Regional Quarterly Bulletin on Wildlife and National Parks Management

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

Vol. XL: No. 3 July-September 2013

Featuring

Vol. XXVII: No. 3

REGIONAL OFFICEFOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

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

ISSN 1014 - 2789

Address.

TIGERPAPERFAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

Maliwan Mansion, Phra Atit RoadBangkok, 10200, Thailand

Tel: (662) 697-4000E-mail: fao-rap@fao.org

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

Editor: Janice NaewboonnienAdvisor: P. Durst

Contents

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

Front cover: Spotted deer (Axis axis) in Indian SundarbansBack cover: Goliath heron (Ardea goliath) in Indian Sundarbans(Photos courtesy of P.K. Pandit)

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

Biodiversity of mangrove forests of Indian Sundarbans and its conservation.........................................................1Ecology and conservation of goral outside protected areas by community-based approach in Thailand........................ 12Distribution and conservation status of Chinese pangolin in Nangkholang VDC, Taplejung, eastern Nepal................22Status of seagrasses in Marine National Park, Gulf of Kachchh, India............................................................... 28

FAO’s work on combating climate change receives recognition at Thailand’s Climate Change Adaptation Expo..1World teak experts, producers and traders convene in Thailand.......................................................................... 3Global meeting in preparation for FRA 2015.........................6The illegal timber trail.........................................................8FLEGT in Asia: Supporting good governance and responsible trade for Asia’s forests.....................................................10APEC Forestry Ministers commit to increased cooperation on SFM...........................................................................11Vietnam launches national UN-REDD Phase II................... 12UN-REDD programme trains Solomon Islands Forestry Officers in forest inventory............................................... 13Staff Movement................................................................ 15FAO Asia-Pacific Forestry Calendar................................... 16

1

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

11

BIODIVERSITY OF MANGROVE FORESTS OF INDIANSUNDARBANS AND ITS CONSERVATION

by P.K. Pandit

 

 

 

Mangrove forests of Sundarbans (Photo: P.K. Pandit)

Introduction

Living along the interface between land and sea,the mangrove forests support genetically diverse

groups of aquatic as well as terrestrial organisms.Mangrove habitats constitute a diverse group ofhabitats such as core forests, water bodies (rivers,bays, intertidal creeks, channels and back waters),mudflats, litter-forest floors and sea grass ecosystem(wherever these occur). Mangroves can exist andflourish under a wide range of salinity conditions,tidal aptitudes, winds, temperatures and in muddyand anaerobic soil conditions. The highly variableconditions make mangrove forests profusely rich inbiodiversity and they support huge numbers of plantand animal communities, including many rare,endangered and threatened species. Mangroves arebiodiversity hot spots because of the high species

richness. The biodiversity of mangroves has alsobeen gaining greater importance because of theconservation of biological biodiversity and alsobecause the mangrove ecosystems are one of themost threatened by global climate changes,especially the rise in sea level. These highlyproductive and dynamic ecosystems are subjectedto different types of threats such as anthropogenicpressure, which includes excessive natural-basedresource dependency of fringe villages for thecollection of fuel wood and small timbers; over-exploitation of aquatic fauna (e.g., collection ofcrabs, fishes, tiger prawn seeds); collection of honeyand wax; hydrological factors, including an increaseof salinity due to reduced flow of fresh water fromupstream; the construction of embankmentprotection bundhs along fringe villages; climatechange and global warming; increased levels of

| Biodiversity of m

angrove forests of Indian Sundarbans and its conservation |

22

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

pollution; changing species composition; etc. Manyefforts have been made to save the world famousSundarbans mangrove ecosystem, at bothinternational and national levels.

Study area

The Sundarban mangrove forest is the largestsingle track of mangrove forest in the world,covering an area of approximately 10,260 km2 inthe delta of the rivers Ganga, Brahmaputra andMeghna. It is shared by Bangladesh (6,000 km2.)and India (4,260 km2). The Indian part ofSundarbans is situated in the southernmost partof West Bengal State, in the district of South &North 24-Parganas, lying a little south of the Tropicof Cancer between latitudes 21°312 & 22°312North and longitudes 88°102 & 89°512 East. Aclose network of rivers, channels and creeksintersects the whole Sundarbans, which hasresulted in the formation of 102 islands, out ofwhich 54 have human inhabitants. The main riverswhich flow in and around Sundarbans are Matla,Bidya, Gosaba, Gona, Kalindi, Harinbhanga,Raimangal, Jhilla, Kapura, Thakuran, Muriganga,Hatania and Doania. Raimangal, Harinbhanga andKalindi rivers separate India and Bangladesh onthe eastern side. Sundarbans is bounded byBangladesh in the east, fringe villages in the northand west and the Bay of Bengal to the South.The enormous amount of sediments carried bythe rivers has contributed to its expansion anddynamics; salinity gradients change over a widerange of spatial and temporal states. The areahas a sub-tropical monsoonal climate with highhumidity and the average annual rainfall isapproximately 1,900 mm. High tides and ebb tidesoccur twice daily and the current changes itsdirection at six hour intervals. The averageelevation varies from 5.8 m to 6.1 m above meansea level, with several low line depressions. Themaximum and minimum tides recorded at SagarIsland are 5.68 m and 0.96 m respectively. Bioticfactors at Sundarban play a significant role inphysical coastal evolution and a variety of habitatshave developed for wildlife, which includesestuaries, beaches, permanent and semi-permanent swamps, tidal flats and tidal creeks.The mangrove vegetation itself assists in theformation of new landmasses and the inter-tidalvegetation plays a significant role in Sundarbans.

Every year around 250,000 tourists visitSundarbans for entertainment, education,interpretation and to provide direct and indirectsupport to the fringe people.

Floristic diversity

Mangrove and mangrove associates constitute thedominant vegetation type of the area. These salt-loving plants, which are found throughout thetropical and sub-tropical regions of the world, havebeen variously categorized by different authors.According to Champion and Seth’s revisedclassification, the mangrove forests of IndianSundarban fall under mangrove scrub (4B/TS1),mangrove forests (4B/TS2), salt-water mixedforests (4B/TS3), brackish water mixed forest(4B/TS4) and palm swamp type (4B/E1). Naskarand Guha Bakshi (1982) grouped these forestsinto five major zones: i) sea-face of beach forest;ii) formative island flora; iii) flora of reclaimed landand low-lying areas; iv) flora of river banks; andv) swamp forests. The first category is dominatedby xerophytic plants due to the dryness of the soiland numerous sand dunes. The formative islandflora consists of mainly Porteresia coarctata,Salicornia brachiata, Suaeda martima, S.nudiflora, Acanthus illicifolius and a few treespecifies like Avicennia, Sonneratia andExcoecaria. The reclaimed land and low-lyingareas are dominated by mesophytic flora, whilethe last two zones are dominated by halophyticmangrove forests.

There are 140 flowering plant species under 101genera and 59 families, comprising true mangroves,mangrove associates, back mangrove trees andshrubs, non-halophytic non-mangrove associates,halophytic herbs, shrubs, weeds, epiphytes andparasitic plants (Naskar, 2007).

