reported to occurin Mahanadi delta, which extends from Paradeepto Dhamara in Bhitarkanika (Banerjee, 1985).The mangrove vegetation exhibits distinctzonation patterns in which each zone isdominated by 1 or 2 mangrove species.

The mangrove species occurring in Bhitarkanikaexhibits a two-story system (Choudhury, 1990;Patnaik et al., 2000), which means a top storyand middle story, while the ground flora is eitherpoor or practically absent. The forest is a semi-evergreen type (tidal swampy forest). The topstory is comprised of the following species:Soneratia apetala, Avicennia officinalis,Avicennia alba, Heritiera fomes, Xylocarpusmoluccensis and Excoecaria agallocha. Themiddle story contains Brownlowia tersa,Aegiceras corniculatum, Kandelia candel,Rhizophora apiculata, Cynometra iripa,Flagellaria indica, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza,Bruguiera cylindrica, Phoenix paludosa,Ceriops decandra, Acanthus ilicifolius, and

Lumnitzera racemosa.

Along the fringes of the creeks and channelsCyperus malaccensis and Myriostachyawightiana are gregarious, whereas in the riverslopes, enjoying full tidal inundation, Porteresiacoarctata is a common element. Some mangrovespecies like Cerbera manghas, Acanthusvolubilis and Heritiera kanikensis are foundonly in the Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuaryarea. Of these, the two latter species are endemicto Orissa. Their protection and conservation arethe need of the hour. In the salt marshes,Salicornia brachiata, Suaeda maritina, Suaedanudiflora and Sesvium portulacastrum aregenerally found.

Dominant mangrove species in the Mahanadidelta are Rhizophora mucronata, Rhizophoradecandra, Avicennia alba, Excoecariaagallocha and Bruguiera cylindrica. Specieslike Tamarix truopii, Lumnitzera racemosa, etc.occur moderately, while Bruguiera parviflora,Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, Xylocarpus granatumand Kandelia candel were found to be rare.

Fauna

The mangrove forests provide a variety ofhabitats and ecological niches for numerousspecies of wildlife. The faunal diversity inBhitarkanika is extremely high in comparison toother mangrove forests of Orissa. The animals


that are associated with mangroves cover a widerange of vertebrates and invertebrates, includingprotozoans and zooplankton. The vertebratefauna includes a wide variety of fishes,amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals,including aquatic mammals.

Among the mammalian fauna, the leopard(Panthera pardus) thrives in this area, but itsexistence is doubtful at present. However, thelocal people reported that there was a goodpopulation of panthers in Bhitarkanika andincidents of attacks on man and animals(domestic) were narrated by them. Othercarnivores include fishing cat (Felis chaus) andhyena (Hyaena hyaena). The herbivores includechital or spotted deer (Cervus unicolor). Othermammalian fauna present in the mangrove arewild boar (Sus scrofa), Rhesus macaque(Macaca mulatta), Indian porcupine (Hystrixindica), otter (Lutra perspicillata) and marinemammals such as dolphins and porpoises.

Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary is home to 174species of birds (Pandav, 1996). Now themangrove wetland serves as a potential habitatfor more than 190 species of birds includinggrey heron (Ardea cinerea), purple heron (Ardeapurpurea), darter (Anhinga rufa), large egret(Ardea alba), night heron (Nycticoraxnycticorax), lesser adjutant stork (Leptoptilosjavanicus), painted stork (Mycterialeucocephala), rare blacknecked stork(Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus), spoonbill(Platalea leucorodia), brahminy kite (Haliasturindus), white-bellied sea eagle (Haliaeetusleucogaster), Pallas’s fishing eagle (Haliaeetusleucoryphus), osprey (Pandian haliaetus), redjungle fowl (Gallus gallus), golden plover(Pluvialis dominica), lesser sand plover(Charadrius mongolus), curlew (Numeniusaquata), red shank (Tringa totanus), little stint(Calidris sp.), rare white-collared kingfisher(Halcyon chloris) and brown-winged storkbilledkingfisher (Pelargopsis amauroptera).

Migratory birds (ducks and geese) that visit thesanctuary include ruddy shelduck (Tadronaferruginea), garganey (Anas querquedula),pintail (Anas acuta), lesser whistling teals(Dendrocygna javanica), little grebe (Podicepsruficollis), spottedbilled pelican (Pelecanus

phi l ippensis ) and lesser f lamingo(Phoenicopterus roseus).

Bhitarkanika is one of the few sanctuaries in theworld where a number of rare and endangeredreptilian species are thriving in good numbers,but there is still much human pressure on theirhabitats. Bhitarkanika holds the largestpopulation of the endangered estuarine crocodilein India. According to the latest census, thecreeks of Bhitarkanika are home to about 1,330estaurine crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus). In1975, the Forest Department, Government ofOrissa, established a saltwater crocodile researchand conservation center at Dangmal in the heartof the sanctuary with the purpose of quicklymultiplying the population using the ‘ grow andrelease’ technique (Kar, 1981). To strengthenthe depleted population in nature, 2,100captive-reared young crocodiles have beenreleased into the rivers and creeks of thesanctuary (Kar & Bustard, 1989). The massnesting or ‘arribada’ (a Spanish term meaningmass arrival) of Olive Ridley turtles has beentaking place for a long time at Gahirmathabeach, which is about 35 km long. It is thelargest turtle rookery of its kind in the world(Bustard, 1976). A minimum of 0.5-7.4 lakh(lakh=100,000) female turtles visit the beach fornesting each year. Mass nesting usually occursonce or twice in a nesting season during theperiod from late December to April.

Snakes (Order: Squamata) present in the areainclude some deadly poisonous species such asking cobra (Ophiophagus hannah), banded krait(Bungarus fasciatus), common krait (Bungaruscaeruleus) and other Bungarus sp. Among thenon-poisonous snakes are the Indian rockpython (Python molurus), rat snake (Ptyasmucosus) and the water snake. The lizardspresent include the largest Indian lizard – thecolour monitor (Varanus salvator), whichoccurs in good numbers inside the sanctuary.Varanus flavescens is seen in the higher groundsof the sanctuary (Biswas & Kar, 1982). Otherlizards present include chameleons (Chameleonzeylaniues)?, garden lizards (Calotis versicolor),etc.

Mangrove areas support an interconnected foodweb which directly sustains the fisheries. Algae


and detritus sustain the shrimps and prawns,which provide food for species such as Latessp., catfish, etc. Prawns such as Penaeusindicus, tiger prawns (Penaeus monodon) andcrabs such as the mud crab (Scylla serrata) areexploited in large numbers by the fishermen,both in the breeding and non-breeding seasons.

Threats to the National Park

Some of the threats to the National Park include:• the changing land use pattern due to the

encroachment of forest lands for agriculture,aquaculture, human settlements and otherdevelopmental activities;

• increasing populations of both humans andcattle, exerting pressure on the forest andwildlife;

• overfishing in the tidal creeks, rivers andestuaries;

• the tendency towards speedy modernizationin lifestyles and development ofcommunication facilities both inland and inthe water system; and

• construction of fishing jetties, fish handlingcenters, fishing harbors, ports, etc. in andaround the sanctuary.