Mangrove forest is a special type of vegetationcommunity comprising a variety of salt-resistantspecies having some special adaptations andcharacteristics for growing in intertidal areas andthe estuary mouth between land and sea. Themangrove forest of Sundarbans is one of the mostdynamic ecosystems on the earth (Alongi, 1996).It provides habitat for diverse flora and fauna,including some that are endangered. However, thisunique ecosystem is threatened in many places in

| Bio

dive

rsit

y of

man

grov

e fo

rest

s of

Ind

ian

Sund

arba

ns a

nd i

ts c

onse

rvat

ion

|

3

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

33

the world. Some of the characteristics andadaptations of mangrove species are: i) formationof a lateral root system for secure anchorageagainst diurnal tidal inundation (e.g., Excoecariasp.); ii) supporting roots such as stilt roots or proproots, root buttresses, etc. are formed inRhizophora sp. and Xylocarpus sp.; iii) verticalknee roots spring from horizontal lateral roots inLumnitzera sp., Bruguiera gymnorrhiza,Kandelia candel, etc.; iv) formation ofpneumatophores or breathing roots; v) viviparousgermination (germination on the tree) inRhizophora sp., Bruguiera sp., etc.; vi) sunkenstomata to prevent water loss; and vii) thick wax-coated leaves.

Some important mangrove families found in theSundarbans are Rhizophoraceae, Avicenniaceae,Meliaceae, Sonneratiaceae, Sterculiaceae,Myrtiniaceae, etc.

In India, species of mangrove ecosystems aregenerally in a vulnerable condition. Only twomangrove species, namely Avicennia marina andExcoecaria agallocha are at lesser riskaccording to their IUCN category. Xylocarpussp. is becoming rare in Sundarbans due to pastover-exploitation (Naskar and Mandal, 1999). Afew important mangrove species and their statusare given in Table-1.

| Biodiversity of m

angrove forests of Indian Sundarbans and its conservation |

Table-1: Some mangrove species and their IUCN status Serial No Family Species IUCN status of

species Occurrence

1 Rhizophoraceae Rhizophora apiculata LR C

2 Rhizophoraceae Rhizophora mucronata LR C

3 Rhizophoraceae Bruguiera parviflora VU C

4 Rhizophoraceae Bruguiera cylindrica LR C 5 Rhizophoraceae Bruguiera gymnorrhiza LR C 6 Rhizophoraceae Bruguiera sexangula VU F 7 Rhizophoraceae Ceriops tagal VU R 8 Rhizophoraceae Ceriops decandra VU R 9 Rhizophoraceae Kandelia candel LR F 10 Meliaceae Xylocarpus mekongensis VU C 11 Meliaceae Xylocarpus granatum VU F 12 Sterculiaceae Heritiera fomes VU R 13 Arecaceae Nypa fruticans EN R 14 Acanthaceae Acanthus ilicifolius LR C 15 Sonneratiaceae Sonneratia alba VU - 16 Sonneratiaceae Sonneratia apetala VU F 17 Sonneratiaceae Sonneratia caseolaris VU F 18 Avicenniaceae Avicennia marina LR C 19 Avicenniaceae Avicennia alba LR C

20 Avicenniaceae Avicennia officinalis LR C 21 Myrtiniaceae Aegiceras corniculatum LR A

EN = Endangered,VU = Vulnerable, LR = Lower Risk, - = Not recorded, A = Abundance, C = Common, R = Rare, F = Frequent Source: Kathiresan (2000) and Kathiresan and Qasim (2005)  

44

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

Non-flowering plants: Limited studies have beendone on algal flora in Sundarbans, but recentlyNaskar et al. (2004) reported 150 species ofalgae. According to Santra (1998), 32 species oflichens are found in Sundarbans. The diversity offungi and bacteria in Indian Sundarbans has notbeen studied in detail, although bacteria play asignificant role in the mangrove ecosystem for thedecomposition of litter in the soil.

Faunal diversity

Mangrove fauna, in general, is found to occur inboth terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Theseareas can be differentiated into littoral or supra-littoral forests, inter-tidal mudflats and estuaries(Anon, 2011). The faunal diversity of Sundarbanshas attracted much attention because of the hugeeconomic importance of many species, as well asthe presence of the Royal Bengal tiger. It supportsa huge number of coastal and marine fishes,crustacea, honey bees, mammalian species,reptilia, avi-fauna, mollusks, insects and annelidsin addition to other mega-fauna.

Mammals: In Indian Sundarbans 31 species ofmammals are found (Chowdhuri and Chowdhury,1994; Sanyal, 1999). Among them, the mostimportant is the Royal Bengal tiger (Pantheratigris tigris), which is one of the endangeredspecies. Other important mammalian speciesexisting in Sundarban mangrove forests are fishingcat (Felis viverrina), jungle cat (Felis chaus),leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis), spotteddeer (Axis axis), gangetic dolphin (Platanistagangetica), Irrawady dolphin (Orcaellabrevirostris), Rhesus macaque (Macacamulatta), Wild boar (Sus scrofa), smooth-coatedotter (Lutrogale perspicillata), etc.

Reptilia and Amphibia: The species richnessamong reptiles and amphibians in Sundarbans isvery high; about 59 species of Reptilia and 7species of Amphians have been recorded in IndianSundarbans (Sanyal, 1999; Naskar et al., 2004).Estuarine crocodile (Crocodylus porosus),another endangered species, is the top predatorand largest reptile in the aquatic ecosystem. Watermonitor lizard (Varanus salvator) is another largereptile found in abundance. Among 14 turtle andtortoise species, six are nearly extinct or

threatened. Out of 4 marine turtles, the olive ridleyturtle (Lepidochelys olivacea), thoughendangered, is found in Sundarbans. There is asignificant population of the river terrapin (Batagurbaska), which was once believed to be extinct.The green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), Hawksbillturtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) and flap-shellturtle (Lissemys punctata) are very common here.Around 53 species of snakes (Anon, 2011) arefound in this area. Prominent among the poisonoussnakes are the king cobra (Ophiophagushannah), monocellate cobra (Naja naja),branded krait (Bungarus fasciatus), Russel’sviper (Daboia russelli) and common krait(Bungarus caeruleus). Among the non-venomoussnakes present are python (Python molurus),chequered keelback (Xenochrophis piscator),dhaman (Ptyas mucosa), trinket snake (Elaphehelena), green whip snake, common wolf snake,bronzeback snake, ornamental snake, commonvine snake and several other species. The tidalcreeks also harbor Homalopsid snakes adapted toliving in water, the most common being Cerberusrhynchops (dog-faced water snake).

Avi-fauna: Indian Sundarbans is very rich in avi-fauna with 217 recorded species. Moreover, duringwinter, 52 species of migratory birds visit theSundarbans. It is called the kingfishers paradiseas out of 12 species found in India, 8 are foundhere, namely common kingfisher (Alcedo atthis),black-capped kingfisher (Halcyon pileata),collared kingfisher (Todiramphus chloris), brown-winged kingfisher (Halcyon amauroptera), ruddykingfisher (Halcyon coromanda), white-throatedkingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis), stork-billedkingfisher (Halcyon capensis) and pied kingfisher(Ceryle rudis). During the monsoon, heronriesdevelop in Arbesi block near Samshernagar.Common birds found in the area include herons,darters, spoonbills, cormorants and storks. Themost abundant bird species are common sand piper,Indian ringed dove, whimbrel, tailorbird, junglemyna, rose-ringed parakeet, large egret, bronze-winged drongo, magpie robin, pond heron, commoniora, red-vented bulbul and brahminy kite. Goliathheron (Ardea goliath), an African visitor and thelargest heron in the world, is also found in this area.Other birds which are frequently found in this areainclude large and median egret, white-bellied seaeagle, lesser adjutant stork, osprey, whiskered tern,

| Bio

dive

rsit

y of

man

grov

e fo

rest

s of

Ind

ian

Sund

arba

ns a

nd i

ts c

onse

rvat

ion

|

5

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

55

Some important fauna of Indian Sundarbans (Photos: P.K. Pandit)

Salt-water crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) Mudskipper (Periophthalmus nonembradiatus)

Royal Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris)

Brahminy kite (Heliastur indus) Water monitor lizard (Varanus salvator)

| Biodiversity of m

angrove forests of Indian Sundarbans and its conservation |

 

 

66

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

brown-winged gull and changeable hawk eagle,among others.