Conclusion

The survival of several species of rare andendangered flora and fauna is dependent on thecontinued existence of this ecosystem. Themangroves on the coast are important not onlyfor the conservation of wildlife, but also for theprotection of human beings in the hinterlandsfrom the fury of severe cyclones and tidalsurges. Without the mangroves, the next cyclonemay prove more disastrous for Orissa. Thisecosystem should be preserved at all costs fromvarious biotic and abiotic interferences.

References

Anonymous. 2002. Mangrove conservationand restoration. M.S. SwaminathanResearch Foundation, Chennai, Departmentof Forestry, Government of Orissa, Foodand Agriculture Organization, Rome.

Biswas, S. and S.K. Kar. 1982. The newrecords of the species belonging to thegenus Varanus Merion, 1980 (Reptilia);Sauria (Varanidae) from Orissa.

Dash, M.C. and C.S. Kar. 1990. Turtleparadise Gahirmatha: An ecologicalanalysis and conservation strategy.Interprint, New Delhi.

Kar, C.S. and G.R. Sathpathy. 1996. Mangroveecosystem and its biodiversity in Orissawith special reference to Bhitatkanika.

Kar, C.S. and M.C. Dash. 1984. Conservationand status of the workshop on sea turtleconservation. Central Marine FisheriesResearch Institute, Cochin.

Kar, S.K. and C.S. Kar. 2002. Mangroveconservation and restoration. Proceedingsof the mangrove ecosystem and itsbiodiversity – an overview.

Pandav, B. 1996. Birds of Bhitarkanikamangroves, eastern region.

Times of India. 2003. Crocodile menacehaunts villagers.

Author’s address: Department of Forestry,Orissa University of Agriculture andTechnology, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, India751003.

Forest News 1

FOREST NEWSVol.XVII:No.4

ASIA-PACIFIC FORESTRY COMMISSION TO MEET IN FIJI:CATCH THE WAVE

Mention Fiji and most people think of pristinewhite-sand beaches, idyllic turquoise oceanwaters, and coconut trees gently swaying in thetropical breeze. Others may consider the islands’reputations for sumptuous traditional feasts, care-free nightlife, and fun-loving hospitable peoplewith ready smiles. For a few, the islands mayconjure up fantasies of landing a record marlin ormassive tuna off the back of a luxury fishing boat,or playing a round of golf on links where one ofthe world’s masters perfected his game.

But mention Fiji and probably not too manypeople think of forests and forestry. And yet, didyou know that roughly half the total land area ofFiji is covered with forests? Many of the country’sforests are strictly managed for watershedprotection purposes, while others are managed forcommercial purposes – making a majorcontribution to the country’s economy.

By most measures, Fiji is small – with only 1.8million hectares of land, it’s roughly one-tenth thesize of Cambodia; Indonesia is one hundred timeslarger. Fiji’s population stands at just 850,000people. But don’t let the small size and populationfool you; over the years, Fiji has left its mark inthe forestry arena in many ways and the countrycontinues to demonstrate innovative managementand creativity in forestry far beyond what mightbe expected.

The islands have extensive rich natural forests and

nearly 100,000 hectares of commercial plantations(primarily Pinus caribaea and Swieteniamacrophylla). A vibrant forest industry turns anannual timber harvest of 500,000 cubic meters intosawnwood, poles, wood-based panels, chips, and– increasingly – value-added products for bothdomestic and export markets. Exports of woodproducts average nearly US$25 million a year,contributing 4.4 percent to the total merchandiseexport account. Fiji was one of the first countriesto formulate a national Code of Logging Practice(1990), details of which provided the basis forseveral other codes in the region (including theCode of Practice for Forest Harvesting in Asia-Pacific developed by the Asia-Pacific ForestryCommission in the late 1990s).

More than 80 percent of Fiji’s forests – includingnearly all the country’s natural forests – are undercustomary (mataqali) ownership. Most of Fiji’splantations are managed by the Fiji HardwoodCorporation and Fiji Pine Ltd. Combined, thesevarious tenure regimes provide a fascinating rangeof management challenges and opportunities.

The Asia-Pacific forestry community will have arare opportunity to observe first-hand Fiji’s forestsand dynamic forestry sector in early 2004, whenthe 20th session of the Asia-Pacific ForestryCommission (APFC) is convened in Nadi, 19-23April. Mark your calendars and plan to attend thisimportant meeting.

One of the key agenda topics to be discussed at the

Forest News2

APFC session will be innovative ways to financesustainable forest management. With forestryissues gaining more importance in national andglobal fora, there is growing debate about how tofinance forest management in an efficient andeffective manner. In response, new financingmechanisms are emerging and information onvarious sources of financial resources forsustainable forest management is more readilyavailable through modern information technologytools. These new financing mechanisms and waysto identify funding for forestry activities will beintroduced at the session. Participants will beinvited to share ideas and discuss how to secureand manage required resources for sustainableforest management.

Also on the agenda will be consideration of forestconventions and agreements – both regional andglobal – as mechanisms for enhancing cooperationin the forest sector at all levels. The APFC sessionwill review the processes and achievements ofinternational forest policy dialogues and variousforest conventions formulated since the UnitedNations Conference on Environment and Devel-opment (UNCED) in 1992, with an emphasis onregional initiatives and how to make them moreeffective in feeding into global frameworks. Thediscussion will focus on the relevance andeffectiveness of regional agreements, both formaland informal, and explore opportunities for howregional agreements can enhance cooperation inAsia and the Pacific.

Other agenda items will include a review ofactivities of APFC and FAO over the past twoyears, updates on recent developments in membercountries, and an in-session seminar on theprocess and findings of the In Search ofExcellence initiative (see an announcement inTigerpaper Vol.XXX:No.3). A special open forumwill be convened the evening of 21 April to giverepresentatives from NGOs, donor organizations,projects, and other organizations an opportunity toinform colleagues of current and planned activitiesin the region.

In addition to regular agenda items, at least twopre-session workshops will precede the 20th

session of the APFC general meeting. One of themis the Regional Workshop on Implementation ofthe Proposals for Action of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Forests (IPF) and IntergovernmentalForum on Forests (IFF) and StrengtheningNational Forest Programmes, which will beconvened 16-17 April. Implementation of theIPF/IFF proposals for action is one of the keyrecommendations of the United Nations Forum onForests (UNFF). APFC (with support from FAOand the Collaborative Partnership on Forests),potentially provides an important framework forsupporting the implementation of the IPF/IFFproposals for action by facilitating the exchange ofexperiences, building networks and enhancingcooperation at national and regional levels. Theregional workshop will discuss ways to acceleratework on the IPF/IFF proposals for action in thecontext of the priority issues recognized by theAsia-Pacific region.

A second pre-session workshop will be organizedas a follow-up to the Asia-Pacific Forest InvasiveSpecies Conference, held in August 2003 inKunming, China. Based on the proposals forregional cooperation developed at that conference,the workshop in Fiji will discuss specific detailsrelated to the establishment of the Asia-PacificForest Invasive Species Network and anassociated Working Group. Proposed functionsand a work plan will be elaborated during the one-day workshop, to be held 17 April.

Other side meetings may also be arranged inconjunction with the main APFC meeting in Fiji.In addition, exhibits and displays will be preparedby various international and Fijian forestryorganizations to highlight a wide range ofactivities in the region.

Our Fijian hosts are currently planning twoseparate field trips to add spice to the APFCagenda. Visits are being planned to mahoganyplantations and harvesting areas, a coconut woodfurniture factory and showroom, pine plantations,and separate processing facilities convertingsoftwood and indigenous hardwood resources intoa wide range of products. Opportunities will alsobe made to observe local ecotourism development,

Forest News 3

and to enjoy the fascinating culture of the Fijianpeople and spectacular beauty of the islands.

The Ministry of Fisheries and Forests of theGovernment of Fiji will be the official host of theAPFC session. Staff of the Ministry, andnumerous individuals in related organizations, arepoised to extend a hearty “Bula” (traditionalgreeting) to all in April.

The Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission is one ofsix regional commissions supported by FAO. Theobjectives of the APFC are to:• provide advice on forestry policy formulation;• review and coordinate implementation of

forest policy at the regional level;• exchange information on best management

practices and solutions to technicalchallenges; and

• develop recommendations for membercountries and FAO on forestry-related issues.

The members of the APFC (currently comprisedof 28 countries in Asia and the Pacific) meet every

two years in general session to review forestrydevelopments in the region, discuss problems ofmutual concern, and set new agendas for inter-sessional work. Active participation ofinternational NGOs and the private sector in allAPFC activities is encouraged.

Formal invitations for the 20th APFC session havebeen extended to the Commission’s 28 membercountries, and to international organizationsworking in the region. For more information onthe session, please contact Patrick Durst, SeniorForestry Officer (Asia and the Pacific), who alsoserves as FAO Technical Secretary for the APFC,at the address below:Patrick B. DurstSenior Forestry OfficerFAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific39 Phra Atit Road, Bangkok 10200, ThailandTel: (66-2) 697-4139; Fax: (66-2) 697-4445E-mail: [email protected]

GLOBAL FOREST RESOURCES ASSESSMENT 2005

FAO has been carrying out global forest resourcesassessments since 1948 as one of its mandates.The last three assessments were implemented atten-year intervals in 1980, 1990 and 2000. Afterthe completion of the Global Forest ResourcesAssessment 2000 (FRA 2000) and the issuance ofits Main Report in 2001, the Committee onForestry (COFO), in its 2001 and 2003 sessions,recommended that FAO should carry out a 5-yearinterval assessment to relate it to internationalforestry processes. Thus, the Global ForestResources Assessment update for 2005 (FRA2005) has been designed. FAO drafted the Termsof Definitions and Guidelines for CountryReporting and conducted a National

Correspondents Training from 17-21 November2003 in Rome. National-level informationcollection work will begin in January 2004, and istargeted for completion at the end of the year. Inorder to provide technical guidance to thecountries in the Asia-Pacific region, two regionalworkshops will be held in Bangkok (April 2004)and Beijing (October 2004). Parallel to thenational information collection, the global FRAwill continue to develop its monitoring of forestcover changes on a greatly increased number ofsample plots (over 10,000). After validation of theresults, the FRA 2005 outputs will be released inJuly 2005.

Forest News4

SYNERGIES BETWEEN REDUCED IMPACT LOGGING ANDFOREST CONSERVATION

Where and how is it possible to achieve symbiosisbetween timber harvesting and forestconservation? What are the essential requirementsand technical skills needed to bring this about?Practical responses to these questions will bepursued under a new project involving Lao PDR,Myanmar and Vietnam. The Japan-funded project,to be executed by FAO, will support planning andimplementation that combines utilization andconservation systematically and synergistically.

Launched in July 2003, the project(GCP/RAS/192/JPN) “Enhancing SustainableForest Harvesting in Asia” builds on earlier FAO-assisted initiatives in sustainable forestmanagement and reduced impact logging (RIL).Under this approach, the rational use of resourcesgoes hand-in-hand with forest conservation. RILaims at reducing negative environmental impactswhile still supplying the timber requirements oflocal communities and national economies. Theproject will support improved methods and skillsto replace outmoded, destructive logging practicesthat merely satisfy short-term financial objectiveswhile ignoring the well-being of downstreampopulations, maintenance of wildlife habitats andthe interests of future generations.

RIL is a fundamental concept of sustainable forestmanagement, but putting the concept into practiceposes numerous challenges. Previous FAO-assisted development of national forest harvestingcodes and practical guidelines for implementingthe codes has established a framework for movingeffectively from concept to reality. Withassistance provided by the new project, forestagencies in Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam willnow begin the difficult task of promotingunderstanding, acceptance and application ofcodes and guidelines by all sectors – from high-level decision makers who formulate policies,

down to forest workers and at all levels inbetween.

Accurate assessment of current practices, a reviewof past and present outcomes in forest harvesting,and a careful analysis of training needs comprisethe initial tasks in project implementation. Thesewill be followed by initiatives focusing ondemonstrating and promoting best practices, anddeveloping the skills for effective application ofthese practices in the field. To help ensuretransparency and broad-based participation by allsectors, each country will organize SustainableForest Management Partnership Committees(SFMPCs) that will meet regularly to monitorprogress, identify problems and formulatesolutions.

Conflicts between conservation and utilization canbe resolved with patience, determination andsincerity. The new RIL project will play animportant role in the process of reconcilingdifferent perspectives to help ensure that presentand future generations in Lao PDR, Myanmar andVietnam share the benefits of enlightened forestmanagement.

For information about the project, contact:

Patrick C. Dugan, Project Coordinatorc/o Bagong Pagasa Foundation445 Bulusan Lane, Marian Lakeview ParkParanaque City 1713, PhilippinesE-mail: [email protected] B. Durst, Senior Forestry OfficerFAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific,Maliwan Mansion, Phra Atit Road, Bangkok10200, Thailand; E-mail: [email protected]

Forest News 5

EXCUSE ME, WHAT DOES RIL COST?

Since the early 1990s, considerable interest hasdeveloped in the application of reduced impactlogging (RIL), especially in tropical forests wheredamage associated with logging is widelyconsidered to be incompatible with sustainableforest management. Initial experiences with theapplication of RIL have been promising.Unfortunately, the answer to the question ofwhether RIL is financially viable compared toconventional logging remains ambiguous, as thisdepends on a number of local factors, includingtopography, markets and prices, scale of operationand the costing approach. This ambiguity helps toexplain the hesitation of many governments andlogging operators to commit to adopting RILpractices. Ideally, timber harvesting operatorsshould calculate the costs and benefits ofswitching from conventional logging to RILthemselves in order to answer cost-relatedquestions.