Fishes: Mangrove forests serve as nurseries forshell fish and fin fishes and sustain the coastalfisheries of the entire coast. More than 200 speciesof fishes are found in the Indian Sundarbans, outof which some are transient (migrant) and someare residents. The residents include Mugil parsia,M. tade, Polynemous paradiseus, Polydactylusindicus, Otolithoides biauritus, Lates calcarifer,Hilsa toil, Arius jella, Pama pama,Sillaginopsis panijus, etc. Among the migratoryspecies Tenualosa ilisha, Pangasius panjasiusand Polydactylus indicus are common.

The sharks and rays found in Sundarbans, includeGanges shark (Glyphus gangeticus), small-toothed saw fish (Pristis microdon), pointed sawfish (Anoxypristis cuspidate) and white-spottedshovel-nosed guitar fish (Rhynchobatusdjiddensis); all are Schedule–I species in theWildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 of India. In additionto these, Rhinobatus granulatus, Himantura

alcockii, Rhinoptera juanica and Sphrynazygaena are also found.

Invertebrate species: Among the invertebrates,143 species of mollusks, 201 species of insects,240 species of crustaceans, 78 species of annelids,68 species of protozoa and 104 species ofnematods are found in the Indian Sundarbans(Chowdhuri and Chowdhury, 1994). Moreover,numerous species of phytoplanktons andzooplanktons are also present. Two species ofhorseshoe crabs found in the Sundarbans areTachypleus gigas and Carcinoscorpiusrotundicaudata. They are considered to be livingfossils thought to be more than 400 million yearsold.

Threatened and extinct animals

In Indian mangroves, faunal species are also atthreat. It was recorded by Chaudhuri and Chaudhury(1994) that 2 reptile, 3 bird and 5 mammal speciesare extinct, and 10 reptile, 3 bird, and 2 mammalspecies are at threat (See Table-2).

Table-2: Threatened species of Indian Sundarbans Serial No Category Family Animal species IUCN status 1 Mammal Felidae Panthera tigris tigris T 2 Platinistidae Platanista gangetica T 3 Reptile Crocodilidae Crocodylus porosus, T 4 Varanidae Varanus salvator T 5 Chelonidae Chelonia mydas T 6 Pelomedusidae Eretmochelys imbricata T 7 Chelonidae Lepidochelys olivacea T 8 Chelonidae Caretta caretta E 9 Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriacea E 10 Emydidae Batagur baska T 11 Tryonychidae Lissemys punctata T 12 Tryonychidae Trionix gangeticus T 13 Tryonychidae T. hurun T 14 Boidae Python molurus T 15 Avifauna Pelecanidae Pelecanus philippensis T 16 Ardeidae Ardea goliath T 17 Cyconiidae Leptoptilos javanicus E 18 Theskiornithidae Theskiornis melanocephalus T 19 Anatidae Sarkiodornis melanotus E 20 Anatidae Cairina scutulata E T = Threatened, E = Extinct  

| Bio

dive

rsit

y of

man

grov

e fo

rest

s of

Ind

ian

Sund

arba

ns a

nd i

ts c

onse

rvat

ion

|

7

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

77

Mammals that have disappeared: Mammalianspecies that once existed in Sundarbans and havedisappeared (Seidensticker and Hai, 1983) over aperiod of time are: Javan rhinoceros (Rhinoceros sondaicus) –

Last reports of evidence proving the presenceof this rhinoceros dates back to the year 1888.In April 2000, skeletal remains of Rhinocerossondaicus were found 2.7 m below thesurface in Mollakhali Island under Gosaba P.S.

Wild buffalo (Bubalis arnee) – The wildbuffalo roamed in Sundarbans until 1885 anddied out at the end of the 19th Century. InMarch 2001, some bones were recoveredfrom Netidhopani Compartment–I. The boneswere sent to ZSI for identification and wereidentified as wild buffalo.

Swamp deer (Cervus duvaucelli) – Thisanimal was reported to exist in good numbersuntil the earlier part of the 20th century andwere probably extinct by 1930.

Barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac) – Thisanimal was found to exist in the southern partof the Sundarbans even up to 1976. It wasalso found on Halliday Island.

Hog deer (Axis porcinus) – It was reportedto found in the Sundarbans up till 1945.

.In the recent past, fossils of Rhinoceros unicornishave been discovered from Bakkhali. Fossils offreshwater tortoise (Chitra indica) and jaws ofgharial (Gravialis gangeticus) were found in theexcavations of Dum Dum near Kolkata along withstumps of Sundari (Heritiera sp.) and fruits ofDerris and Ceriops species.

Threats to biodiversity

The rich biodiversity of the Sundarbans isthreatened continuously by many factors rangingfrom the evolutionary history and paleoclimate tothe current biophysical and anthropogenic factors,plus the nature and intensity of interactions withadjacent systems (Gopal and Chauhan, 2006).Mangroves differ from fresh-water wetlands intheir hydrology, as they interact daily with bothsea and inland areas.

The major threat to biodiversity is the growinghuman population, who are dependent on theforest-based natural resources for their livelihood.

The population situated around the Sundarbans areeconomically very backward and have fewalternative livelihood choices except rain-fed singlecultivation. The main occupations of the villagersare agricultural laborers or household workers,other than cultivating their own land. After cycloneAILA hit in 2009, salt water infiltrated theagricultural land, resulting in big drops in cropproduction, so the majority of eligible malemembers had to look for work in construction andother labors in major cities of India. Infrastructureas well as basic amenities in the villages is verylimited. There are no good road networks, markets,schools, colleges and or health care facilities. Allthese factors lead to a high level of resourcedependency. Villagers are mostly dependent onmangrove forests for the collection of fuelwood,fodder, small timbers, fishes, tiger prawn seeds,honey, crabs, etc. Out of these activities, fishing,tiger prawn seeds and honey collection are donefor commercial purposes. Officially, every dayapproximately 10,000 fishermen enter theSundarbans for fishing throughout the year, exceptfor 3 months (April to June). However,unauthorized entry for fishing is very common andit is a major challenge for the Sundarbansmanagement authority, along with the killing ofwild animals.

Among the hydrological factors, the inflow offresh-water is the major factor which influencesthe salinity as well as the geomorphology of thearea. The tidal frequency is a constant factor, butthe tidal height is an important matter forinundation, erosion and accretion of soil. Thesalinity regimes are also affected by tidal heights.Human settlements and their associated activitiessuch as clearing of forests, establishment of a3,500 km long earthen bund to protect villages fromtidal effects and floods, and conservation of landfor other uses, directly influences the fresh-waterflow and sediment accretion on water-bodies. Thenature of the sediment directly influences the floraand fauna of the mangrove ecosystem. Most ofthe tributaries of the River Ganges on the Indianside have been silted up and do not carry freshwater, which leads to increased salinity and aswell as directly affecting the biodiversity. Salt-tolerant species are gradually predominating dueto the increased salinity level. Recent studies (Hoqet al., 2006) in Bangladesh have clearly

| Biodiversity of m

angrove forests of Indian Sundarbans and its conservation |

88

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

demonstrated the strong influence of salinity,temperature and conductivity on the seasonalabundance and distribution of shell fishes and finfishes.

Heritiera fomes, Nypa fruticans, Phoenixpaludosa, etc. are species that are decliningrapidly in the Sundarbans (Blasco, 1975; Rahman,1990) and Heritiera sp. is being replaced byExcoecaria sp. (Christensen, 1984). The foreststructure in general is becoming simpler and theaverage height of the trees is decreasing. InBangladesh Sundarbans it is estimated that 0.4%of the forest area is replaced by dwarf speciesevery year, which consequently decreases thehabitat of arboreal species like birds, monkeys andothers. Reports indicate that the changes inherbaceous species are affecting the spotted deerpopulation; however, an increase in Sonneratiasp. and Avicennia sp. favors the deer becausethe leaves of mangrove trees constitute the staplediet of spotted deer.

The effect of salinity levels and their seasonalvariation is a significant factor in the recruitmentand growth of different animals and the effect ontheir predators (Hussain and Acharya, 1994).Fresh-water inflows upstream have been divertedfor irrigation, flood control and hydropower.Farakka barrage in India, on the border withBangladesh, has been constructed to divert morewater to Hooghly river with the aim to keep theriver open for navigation from the Bay of Bengalto Kolkata Port. As no detailed study onbiodiversity was carried out before theconstruction of this barrage it is very difficult toassess the extent of qualitative or quantitativechanges of flora and fauna since then. But somestudies (Sinha and Khan, 2001; Payne et al., 2004)clearly indicated that the hilsa (Hilsa ilisha)fisheries have declined considerably in the Indianpart of Sundarbans, mostly because the barrageacts as a barrier to upstream migration to breedingsites.

The 3,500 km long embankment protection workshave altered the flooding regime, increased salinityintrusion, enhanced siltation in the riverbed andreduced the nutrient exchange, which directlyaffects the biodiversity as a whole (Rahman etal., 1992; Bhattacharya, 1999).

Pollution is another threat to the biodiversity ofmangrove forests as agrochemicals such aspesticides, fungicides and fertilizers usedextensively in the catchment of the river Gangaand its tributaries as well as in fringe villages ofSundarbans has polluted both the water-bodies andthe landmass, which directly or indirectly affectthe aquatic fauna and flora. Growingindustrialization upstream and at Kolkata,particularly the Haldia Industrial Complex,contribute significant amounts of pollutants, whichare gradually causing degradation of the Sundarbanmangroves. Oil spills from the seaward side causegreat damage to aquatic fauna and sea birds(Blower, 1985). The future of the Sundarbans willdepend upon the management of the fresh watersupply, as well as conservation of biologicalresources.

Conservation

The first management plan for the Sundarbanswas formulated in 1871, designed to regulateharvesting of Sundari. Part of the Sundarbans wasdeclared as Reserve Forest in 1878 (Bhattacharya,1990). The most comprehensive plan, in the early1990s, delineated the Sundarbans intomanagement units called “compartments.”

In the Indian part, the whole area in 24-ParganasDistrict was declared first as protected forestsfollowing a Notification dated 7 December 1878,and the boundaries of the remaining protectedforests were fixed by Notification No. 4457-For.– dated 9 April 1926. The protected forests in theBasirhat subdivision of the district, presentlyBasirhat Range in Sundarban Tiger Reserve, wereconstituted as Reserve forests as per GovernmentNotification No. 15340-For., dated 9 August 1928.The Indian Forest Act 1927 prohibits or otherwiserestricts the carrying of guns, cattle grazing, treecutting, and removal of forest produces or landclearance. The protected forests of NamkhanaRange (except Mahisani and Patibania Islands)were also finally declared as Reserve Forestsunder Notification No. 7737-For, dated 29 May1943. After independence, Lothian Island (38 km2)was declared a Wildlife Sanctuary. The huntingof tiger was banned completely in 1970 after theIUCN listed the Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris

| Bio

dive

rsit

y of

man

grov

e fo

rest

s of

Ind

ian

Sund

arba

ns a

nd i

ts c

onse

rvat

ion

|

9

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

99

tigris) as an endangered species. To protect thetiger, the Government of India initially declared 9tiger reserves covering a total area of 9,115 km2,of which the Sundarbans is one (2,585 km2). In1976, Sajnekhali Wildlife Sanctuary was declared,covering an area of 362.33 km2 within the TigerReserve. Halliday Island with an area 5.95 km2

was declared a sanctuary in 1976. An area of1,330.10 km2 within the Sundarbans Tiger Reserve(STR) was declared as Sundarbans National Parkin 1984. Considering the importance of this bio-geographic region, the national park area of STRwas added to the list of World Heritage Sites in1985 by UNESCO. The whole Sundarbans regionsouth of the Dampier Hodges Line, including theprotected areas of STR, was declared a BiosphereReserve in May 1989.

To involve local communities in the protection ofthe biodiversity of Indian Sundarbans, 65 JointForest Management Committees (JFMCs) havebeen formed. In this process, 51,092 people from72 nearby fringe villages are deeply involved inprotecting 67,728 ha of mangrove biodiversity. Toimprove their socio-economic condition andprovide alternate livelihood activities, severalindividual input or community development-oriented activities have been undertaken, includingnecessary training by the State Forest Department.Some of these activities involve making irrigationchannels for irrigation; sinking deep tube-wells toprovide drinking water; construction of brick-paved paths; construction of a flood centre foreasy communication; digging ponds; and makingearthen bunds as protection measures. Moreover,saline-resistant paddy seeds, pump machines,spray machines, cycle van rickshaws, etc. havebeen distributed. For the health of the fringevillages, both human beings as well as livestock,regular medical camps and veterinary camps arebeing organized. To increase protection measures,especially in Protected Areas (PAs), the numberof protection camps has increased two-fold, andto combat poachers the number of firearms alsoincreased three-fold during the last decade.Moreover, there are protection measures incollaboration with the Border Security Force (BSF)and State Arm Police (SAP) and to strengthenthem one BSF camp at Khatuajhuri and one SAPcamp at Jhilla have been established. Frequentjoint patrolling is being organized in border areas

as well as in vulnerable areas as and whennecessary. For conservation of biodiversity,plantation of mangrove species in degradedmangrove forests and raised char land is doneregularly. To meet the need for fuelwood and smalltimber, as well as to reduce the biotic pressure onthe forest, plantation of non-mangrove species isdone regularly along roadsides, canal banks,unused village land and other areas. To encouragethe local people in protection efforts, a 25% shareof the revenue earned from tourism is distributedequally to all JFMC members in the PAs. Human-tiger conflicts are a major issue in the Sundarbans,so to reduce it net fencing approximately 90 kmlong and 8-10 feet high has been erected insidethe forest along the village boundary; needless tosay, it is giving good dividends. Moreover, to furtherreduce man-animal conflicts, 6 tiger combat forcesequipped with all possible facilities have beenestablished at strategic locations.

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Sri S.B. Mandal,Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Headof Forest Force), West Bengal and Sri N.C.Bahuguna, Principal Chief Conservator ofForests, Wild Life and Chief Wild Life Warden,West Bengal for their constant support. Thanksare also due to Sri P. Shukla, Director,Sundarban Biosphere Reserve and S.Dasgupta, Director, Sundarban Tiger Reservefor providing necessary facilities.

References

Alongi, D.M. 1996. The dynamics of benthicnutrient pools and fluxes in tropicalmangrove forests. J. Mar Res, 54: 123 –148.