Until recently, operators lacked a tool that couldassist them in analyzing costs and benefits. Thishas changed with the release of RILSIM, asoftware package for financial analysis ofalternative logging systems. Aside from allowingoperators to compare logging costs – based onlocal conditions, wages, equipment, productionrates, prices and other factors – RILSIM has alsobeen designed as a teaching tool, with a helpsystem that describes the principles of financialanalysis and guides users through each stage of asimulation run. RILSIM is available free of chargeand by the end of 2003, close to 500 copies hadbeen distributed worldwide. The software can alsobe downloaded from the following website:http://www.blueoxforestry.com/RILSIM/rilsim-download.htm.

Under the umbrella of the Asia-Pacific ForestryCommission (APFC), with financial support fromthe USDA Forest Service and in collaborationwith the Sarawak Timber Association (STA) and

the School of International Tropical Forestry ofthe University Malaysia Sabah (UMS), FAOorganized a series of five promotion and trainingseminars in Malaysia. The main purpose of theevents was to familiarize participants withRILSIM, through introductory hands-on trainingsessions, and to obtain feedback on the usefulnessof RILSIM under local conditions.

More than 130 participants from the private andpublic sectors – including university students –attended the five seminars that were held inKuching and Bintulu (Sarawak) and KotaKinabalu (Sabah) in November 2003. Mostparticipants assessed the seminars as “very good”or “excellent” and were able to operate RILSIMby the end of the training sessions. In fact, manyparticipants became proficient in the softwareapplication before the training sessions were over.

While using RILSIM does not pose a problem, theavailability of data is a potential barrier to itswider application. Many participants were not surewhether all the necessary input data are currentlyavailable in the required form. Although the costcomponents are quite comprehensive, participantsalso indicated that there are additional costs thatcould be integrated. Participants also asked for theinclusion of economic indicators that they aremore familiar with. As is quite normal for newsoftware, RILSIM has a small number of minorflaws that sometimes complicate its use. Theproblems were noted and will be addressed.

Excuse me, what will be the next steps? The nexttwo steps include incorporating the variouscomments received since RILSIM’s release, andespecially during the seminars, and to develop anew version. The RILSIM Steering Committeewill discuss this matter when they meet inFebruary 2004. Second, the five seminars wereonly a beginning. More will be held in 2004.

1Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Forest News6

REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE:PREPARING FOR DECISIONS ON

LAND USE AND FORESTRY AT COP 91

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),the United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP) and The World Conservation Union(IUCN) have organized a series of regionalworkshops in Latin America, Africa and Asia, inorder to assist countries to prepare for theupcoming climate change negotiations. The“Regional Workshop on Forests and ClimateChange: Preparing for Decisions on Land Use andForestry at COP 9,” was held 16-17 October 2003,in Manila Philippines. Thirty-three participantsfrom 16 countries attended the regional workshopfor Asia.

The objectives of the workshop were to:C clarify unresolved issues related to forestry

and land-use, in the international climatechange negotiations;

C identify national and regional positions inrelation to climate change negotiations;

C promote increased understanding andsynergies between climate and forest experts;and

C improve communication among countries onissues related to forestry and climate change.

Issues to be addressed at COP 9

A number of issues need to be resolved at COP 9,which will significantly shape the role of forestryin the climate change convention. These issueswill influence the type of forestry projectsundertaken, as well as the economic attractivenessof forestry projects. This summary gives anoverview of the main issues still under negotiationthat were discussed at the workshop. It also givesan overview of the main recommendations made

at the workshop with regards to capacity building.

Non-permanence

One of the key issues for COP 9 is the accountingfor non-permanence of carbon sequestration.Negotiators have to decide which of the creditingapproaches, in the negotiation text, will beselected. For the temporary credits, questionsremain with regards to the validity period andtimes of renewal of temporary credits. For insuredcredits, the length of insurance coverage beyondthe crediting period is under discussion.

Baselines, additionality and leakage

Another key issue determining the economicattractiveness of projects is related to baselines.The discussion on additionality is closely relatedto the baseline issue, but is not only limited toforestry projects. Recent decisions of theExecutive Board have clearly indicated thatbaseline methodologies will have to show that theproject would not have been implemented andtherefore does not represent the baseline.

Small-scale projects

The participants indicated that small-scale projectsare of extreme importance for the Asia region,where small-holdings are very common. Whilethere seems to be a general desire to include suchprojects in the Clean Development Mechanism(CDM), it is proving difficult to define the criteriafor small-scale projects and develop simplifiedmodalities and procedures. Therefore, thedevelopment of such procedures is rather unlikely

Forest News 7

to happen in the short-term.

Socio-economic impacts

Different approaches for addressing socio-economic and environmental impacts ofafforestation and reforestation in the CDM are onthe table for negotiation in Milan. While hostcountries have the prerogative to definesustainability criteria for CDM projects, a list ofdefault criteria to be included in an environmentaland socio-economic impact assessment is underdiscussion. The discussion is centered on whetheror not it is necessary to develop additional impactassessment methodologies, when most countriesalready have some form of guidelines thatincorporate the most important criteria.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance

The IPCC Good Practice Guidance (GPG) onmethods to estimate, measure, monitor and reportchanges in carbon stocks and anthropogenicgreenhouse gas emissions and removals fromforestry projects will be submitted to COP 9. Oneof the questions concerning the GPG which needsto be addressed is if its use should be voluntary orobligatory within the framework of the CDM.

Harvested wood products

A recent technical paper by UNFCCC brought theissue of harvested wood products (HWP) on theagenda. Accounting for HWP is supposed toimprove the current accounting, which assumesthat all carbon removed from forests is emittedimmediately on the spot. In spite of the recentdiscussion on HWP, the subject will only becomea relevant implementation issue after the firstcommitment period.

Capacity building and follow-up activities forthe region

One of the main results of the discussions was thatcapacity building on practical issues concerningCDM forestry projects is of great importance.Participants identified a number of necessaryactions at the national level, like the developmentof national sustainability criteria and theestablishment of a DNA clearing house. The needfor further collaboration and networking in theAsia-Pacific region on forest and climate changeissues was emphasized, to enable the identificationof common interests and areas of understanding.In the area of research, the identification of focalpersons and in-country specialists was mentionedas one of the key issues.

FORESTRY ISSUES AFTER COP9 OF THE UNFCCC

Carbon sink projects under the Clean Development Mechanism:

¢ Only afforestation and reforestation eligible – agricultural sink projects excluded.¢ Definitions “forest,” “afforestation,” “reforestation” for domestic activities apply

under the CDM. “Reforestation” occurs on land that was not forest prior to 1990.¢ Bundling of individual parcels of land allowed (important for small-scale projects).¢ Permanence of carbon sequestration ensured via two options:

1. tCERs: temporary carbon emission reduction units, which expire after atmost 10 years;

2. lCERs: temporary carbon credits which are valid for the crediting period ofthe project or the project lifetime

Forest News8

Both CERs need to be replaced after their expiration date; in addition, lCERs needto be replaced if reversal of sequestration has occurred during the crediting period.