Anon, 2011. Draft Tiger Conservation Plan ofSundarban Tiger Reserve. Directorate ofForests, Government of West Bengal.

Bhattacharya, A. 1999. Embankments and theirecological impacts: a case study from thetropical low lying coastal plains of thedeltaic Sundarbans, India. In: M. Valmerand H. Grann (eds.), Large scaleconstructions in Coastal Environments.Springer, Heidelberg, pp – 171-190.

| Biodiversity of m

angrove forests of Indian Sundarbans and its conservation |

1 01 0

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

Blasco F. 1975. The mangroves of India. InstituteFrancais Pondicherry Travaux SectionScientifique et Technologie 14: 1 – 175.

Blower, J.H., 1985. Sundarbans ForestInventory Project. Bangladesh WildlifeConservation in the Sundarbans. Report. 151.Overseas Development Administration, LandResources Development Centre, Surbiton,U.K., 39 pp.

Brij, Gopal and Malavika Chauhan. 2006.Biodiversity and its conservation in theSundarban mangrove ecosystem. Aquat.Sci, 68: 338-354.

Champion, H. G. and S.K. Seth. 1968. RevisedForest Types of India. ManagerPublications, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

Chaudhuri, A.B. and A. Chowdhury. 1994.Mangroves of the Sundarbans. Vol. – I:India. World Conservation Union, Gland, 247pp.

Christensen, B. 1984. Ecological aspects of theSundarbans. FAO: TCP/BGD/2309(MF).FAO, Rome, 42 pp.

Debnath, H.S. and K.R. Naskar. 1999. Acomparative study on the mangroves andassociated flora in the Ganga delta(Sundarbans) and Bay Islands (Andamanand Nicobar). In: D.N. Guha, Bahkshi, P.Sanyal and K.R. Naskar (eds.). SundarbansMangal. Naya Prakash, Calcutta. pp 277 –292.

Hoq, M., Emanuel, Islam, M. Kamal and M.A.Wahab. 2006. Hydrographic status ofSundarbans mangrove, Bangladesh withspecial reference to post larvae andjuvenile fish and shrimp abundance.Wetlands Ecology and Management, 14: 49– 93.

Hussain, Z. and G. Acharya (eds.). 1994.Mangroves of the Sundarbans. Vol.-2:Bangladesh. World Conservation Union,Gland, 257 pp.

Kathiresan, K. and B.L. Bingham. 2001. Biologyof mangroves and mangrove eco-systems. Advances in Marine Biology, 40:81 – 251.

Kathiresan, K. 2000. Mangrove Atlas andstatus of species in India. Report submittedto Ministry of Environment and Forests,Government of India, New Delhi. 235 pp.

Kathiresan, K. and S.Z. Qasim. 2005. In:Biodiversity of mangrove ecosystems.Hindusthan Publishing Corporation, New Delhi.Pp 1-251.

Mandal, R.N. and K.R. Naskar. 1994. Studies onperiphytic algae on the aerial roots of themangroves of Sundarbans in West Bengal.In: M. Roy (ed.) Environmental pollutions andimpact of technology on life. Viswa Bharati,Santi Niketan, West Bengal, pp 91 – 104.

Macintosh, D.J. and E.C. Ashton. 2002. A reviewof mangrove biodiversity conservationand management. Report to World BankCentre for Tropical Eco-system Research,University of Aarhus, Denmark, (pdf file) viii1 – 71 pp.

Naskar, Kumudranjan. 2007. Medicinal plantsof Indian Sundarbans. R.K.M. Ashrama,Narendrapur.

Naskar, K.R., Sarkar, N.S., Ghosh, A., Dasgupta,M. and B. Sengupta. 2004. Status ofmangrove and mangrove eco-system ofSundarbans in West Bengal: Its impacton estuarine wetland fisheries. Bulletin134, Central Inland Fisheries ResearchInstitute, Barrackpore, W. Bengal. 53 pp.

Naskar, K.R and R.N. Mandal. 1999. In: Ecologyand biodiversity of Indian Mangroves, DayaPublishing House, New Delhi. Vol.-1&2. Pp.-1-753.

Pal, U.C., Naskar, K.R. and S.C. Santra. 1988. Achecklist of algal flora of Sundarbans delta,West Bengal, India. Phykos, India, 27: 48– 53.

Payne, A., Sinha, R., Singh, H.R. and S. Huq. 2004.A review of the Ganga basin: Its fish andfisheries. In: R.J. Welcome and T. Petr.(eds.). Proceedings of the secondInternational Symposium on theManagement of Large Rivers for fisheries,Vol. – I. RAP publication 2004/1-1, 229 –251, FAO Regional Office for Asia and thePacific, Bangkok, Thailand.

Santra, S.C. 1998. Mangrove lichens. IndianBiologist, 30(2): 76 – 78.

Santra, S.C., Pal, U.C., Maity, H. and G.Bandyopadhyay. 1998. Blue green algae insaline habitats of West Bengal – asystematic account. Biological Memories,14(1): 81 – 108.

| Bio

dive

rsit

y of

man

grov

e fo

rest

s of

Ind

ian

Sund

arba

ns a

nd i

ts c

onse

rvat

ion

|

1 1

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

1 11 1

Sanyal, P.. 1999. Sundarbans – the largestmangrove diversity on Globe. In: D.N.Guha Bhakshi, P. Sanyal and K.R. Naskar(eds.). Sundarbans Mangal. Naya Prakash,Calcutta, pp. 199 – 204.

Seidensticker, J. and M.A. Hai. 1983. TheSundarbans Wildlife Management Plan.Conservation in the Bangladesh CoastalZone. IUCN, Gland, 120 pp.

Sen, N., Thakur, G.C., Sarkar, D. and K.R. Naskar.1999. Identification and impactassessment studies of the algal flora ofthe Indian Sundarbans. In: D.N. GuhaBhkshi, P. Sanyal and K.R. Naskar (eds.).Sundarban Mangal. Naya Prakash,Calcutta, pp 350 – 354.

Sinha, M. and M.A. Khan. 2001. Impact ofenvironmental aberrations on fisheries ofthe Ganga (Ganges) River. Aquatic Eco-

system Health and Management, 4: 493 –504.

Rahman, K., Shah, A.H. and M.A. Hoque. 1992.Salinity intrusion in the south-west coastalregion of Bangladesh. Proceedings of theworkshop on Coastal Zone Managementin Bangladesh. Bangladesh NationalCommittee for UNESCO – MAB, Dhaka.

Rahman, M.A. 1990. A comprehensive reportof Sundari (Heritiera fomes) trees withparticular reference to top dying in theSundarbans. In: M.A. Rahman, K.Khandarkar, F.U. Ahmed, and M.O. Ali (eds.),Proceedings of the seminar on top dyingof Sundari (Heritiera fomes) trees,Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council,Dhaka, 12 – 63.

Garjan (Rhizophora mucronata) (Photo: P.K. Pandit)

Genwa (Excoecaria agallocha) (Photo: P.K. Pandit)

| Biodiversity of m

angrove forests of Indian Sundarbans and its conservation |

Author’s address:Conservator of Forests,Administration, Publicity& Marketing AranyaBhavan, Block-LA-10A,Sector –III, Saltlake City,Kolkata-700098, WestBengal, India

1 21 2

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION OF GORAL OUTSIDEPROTECTED AREAS BY COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACHIN THAILAND

by Damrong Pintana and Sureeratna Lakamavichian

Background and justification

Goral or Chinese Goral belongs to the OrderArtiodactyla, Family Bovidae, Sub-family

Caprinae. Goral is one of the fifteen reservedwildlife species in Thailand, according to theWildlife Reservation and Protection Act of 1960,as well as Appendix I of the Convention onInternational Trade on Endangered Species of WildFlora and Fauna (CITES). Goral in Thailand isdifferent from Naemorhedus goral (Hardwicke,1825), the original goral found in the Himalayarange of Nepal (Hardwicke, 1825). Wongthirawat(1996) proposed a revision of goral taxonomy inThailand and concluded the species should be listedas Naemorhedus caudatus (Milne-Edwards,

1867). The distribution range of Naemorheduscaudatus ranges from India (Kashmir to Assam)to southern China, Myanmar and northern Thailand(Wongthirawat, 1996; Ecological ResearchDivision, 1997). The present research thusemphasizes the latter species, Naemorheduscaudatus (Milne-Edwards, 1867).

In general, the goral population is already low innature resulting in its tendency towards extinction.An additional factor that threatens goral is a beliefabout goral oil. Many people believe that goral oilcan heal broken bones, leg aches and rumatoids,similar to serow oil. It is very difficult to convincethe local people, both residing around the forestand in town, that goral oil and meat are not suitable

Goral at Doi Mhoe Ka Do.

| E

colo

gy a

nd c

onse

rvat

ion

of g

oral

out

side

pro

tect

ed a

reas

by

com

mun

ity-

base

d ap

proa

ch i

n T

hail

and

|

1 3

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

1 31 3

| Ecology and conservation of goral outside protected areas by com

munity-based approach in T

hailand |for consumption. The total number of goral inThailand has not yet been quantified, and isawaiting accurate population studies. It wasestimated by Kekule (2004) that the totalpopulation of goral in Thailand was at most 60animals. Goral hunting is prohibited for trade, onlyfor research, according to the Thailand WildlifeReservation and Protection Act of 1992 andCITES Appendix I. Goral has also been given“Vulnerable” status by the World ConservationUnion (IUCN).

Thailand is the southernmost part of the goral’sdistribution range. There were reports that goralwere found along the watershed areas of the PingRiver in Northern Thailand, particularly in the highmountains and cliffs (Parr, 2003; Kekule, 2004).Beginning in 1987, goral was considered absentfrom Thailand until a wildlife research team ledby Sueb Nakasathien discovered goral at the DoiMon Chong summit (1,929 m elevation) in OmKoi Wildlife Sanctuary, Chiang Mai Province forthe first time in 1989 (Nakhasathian, 1991;Lakanavichian, 2010). About 20 goral were foundat the Mon Chong mountain by Seub’s team inthe beginning of 1990. Over the past four decades,large areas of forests in all regions of Thailandhave been cleared or disturbed, leading todegraded ecosystems which became fragmentedisland biogeography. The fragmented forestecosystems have forced several species ofwildlife in Thailand to hold the undesirable“Endangered” status. It is obvious that somewildlife species may have a higher risk ofextinction owing to impacts from the islandbiogeography. Inevitably, it is riskier for a smallerhabitat than for a large habitat (Bolen andRobinson, 2003).

It is therefore necessary to study the ecology ofgoral for better understanding and develop asuitable conservation strategy for this species andits habitat in order to protect the remainingpopulation that is scattered in the forest areas innorthern Thailand. Forest destruction andfragmentation have increased the threats to thehabitats of goral and other endangered species.Since goral has a relatively low capacity foradapting to changing habitats or ecosystems(Humphrey and Bain, 1990), their livelihoods havebeen at high risk. Goral prefer specific habitat on

the mountain peaks and cliffs: higher than 800 mabove mean sea level (amsl.). Human activities(e.g., agricultural practices, irrigation systemdevelopment, road building and human residences)have reduced the goral habitat enormously in thepast four decades (Lakanavichian, 2010). As aconsequense, the goral population has beenevicted from their original habitats. Goral mustlook for serene and secure habitats with enoughfood and water for their survival, so they retreatupwards to the mountain peaks. Goral is thereforeone of the endangered species under criticalconditions in Thailand due to continuing decreaseof its population from hunting and habitatdestruction. It is also important to understand thatgoral groups residing in the forest areas are outsidethe legal protected areas (officially called “ForestConservation Areas”), as well as to associategoral with ecotourism conducted by local villagers.

According to the National Park Act of 1961 andthe Wildlife Reservation and Protection Act of1992, the main legal protected areas as wildlifehabitats in Thailand comprise: i) National Park; ii)Forest Park; iii) Wildlife Sanctuary; and iv) Non-hunting Area. The wildlife sanctuaries and nationalparks are mostly suitable as wildlife habitats. Infact, goral have been found in several legallyprotected areas along the Ping watershed in theupper north. Morever, goral have recently beendiscovered outside the legally protected areas. Itis therefore necessary to study the goral’s habitat,population and threats to their existence.

Objectives of the study

1) To study goral distribution in Thailand.2) To study the ecology, disturbances and

population of goral in the following studyareas: Doi Mhoe Ka Do and Doi Pa Ti Do,

3) To apply the results of the ecological study incommunity-based conservation of goral forspecies and habitat protection.

It is expected that the results of this research canbe used to formulate further activities, particularlyecotourism activities. Goral conservation forcommunity-based ecotourism will be based onquantitative ecology and local knowledgeregarding seasonal limitations and some importantbehaviors of goral, which may help design the

1 41 4

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

appropriate ecotourism activities for each seasonof the year.

Methodology

Goral ecological study

The purpose of the study was to conduct a wildlifehabitat survey (Lakanavichian, 2010;Phumpakphan, 2000) comprising: 1) Habitatassessment; 2) Survey of food species and foodsources; 3) Survey of water sources and salt-lickareas; and 4) Study of distribution range andspecific niche of the goral.

Goral habitat assessment involves a survey offorest ecosystems which are habitats of the goral.The method is derived from the principles of aforest resource inventory (Kent and Coker, 1992cited by Kutintara, 1998; Krebs, 1978) andParticipatory Ecological Investigation Methodology(PEIM), which was developed by Lakanavichianand Pintana (2002). First, Stratified RandomSampling is applied in a targeted area, and samplingplots are set up in selected forest ecosystemswhich are classified in a preliminary survey.Second, the PEIM is applied during treemeasurements in the sampling plots. The PEIMstresses a genuine collaboration between theresearchers and local people who know abouttrees species in the forest. The knowledgeablevillagers may be called “local dendrologists.” /The principles of quantitative ecology and PEIMare applied in all sampling plots, including treespecies identification, measurement of treeperimeter, height and canopy size. It is based onthe fact that local villagers who work as researchassistants know their forests and trees in detail astheir livelihoods rely on the forests.

A sampling plot 1,600 m2 (40 m x 40 m) in size isset up in each forest stratum that was classifiedin the preliminary survey. It was found that gorallive and carry out their specific activities in hillevergreen forest or lower montane forest, savannaand grassland. In addition, goral may roam andforage for food in mixed deciduous forest. In thisresearch, a number of sampling plots which arerepresentatives of the study area are based onAvery (1975), applying that a size of 1,600 m2 (0.2ha) represents a forest area of 1 km2 (100 ha).

Measuring perennial trees and the counting ofsaplings and seedlings are conducted in thesampling plots. Perennial trees in each samplingplot are measured, inclusive of all trees of 5 cmdiameter at breast height (DBH) or with a 10 cmcircumference. Data collection includes treecircumference at breast height, height and canopysize. Watcharakitti (1982) stressed that theminimum DBH of a perennial tree must be morethan 10 cm or have more than a 30 cmcircumference. The author adjusted thecircumference size for biodiversity purposes.