¢ Leakage: increase of all green house gases outside the project boundary, measurableand attributable to the project; subtracted from project sequestration.

¢ Net greenhouse gas removal is defined as the difference between actual project netgreenhouse gas removal, minus baseline net carbon stock changes minus leakage.

¢ Small-scale forestry projects: now eligible – defined by maximum annualsequestration of 8000 tCO2 or 2180 t C. Will enjoy simplified and special facilitatingconditions decided by COP10, based on submissions by countries and observersuntil 28.2.2004. Technical paper prepared by Secretariat.

¢ Socio-environmental impacts in and outside project boundary analyzed; ifsignificant, formally assessed according to host country procedures.

¢ Project lifetimes are maximally 30 years or 3 times 20 years.¢ Potentially invasive alien species and genetically modified trees are treated

according to the rules of the host and investor country.

Harvested Wood Products

¢ The current state of discussions contained in the Secretariat’s Technical Paper andthe IPCC Good Practice Guidance. Parties to submit views and preferences.Workshop on the topic planned in the second half of 2004. HWP unlikely to beincluded in the first commitment period.

IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF

¢ Annex I (industrial) countries use the GPG for reporting under the UNFCC(National Communications of greenhouse gas emissions and removals of sinks,annually).

¢ COP10 will decide about those parts of the GPG which refer to reporting under theKyoto Protocol, e.g. projects, domestic afforestation, reforestation, deforestation andforest management.

¢ Non-Annex I (developing) countries merely encouraged to use the GPG “to theextent possible” and “as appropriate” in national communications. (The extentpossible is often constrained by the unsatisfactory state of national forestassessments.)

¢ IPCC GPG to be subject of capacity building by UN organizations.

Forest News 9

NATIONAL FOREST PROGRAMMES – SUPPORT FROM THE FACILITY

The National Forest Programme Facility – in short“Facility” – was launched in late 2002. Hosted byFAO in Rome, it provides support at the nationaland regional levels to assist in the developmentand implementation of national forest programs.

In 2002 and during the first half of 2003, progressmade by the Facility in the Asia-Pacific regionwas slow as it took time to raise awareness of theFacility’s existence, establish a partnership withthe Facility and obtain funds. Activities picked upduring the second half of 2003. The list of partnercountries has recently been expanded, whenChina, Indonesia, Mongolia, the Philippines andThailand were joined by Pakistan and Vanuatu.The new members are now called upon to publiclyannounce the partnership with the Facility so thata variety of forestry stakeholders can participateand implement the planned activities.

Numerous activities are ongoing in the first set ofpartner countries:! In the Philippines, where community-based

forest management (CBFM) forms thecornerstone of the national forest programme,activities have been designed to assist inelaborating solutions to problems inimplementing CBFM at the field- level,improving delivery services to communities,reducing bureaucratic requirements andremoving disincentives for growing, felling,marketing and processing timber.Furthermore, the Facility will assist indesigning a more supportive policyenvironment working closely with the ForestManagement Bureau of the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources, localNGOs, and training institutions.

! In Mongolia, the national forest programme isin its infancy and therefore the Facilitysupport is directed at strengtheninginstitutional capacities. Activities consist

mainly of workshops, training seminars andstudy tours to enable the representatives of theMinistry of Nature and Environment toprepare Mongolia’s forest programme byeffectively involving a broad spectrum offorestry stakeholders.

! In Thailand, the Royal Forest Departmentreviewed its Forestry Sector Master Plan,whose preparation goes back almost fifteenyears. A national team was formed to reviewthe relevance of the “old” plan in view of theglobal and domestic changes in forestry. Thereview involved numerous representatives ofNGOs, the private sector and internationalorganizations and recommended that the mosturgent need was the reform of forest policies.

! In China, the Chinese Academy of Forestry(CAF) is reviewing the Simao Forestry ActionProgramme (SFAP) to accertain theapplicability and usefulness of the mainfeatures of the SFAP approach for otherregions across the country. Building on thelessons learned, the Research Institute ofForestry Policy and Information of CAF hasrecently embarked on the formulation of aforestry sector strategy for Ningxia HuiAutonomous Region. Collaboration withrepresentatives of local prefectures forms acornerstone of all the activities and is viewedas crucial in building a consensus on regionalvisions and strategies for forestry.

For more information on national forestprogrammes in the Asia-Pacific region, theFacililty, please contact:Mr. P. Durst, Senior Forestry Officer for Asia andthe Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand; E-mail:[email protected]. S. Appanah, NFP Adviser, Bangkok,Thailand; E-mail: [email protected] Mr. T. Enters, NFP Facilitator, Bangkok,Thailand; E-mail: [email protected]

Forest News10

NEW RAP FORESTRY PUBLICATIONS

BRINGING BACK THE FORESTSPolicies and Practices for Degraded Lands and ForestsRAP Publication 2003/14

Forests are important natural resources that fuelthe continuous economic and social developmentof many countries. However, land and forestdegradation has become so devastating in theAsia-Pacific region that it is now bringing severeenvironmental and economic problems, and isbeginning to threaten the livelihoods of millions ofpeople. The need to rehabilitate these lands andforests is growing. New rehabilitation techniquesare being developed to increase biodiversity andecological services, and initiatives arepurposefully linked with social developmentprograms. While much knowledge has beengained from these initiatives, they have not beenwidely publicized or adopted. The InternationalConference on Bringing Back the Forests: Policiesand Practices for Degraded Lands and Forests wastherefore designed to bring together all thestakeholders, including the project planners andimplementers, as well as beneficiaries, toexchange experiences and knowledge and to

promote successful approaches. This volume, theproceedings of the conference, is a collection ofsome of the most valuable papers that have beenrecently produced on the subject. Professionalsand practitioners in forest rehabilitation shouldfind this volume valuable.

ADVANCING ASSISTED NATURAL REGENERATION (ANR) IN ASIA AND THE PACIFICRAP Publication 2003/19

Deforestation and the degradation of forestscontinue to cause serious problems in manyregions of the world. The situation is particularlyacute in the tropical forests in Asia and the Pacific.A variety of measures have been tried in the pastto address the problem, with varying degrees ofsuccess. One of the silvicultural tools employed isassisted natural regeneration (ANR), a variation ofenrichment planting, which was first developedfor tropical forests with poor natural regeneration.Assisted natural regeneration, however, has notreceived the attention it deserves. The technologyis based on the ecological principle of secondaryforest succession, utilizing natural processes andpromoting the regeneration of indigenous species.

Because ANR relies on natural processes, it isespecially effective in restoring and enhancingbiological diversity and ecological processes.

Forest News 11

Assisted natural regeneration is well developed inthe Philippines and is increasingly utilized torestore former forested areas that have becomedegraded and covered by Imperata cylindricagrass. The same principles are also being used toaddress the problems of poor regeneration inlogged-over forests in several other SoutheastAsian countries. The value of the ANR techniquesis that they are easily understood by the field staff,involve species of high economic value, employgood silvicultural properties, and the costs ofproduction, planting and tending are kept low.

FAO has been promoting these techniques in theregion, through long-term demonstration plots,study tours and technology transfer. To highlightthe opportunities and potential of ANR, FAO andpartner organizations convened a workshop and

study tour in the Philippines in April 2002. Thediscussions and presentations at the workshopunderscored the importance of ANR in the broadercontext of sustainable forest management and thepotential for cost-effective rehabilitation offorestlands through more aggressiveimplementation of ANR. To enhance awarenessand understanding of the concepts and practices ofANR, and to encourage wider application, FAO ispleased to publish this compilation of papershighlighting experiences with ANR in the region.The papers deal with the technical, environmentaland social dimensions of ANR, and describeselected country initiatives. The publicationrepresents one element of FAO’s ongoing effortsto promote more effective forest rehabilitation andrestoration for the benefit of local people.

AN OVERVIEW OF FOREST POLICIES IN ASIA (MAY 2003)EC-FAO Partnership Programme (2000-2002)

Although the importance of tropical forests wasrecognized long before the United NationsConference on Environment and Development,since 1992 attention has focused increasingly onhow to bring about sustainable forest managementand how to formulate and implement supportiveforest policies.

Numerous reviews have indicated that the forestrysector continues to be plagued by deforestationand forest degradation caused by a variety offactors – many of which are beyond the directcontrol of the forestry community. Macro-economic and extra-sectoral policies affect forestsand forestry to a considerable extent. For decisionmakers in forestry, it is fundamental to take noteof them and to observe trends so that forestpolicies are not made in a vacuum.

A recurring theme in most countries is that thecontributions that forests make to local, nationaland global economies are undervalued. While therhetoric has shifted from timber production tomultiple-use forest management, governments failto realize that the broadening of management

objectives requires an increase and not a decreasein financial inputs and human resources.

Political commitment and increased budgetallocations are required to increase theeffectiveness and impact of forest policies.However, foresters cannot blame only a lack ofsupport for obvious shortcomings in forestry.They have to make better use of available policyinstruments to translate policies into strategies,programs and actions – in other words, toimplement policies. Stakeholder involvement in

Forest News12

policy review, formulation and implementationneeds to be taken more seriously and formalized.This requires a change in attitudes, openness torethink institutional arrangements and willingnessto address necessary reforms of public sectoragencies.

Finally, policies will fail if they are based on

inadequate information and – in extreme cases –on concealing or sanitizing the facts. Datacollection needs to become purposeful, relevantinformation needs to be generated and circulatedwidely and monitoring systems need to be put intoplace to sound alarm bells when things are goingwrong.

TRAINING MANUAL ON INVENTORY OF TREES OUTSIDE FORESTS (TOF)EC-FAO Partnership Programme (2000-2002)

According to FAO’s definition, trees outsideforests (TOF) are those trees that do not belong inthe category of forests or forested land andwooded land. They may be located on other landssuch as farmlands, human settlements and barelands, which explains why they have received farless attention, especially from foresters, than theydeserve. However, TOF not only provide an arrayof environmental services and play a crucial rolein meeting rural – and even urban – people’sneeds, but also increasingly contribute tosupplying the commercial sector, especially thewood-based industries, with much needed woodand fibers. Therefore, it is surprising that thequestion “How many trees are there outside theforests?” continues to receive mainly a shrug ofthe shoulders. Hardly any one knows the answerto this question and even fewer people are familiarwith inventory methods for TOF. As a result,TOFs have been overlooked in official reportingand in most situations nobody knows whethertheir numbers are increasing, stable or declining.

The neglect of the past is rapidly changing, asTOFs have made their appearance on thedevelopment stage. With support from the EC-FAO Partnership Programme on Information andAnalysis for Sustainable Forest Management, the

Forest Survey of India (FSI) conducted a“Training workshop on trees outside forests” inApril 2002. At the same time, FSI started

preparing a training manual on TOF, which waspublished a few months ago. The manual takes thereader step by step through the TOF inventoryprocess, starting with definitions and an overviewof existing inventory methods. It providesguidance on organizing teams for data collectionin the field and data processing and analysis. Inthe annex, the authors provide numerous examplesof data collection forms and detailed instructionsfor their completion. It is hoped that the use of themanual will considerably contribute to answeringthe question “How many trees are their outside theforest?”

Forest News 13

ASIA-PACIFIC FORESTRY CHIPS AND CLIPS

MONEY LAUNDERING LAWS BENEFITFORESTS

The Indonesian government has announcedamendments to the country’s money launderinglaws to include crimes against forests such asillegal logging. The amendment will place an onuson banks to report transactions suspected of beingconnected with crimes against the environment,thereby enabling the targeting of large-scale illegalloggers.– CIFOR Media Release –

LARA CROFT TOMB RAIDER... ANDCONSERVATIONIST

Cambodia has approved a forest conservationproject funded by Hollywood actress, AngelinaJolie. Ms. Jolie’s first Tomb Raider movie waspartially filmed around Angkor Wat, and she fellin love with the surrounding countryside. Ms.Jolie will donate US$1.5 million to a projectaiming to protect 60,000 hectares of forests innorthwestern Cambodia. The project will educatevillagers about conservation awareness, demarcateconservation areas, and train local rangers.– RECOFTC Community Forestry E-News –

CLASH OF THE TITANS

Indonesian Minister of Forestry, MuhammadPrakosa, has urged the European Union to screenimported Malaysian wood products, and reject anythat are suspected of being made from logs cutillegally from Indonesia’s forests. Mr. Prakosasuggested that “most of them are made of logstaken from illicit sources.” His Malaysiancounterpart, Primary Industries Minister LimKeng Yaik reacted by saying that to ask the EUnot to buy Malaysian timber is very bad. He saidthat most Malaysian timber is certified to prove itcomes from sustainable sources.– The Jakarta Post –

MILL CLOSURES IN INDONESIA

Difficulties in obtaining logs and a decline inprices for wood products are forcing the closure ofplywood and mouldings mills in Jambi province,Indonesia. At least four plywood and mouldingfactories will be closed. Earlier this year, aroundthree-quarters of the 60 sawmills in Muara Districtwere closed due to scarcity of logs. There are nolonger forests in the area to supply logs toindependent processors.– KompasCyber Media –

IDENTITY CARDS FOR OLD TREES

The local government of Li’nan city, China, hasissued identity cards for thousands of old trees asa means of protecting the trees from damage andimproving their management. All the trees havebeen inspected, photographed, and their detailslocation and vital statistics entered into a GPSsystem and a database. The oldest tree in thescheme is a 2,000 year old Chinese Juniper.– Model Forest Approach News –

FORESTS REHABILITATING PEOPLE...