At each corner of the main sampling plot, samplingplots of 16 m2 (4 m x m) and 4 m2 (2 m x 2 m)were set up for sapling and seedling countsrespectively. This is to count the number ofsaplings with a DBH of less than 5 cm or acircumference of less than 10 cm and more than1.3 m height, while the seedlings must be less than1.3 m in height. All plant species were identifiedtaxonomically.

After recording all required data, it is necessaryto verify the data prior to analysis. The variablesfor analyses are ecological abundance, dominance,Important Value Index (IVI) and species diversityindex (Krebs, 1978). The formulae applied forcalculation are based on the work of renownedforest ecologists such as Kimmins (2004), Krebs(1978), Kutintara (1998), and Pintana andLakanavichian (2012).

Population assessment of goral

Population assessment focused on the case studyarea – Doi Mhoe Ka Do and Doi Pa Ti Do (Doi =mountain) – which were considered as one habitatof goral outside the legally protected areas. Thearea encompasses parts of Mae Chaem district,Chiang Mai Province and Khun Yuam district, MaeHong Son Province, but the political administrativeboundary cannot divide the goral habitat. Fourmethods are used for population assessment,namely, fecal counts on a line plot system, trackcounts on transects, photography and videorecording.

| E

colo

gy a

nd c

onse

rvat

ion

of g

oral

out

side

pro

tect

ed a

reas

by

com

mun

ity-

base

d ap

proa

ch i

n T

hail

and

|

1 5

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

1 51 5

Fecal counts

Wildlife population assessment by fecal countsentails counting feces found in sampling plots ona line plot system. The radius of a circularsampling plot is 1.22 m at the same interval (20m) on a line plot system (100 m length). Aftercounting fecal groups in each sampling plot, thenext step is to count the number of pellets in eachfecal group. Wildlife fecal groups are used toprove the existence of a targeted wildlife speciesin the study area by calculating the number offecal groups in the sampling plots and thedefecation rate. Defecation rates of wildlifespecies vary. For example, a sambar deer’sdefecation rate is 12 fecal groups or times perwildlife per day; a red muntjac’s defecation rateis 11.88 fecal groups or times per wildlife per day.It is expected that the goral’s defecation rate maybe similar to that of red muntjac. The formula forcalculation is derived from Grieb (1985 cited byPhumpakphan, 2000). However, the fecal countscould not be calculated since the goral did notreturn to excrete at the same sites.

Track counts

Assessing a wildlife population by track counts isto count tracks in a small sampling plot ( 6-8 m2 insize) across a transect. A sampling plot may becircular or rectangular, depending on the wildlifespecies and its habit. The original method andequation were developed by E. L. Tyson in 1952and 1959 (Overton, 1971), focusing on a deerspecies which was walking across the perimeterof a circle regularly. Rectangular sampling plotsizes for track counts are either 6 m2 (2 m x 3 m)or 8 m2 (2 m x 4 m) across a transect throughregular areas of travel by a targeted species, suchas along a road (rugged dirt road), along a streamor near a salt-lick area, according to thepreliminary survey. Each transect should be 500m apart on a parallel basis. The tracks are countedin each sampling plot on the transect and recordedfor calculation by the modified formula: Population= track density/area.

Photography

Photographs are used to record the population andbehavior of goral.

Video recording

Video taping is also used to record the movementsand individual behavior of goral, as well as to helpassess the population.

Study of participatory goral conservation

Whether goral conservation is achievable or notdepends on community participation, in particularthe communities around the goral habitat. Besidesthe assessment of ecological field data, it isnecessary to induce conservation practices in thetargeted communities. Methods for studyingParticipatory Goral Conservation are as follows: Preliminary data acquisition from the

government agencies around the casestudy area.

Data acquisition from local government,i.e., Tambon Administrative Organization(TAO or Ao Bo Toa), Kamnan (Tambonchief), village headmen, village committeemembers, and natural leaders of eachvillage with attention to forest and goralconservation.

Data collection on conservation activitiesfrom each village through theconservation committee or conservationgroup members.

Collaboration with representatives of thevillage conservation committee for leadingthe research team to Doi Pa Ti Do andDoi Mhoe Ka Do, and assessment of theareas, including goral ecologicalinvestigation.

Assessment of village profiles in the casestudy area, and current situation regardingparticipation in goral and forestconservation.

Preliminary data analysis and synthesiswith the stakeholders for further planningof goral conservation activities.

Results of the study

The study of goral ecology was carried out basedon the principles of wildlife ecology, whereas theconservation strategy and ecotourismmanagement by the involved villagers was aconsequential case study. Goral distribution areas

| Ecology and conservation of goral outside protected areas by com

munity-based approach in T

hailand |

1 61 6

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

(continued on p.17)

were only in the upper Ping watershed and Paisub-watershed in upper northern Thailand.

Goral distribution in Thailand

Goral have been found in some of the legallyprotected areas in the upper Ping watershed andPai sub-watershed as per previous studies. Therewere 2 new goral habitats discovered: 1) San PanDaen Wildlife Sanctuary; and 2) Doi Pa Ti Doand Doi Mhoe Ka Do, which is the area betweenMae Chaem district of Chiang Mai province, andKhun Yuam district of Mae Hong Son province.The goral habitat covers both mountain peaks andthe area between the two mountains.

Goral ecology

The goral ecological study was undertaken at DoiPa Ti Do and Doi Mhoe Ka Do of Chiang MaiProvince, Mae Chaem District and Mae Hong SonProvince, Khun Yuam District respectively. Thetwo mountains are connected. The habitat surveycomprises identification of habitat types (forestecosystems), niches and basic needs (water, foodand coverage), including specific areas for specialactivities, such as salt-lick areas, muddy areas,escape cover.

The forest ecosystems of Doi Pa Ti Do areidentified as grassland, savanna and lowermontane forest or hill evergreen forest (preferredname in this report). Doi Mhoe Ka Do also hassimilar types of forest, with additional dryevergreen forest along the streams. The majordifference between the two mountain ranges isthat the researcher team had to travel through

several mountain ranges covered with abundantforests before reaching Doi Mhoe Ka Do, whileDoi Pa Ti Do was mostly accessible by car on arugged road. Doi Pa Ti Do and Doi Mhoe KaDo, as a distribution range of goral, cover an areaof 64,531.25 rai (103.25 km2), which allows goralto forage for food, water and other necessities,particularly in the dry season.

The area where the animals forage for food andwater, the salt-lick area, as well as the sleepingarea, escape zone and area for other activitiesare considered as a habitat, totaling 937.5 rai (1.5km2), which is only 1.45 % of the total distributionrange. The habitat of goral is in the highlands andmountains with steep cliffs at elevations between1,570 – 1,734 m amsl. This research focused ona quantitative ecological survey of goral habitat,requiring sampling plots in the hill evergreen forestand savanna. The ecological survey of goralhabitat was undertaken in 3 sampling plots: 2 inthe hill evergreen forest and 1 in the savanna.There were 52 tree species found in both hillevergreen forest and savanna, and one unidentifiedspecies.