The Philippines Department of Environment andNatural Resources has set aside areas in theCagayan Valley for tree planting by people onprison probation as part of a criminalrehabilitation scheme. Probationers will plant treesas a means of repaying their debts to society.– RECOFTC Community Forestry E-News –

...AND PEOPLE REHABILITATINGFORESTS

Indonesia has issued a Joint Ministerial Decreeestablishing a National Movement for Forest andLand Rehabilitation. The new program will beimplemented in 21 critical watersheds over a 5-year period, with a total area of 3 million hectares.

Forest News14

Under the scheme, the government will provideseeds to communities and institutions, includingthe armed forces, to undertake rehabilitation.However, the government has already concededthat the full planting target for 2003 is unlikely tobe met.– Joint Decree Document –

FOREST FIRE DAMAGE INCREASING

Uncontrolled agricultural and urban expansion, aswell as increased recreational use, are increasinglydamaging forests, according to FAO. The 2003fire season has been one of the worst in recordedhistory, with 60 million hectares of forests burnedin Australia alone. The worst fire hotspot is in sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 170 millionhectares are burned annually.– FAO News Release –

CHINESE FORESTRY IN THE FUTURE

China has published a decision by the StateCouncil on speeding up forestry development.Targeted areas include improved forestmanagement, expanding forests onto marginalfarmlands and increasing the productivity andincome from forests. National forest cover isforecast to be 19 percent by 2010.– ITTO Market Information Service –

U.S. INITIATIVE AGAINST ILLEGALLOGGING

The United States announced a new internationalinitiative to assist developing countries to combatillegal logging. The strategy includes addressingthe sale and export of illegally harvested timber,and in fighting corruption in the forest sector. TheUnited States will work with the private sector,NGOs and countries in order to identify andreduce threats to protected forest areas and otherhigh value conservation forests. The initiative willfocus on three critical regions – the Congo Basin,the Amazon Basin and Central America, andSouth and Southeast Asia.– WWF News Release –

JAPANESE-INDONESIAN BILATERALAGREEMENT ON ILLEGAL LOGGING

Japan and Indonesia have signed a bilateralagreement to combat illegal logging and illegaltrade of forest products. The agreement is similarto those signed with the British (April 2002) andChinese (December 2002) governments. Japan andIndonesia have committed themselves to: combatillegal trade of illegally harvested timber, improveforest law enforcement, improve economicopportunities for the local communities, increaseawareness of threats to the environment andpromote sound management practices.– Illegal logging website –

MISPERCEPTIONS ABOUT WATER

Despite designation of 2003 as the InternationalYear of Water, an English university professorargues that there are still widely heldmisperceptions about the relationship betweenforests and water that may be causing the wastageof billions of dollars on watershed reforestationprojects. Professor Ian Calder notes that uplandafforestation actually reduces annual stream flows– by around 20 percent in the United Kingdom. Incountries such as South Africa, these adverseeffects on water resources have led to restrictionson tree planting.– Guardian Unlimited –

NEPAL: COMMUNITY FORESTRY UNDERTHREAT

A recent decision by the Nepal government toimpose a 40 percent tax on revenues earned bycommunity-managed forests might shatter thecountry’s thriving community-based forestmanagement and lead to widespread deforestation.The government decision has led to widespreadcriticism from user groups and donor nations.– RECOFTC Community Forestry E-News –

INDONESIA TO MAP FORESTS

The Indonesian Forestry Ministry and the NationalCoordinating Agency for Surveying and Mappinghave signed a Memorandum of Understanding to

Forest News 15

map the country’s forests. The project will lastfive years and will commence with pilot projectsin South Kalimantan and West Kalimantan.– The Jakarta Post –

BAMBOO – A BOOMING INDUSTRY

China’s bamboo-based industries are currentlyflourishing – riding a wave of popularity forbamboo products worldwide.. China’s bambooresources are the most extensive in the world,accounting for some 30 percent of the global total.Bamboo plantations cover 4.21 million hectares,with stocks of approximately 127 million tons.The total annual value of bamboo productionexceeds 20 billion yuan. Bamboo is widely used inconstruction, paper making, food, furniture,packing, transportation, medical care and tourism.– ITTO Market Information Service –

THAILAND: TOURISM THREAT TO WILDPLACES

The government’s new “asset capitalization”policy, which includes plans to promote tourism inprotected forests, is being criticized by severalenvironmental organizations. Critics note that thealthough the policy could prove to be acommercial success, there are concerns about theimpact on the natural environment. On the otherside of the debate, park officials, villagers andlocal officials see such development as a welcomechance to earn income and enhance livelihoods inrural areas.– RECOFTC Community Forestry E-News –

CHINA TURNS FARMLAND INTO FOREST

Since 1999, China has converted some 13.4million hectares of hillside farmland into forest,according to the latest survey from the StateForestry Administration. The project to turnfarmland into forest covers 25 provinces,autonomous regions and muncipalities and isaimed at solving the problem of land erosion. Inthe past five years, the Chinese government hasallocated 23.6 billion yuan (US$3 billion) to theproject, of which 16.8 billion yuan was used as

compensation to farmers.– RECOFTC Community Forestry E-News –

ASEAN PACT ON COMBATING FORESTFIRES TAKES EFFECT

An agreement signed by the members of theAssociation of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN),designed to prevent harmful forest fires came intoforce in November 2003. The agreement,negotiated in 2002, calls for a series of state-backed steps including the use of heat-sensingsatellites and a crackdown on arsonists andirresponsible plantation owners. The pact is thefirst legally binging agreement of its kind toaddress regional forest fire issues. The agreementincludes provisions for monitoring, technicalcooperation, information exchange and simplifiedcustoms and immigrations procedures foremergency response and disaster relief. – Associated Press, 25 November 2003 –

AFGHANISTAN TO CREATE NATIONALPARK

Afghanistan plans to create a national park in theeastern province of Nuristan to prevent furtherdegradation of the country’s natural resourcesafter over two decades of war. The Wakhancorridor, a remote rugged area in the Pamirplateaus bordering China will also receive specialattention. Several international aid agencies,including FAO and the UN Environment Program(UNEP), are developing initiatives to protect andpreserve the environment in the two areas.– Xinhua News Agency, 11 December 2003 –

INTERNATIONAL MOUNTAIN DAY

The United Nations General Assembly hasdesignated 11 December (from 2003 onwards) as“International Mountain Day.” This decisionresults from the successful observance of the UNInternational Year of Mountains in 2002, whichincreased global awareness of the importance ofmountains.

Forest News16

FAO ASIA-PACIFIC FORESTRY CALENDAR

16-17 February 2004. Hanoi, Vietnam. What does it take to accelerate tree planting by the private sector?Sub-regional workshop on the impact of incentives on plantation development. Contact: Patrick Durst,Senior Forestry Officer, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Maliwan Mansion, Phra Atit Road,Bangkok 10200, Thailand; Tel. (662) 697-4139; Fax: (662) 697-4445; E-mail: [email protected]

2-5 March 2004. Cebu City, Philippines. Joint FAO/ITTO Expert Consultation on Criteria and Indicatorsfor Sustainable Forest Management. Contact: Froylan Castaneda, Forest Resources Development Service,FAO Headquarters, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy; Tel: 06 53834; E-mail:[email protected]

March (June?) 2004. Zheijiang, China (dates and venue to be confirmed). Development of TimberCertification in China: Progress and Issues. Contact: Patrick Durst, Senior Forestry Officer, FAO RegionalOffice for Asia and the Pacific, Maliwan Mansion, Phra Atit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand; Tel. (662) 697-4139; Fax: (662) 697-4445; E-mail: [email protected]

16-22 April 2004. Australia. FAO Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products. Contact: WulfKillmann, Director, Forest Products Division, FAO Headquarters, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100Rome, Italy; Tel: 06 53221; E-mail: [email protected]

16-17 April 2004. Nadi, Fiji. Regional Workshop on Implementation of IPF/IFF Proposals for Action andStrengthening National Forest Programmes. Contact: Simmathiri Appanah, National Forest ProgrammeAdviser for Asia and the Pacific, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Maliwan Mansion, Phra AtitRoad, Bangkok 10200, Thailand; Tel. (662) 697-4136; Fax: (662) 697-4445; E-mail:[email protected]

17 April 2004. Nadi, Fiji. Workshop on Asia-Pacific Invasive Species Network. Contact: Patrick Durst,Senior Forestry Officer, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Maliwan Mansion, Phra Atit Road,Bangkok 10200, Thailand; Tel. (662) 697-4139; Fax: (662) 697-4445; E-mail: [email protected]

19-23 April 2004. Nadi, Fiji. 20th Session of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission. Contact: Patrick Durst,Senior Forestry Officer, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Maliwan Mansion, Phra Atit Road,Bangkok 10200, Thailand;Tel. (662) 697-4139; Fax: (662) 697-4445; E-mail: [email protected]

17-21 May 2004. Beijing, China. 27th FAO Asia-Pacific Regional Conference. Contact: Biplab Nandi,Senior Food and Nutrition Officer, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Maliwan Mansion, PhraAtit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand; Tel. (662) 697-4143; Fax: (662) 697-4445; E-mail:[email protected]

14-18 March 2005. Rome, Italy. 17th Session of the Committee on Forestry. Contact: Doug Kneeland,Programme Coordinator, Programme Coordination Unit, FAO Headquarters, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla,00100 Rome, Italy; Tel: 06 53925; E-mail: [email protected]

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

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

For copies, please write to: Forestry Section, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Maliwan Mansion, Phra Atit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand.

1. Leucaena Psyllid in the Asia Pacific Region:

Implications for its Management in Africa (RAPA Publication 1994/13)

2. Asia-Pacific Tropical Forestry: Ecological Disaster or Sustainable Growth? (RAPA Publication 1994/18)

3. Workshop Report: Reform of the Forestry Sector: Towards a Market Orientation in China, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, and Vietnam (RAPA Publication 1995/4)

4. Beyond Timber: Social, Economic and Cultural Dimensions of Non-Wood Forest Products in Asia and the Pacific (RAP Publication 1995/13)

5. A Guide to the Identification of Diseases and Pests of Neem (Azadirachta indica) (RAP Publication 1995/41)

6. Non-Wood Forest Products in Bhutan (RAP Publication 1996/6)

7. Asia-Pacific Agroforestry Profiles: Second Edition (APAN Field Doc. No.4/RAP Publication 1996/20)

8. The Khao Kho Story: Reclaiming the Barren Hills of Thailand's Central Highlands (RAP Publication 1996/27)

9. Reports Submitted to the Regional Expert Consultation on Eucalyptus - Vol.II (RAP Publication 1996/44)

10. Forests and Forest Management in Mongolia (RAP Publication 1997/4)

11. Non-wood Forest Products: Tropical Palms (RAP Publication 1997/10)

12. Gone Astray: The Care and Management of the Asian Elephant in Domesticity (RAP Publication 1997/16)

13. Directory of Selected Tropical Forestry Journals and Newsletters (2nd Edition) RAP Publication 1997/17 - FORSPA Publication No.19/1997.

14. Forest Dependent Survival Strategies of Tribal Women: Implications for Joint Forest Management in Andhra Pradesh, India (RAP Publication 1997/24)

15. Labor-Intensive Harvesting of Tree Plantations in the Southern Philippines (RAP Publication 1997/41)

16. Ecotourism for Forest Conservation and Community Development (RAP Publication 1997/42

17. Leasing Degraded Forest Land: An Innovative Way to Integrate Forest and Livestock Development in Nepal (RAP Publication 1998/4)

18. Carbon Dioxide Offset Investment in the Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector: Opportunities and Constraints (RAP Publication 1998/9)

19. Asia-Pacific Forestry Towards 2010 - Executive Summary: The Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study (RAP Publication 1998/22)

20. Asia-Pacific Forestry Towards 2010 - Report of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study

21. Regional Strategy for Implementing the Code of Practice for Forest Harvesting in Asia-Pacific

22. Trees Commonly Cultivated in Southeast Asia - An Illustrated Field Guide 2nd Edition. (RAP Publication 1999/13)

23. Decentralization and Devolution of Forest Management in Asia and the Pacific (RAP Publication 2000/1 - RECOFTC Report No.18)

24. Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission Fifty Years (RAP Publication 2000/2

25. Development of National-level Criteria and Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Dry Forests in Asia: Workshop Report (RAP Publication 2000/07); Background Papers (RAP Publication 2000/08)

26. Forests Out of Bounds: Impacts and Effectiveness of Logging Bans in Natural Forests in Asia-Pacific (RAP Publication 2001/08); Executive Summary (RAP Publication 2001/10)

27. Regional Training Strategy: Supporting the Implementation of the Code of Practice for Forest Harvesting in Asia-Pacific (RAP Publication 2001/15)

28. Trash or Treasure? Logging and Mill Residues in Asia and the Pacific (RAP Publication 2001/16)

29. Proceedings of the International Conference on Timber Plantation Development

30. Monograph on benzoin (Balsamic resin from Styrax species) (RAP Publication: 2001/21)

31. Applying Reduced Impact Logging to Advance Sustainable Forest Management (RAP Publication: 2002/14

32. Report of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission 19th Session (RAP Publication: 2002/21 FO/APFC/2002/REP)

33. Communities in Flames: Proceedings of an International Conference on Community Involvement in Fire Management (RAP Publication: 2002/25)

34. Giants On Our Hands (RAP Publication: 2002/30) 35. Community-based fire management: case studies

from China, The Gambia, Honduras, India, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Turkey. (RAP Publication 2003/08)

Periodicals Tigerpaper/Forest News APANews

Documents

· PDF fileChallenges Faced in Tiger Conservation in Manas National ... Biodiversity of Bhitarkanika Mangrove Forest ... Meghalaya, Nagaland, northern West Bengal and