 

Goral habitat at Doi Pa Ti Do

Goral habitat at Doi Mhoe Ka Do

Hill evergreen forest

Species richness. From 2 sampling plots of thehill evergreen forest (HEF) of Doi Mhoe Ka Do,there were 50 tree species, totaling 146 trees. Thedetails of quantitative ecological calculation canbe found in Pintana and Lakanavichian (2012).Average density was 73 trees/rai (456.25 trees/hectare). The most popular species are Camelliasinensis var. assamensis (Mast.) Kitam, followedby Wendlandia paniculata (Roxb.) DC., Schima

| E

colo

gy a

nd c

onse

rvat

ion

of g

oral

out

side

pro

tect

ed a

reas

by

com

mun

ity-

base

d ap

proa

ch i

n T

hail

and

|

1 7

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

1 71 7

(continued from p.16)

plot, in which only the Species Diversity Indexwas able to be calculated due to missing data onthe frequency, making it impossible to calculatethe IVI. Based on the formula of the Shannon-Wiener Index (SWI), it was found that the SpeciesDiversity Index of savanna at Doi Mhoe Ka Dowas 1.41. It was considered very low comparedto the Species Diversity Index reference of 0-7(Kutintara, 1998). Thus, the low SWI proved anassumption that the species distribution was ofsavanna type, in which perennial trees weresparse.

It was stressed in a previous study that goralprefers to eat several grass species on themountainous grassland, and then sunbathe on therangeland or cliffs (Chairat, 1997). Goral like toreside in caves or holes behind the rocks, or in thedense forests if necessary, for security. Goral mustrun up and down between the mountain ridgesand the streams in the lowland for water eachday. In the early morning, gorals lick the dew ongrasses as a water source. Water sources andthe salt-lick area can indicate the distribution ofsome wildlife species in an ecosystem. Specificareas are for special activities, e.g., salt-lick area,ruminating area, and secure coverage for theiryoung or offspring. Gorals like to stay in groupsof 4-5. Thus, the leader of a goral group knowshow and where to select its home range andspecific area. Goral prefer a very high mountainwith rock croppings to escape from danger. Theyfeed on a variety of grasses and shrubs in themountainous grassland and savanna or on fodderfrom some tree species if the quantity of grass isinsufficient in the dry season. Due to its smallsize of about 30 kg weight and 50 cm height inadults, goral does not consume much per day.Table 1 shows the grass species which goral feedon, excluding an unidentified grass species thatseems to be significant to the goral’s specifichabitat near the peak of Doi Mhoe Ka Do.

wallichii (DC.) Korth, Podocarpus neriifoliusD.Don and Castanopsis tribuloides (Sm.) A.DC.

Species dominance. The most dominant specieswas Schima wallichii (DC.) Korth with 15.41%dominance; basal area was 13,930.95 cm.2/rai(8.71 m.2/hectare). The second and thirddominant species were Castanopsis tribuloides(Sm.) A.DC and Podocarpus neriifolius D.Don,with 6.45% and 5.54% dominance and basal areasof 5,832.59 cm.2/rai (3.64 m.2/ha.) and 5,008.82cm.2/rai (3.13 m.2/ha.) respectively.

Importance Value Index (IVI). The quantitativeecological survey in the HEF of Doi Mhoe Ka Doshowed Schima wallichii (DC.) Korth as theindex species with the highest IVI; 8.4% of allspecies. It was followed by Castanopsistribuloides (Sm.) A.DC and Podocarpusneriifolius D.Don, both with high IVI: 5.19% and4.28% of all species respectively. The lowest IVIspecies were Peucedanum dhana A.Ham.,Anneslea fragrans Wall. and Harpullia arborea(Blanco) Radlk., with 0.84% IVI of all species inthe sampling plots.

Species Diversity Index. The formula used forcalculating the Species Diversity Index was theShannon-Wiener Index (SWI). The SWI of theHEF was 5.07, considered to be relatively high, incomparison with a reference of Species DiversityIndex value of 0 - 7 (Kutintata, 1998). It impliesthat the HEF of Doi Mhoe Ka Do has a relativelyhigh Species Diversity Index.

Savanna

In a sampling plot of savanna at Doi Mhoe KaDo, there were 6 tree species totaling 54 trees.The species with the highest density wasWendlandia paniculata (Roxb.) DC. (70.37%),followed by Podocarpus neriifolius D.Don andStyrax benzoides Craib with a density of 12.96%and 11.11 % respectively. The most dominant treespecies was Wendlandia paniculata (Roxb.)DC., 28.73% of all species, with a basal area of1,159.61 cm2/rai (0.72 m.2/ha.). It is noted thatthe area and a number of sampling plots werealready higher than what the principles and formulaof Avery (1975) recommended. The savannasampling plot was considered to be an additional

| Ecology and conservation of goral outside protected areas by com

munity-based approach in T

hailand |

1 81 8

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

Table 1 Grass species as Goral food at Doi Pa Ti Do and Doi Mhoe Ka Do No. Thai Common Name Scientific Name Family

1 Yah Sam Liam Cyperus malaccensis Lam. CYPERACEAE

2 Yah Whai Paspalum longifolium Roxb. GRAMINEAE

3 Yah Ka Imperata cylindica Beaur. GRAMINEAE

4 Yah Nhuad Reusi Heteropogon contortus Beauv. ex Roem. GRAMINEAE

5 Saab Rang Saab Ka Ageratum cornyzoides Linn. COMPOSITAE

6 Tong Kong Thysanolaena maxima Ktze. GRAMINEAE

7 Haew Thai Cyperus esculentus Linn. CYPERACEAE

8 Yah Kai Eulalia siamensis Bor. GRAMINEAE

9 Yah Kaab Phai Setaria palmifolia Stapf. GRAMINEAE

10 Lao Saccharum spontaneum Linn. GRAMINEAE

11 Mhak Laeb Peucedanum dhana A.Ham. UMBELLIFERAE

Goral population

Only track counts, photography and videorecording yielded an estimate of the goralpopulation. Fecal counts were ineffective due tothe fact that none of the goral returned to excretein the same sampling plots after their feces wereexamined. It indicated the goral’s sensitivity toany interferences. Estimating the goral populationby track counts was conducted in 3 transects with3 sampling plots. The track counts yielded 3.12gorals on transect 1; 4.81 gorals on transect 2;and 3.44 gorals on transect 3. Thus, there were11.37 gorals in total by track counts. However, 2more gorals were found by the photographymethod.

The two photographed goral adults were obviouslydifferent from the goral population assessed basedon the track count method. The researcher wastaking photographs of goral on the opposite clifffrom the summit of Doi Mhoe Ka Do, which wasthe observation spot in the very early morningbefore sunrise. The opposite mountain wascompletely separated from the observation point.Thus, the total population of goral in the case study

 

 

Fecal counts on a line plot system

Goral track counts on a transect

| E

colo

gy a

nd c

onse

rvat

ion

of g

oral

out

side

pro

tect

ed a

reas

by

com

mun

ity-

base

d ap

proa

ch i

n T

hail

and

|

1 9

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

1 91 9

area of Doi Mhoe Ka Do - Doi Pa Ti Do was13.37. If the decimal number is considered asnew offspring or young goral, it may imply thatthe total population of goral was 14.

Community-based conservation of goral

In 2002, the ethnic Karen villagers residing aroundDoi Mhoe Ka Do, together with some otherinterested people, formed a group dedicated toconserving the goral and its habitat, named the“Doi Mhoe Ka Do Conservation Club.” It wasled by a government official of the Hua PonCommunity Health Hospital, Mr. ChinnawutKaiwalrungpipat. The Conservation Club set upa committee consisting of two representativesfrom each village. There are 8 villages from theparticipating Tambon (sub-district). TheConservation Club began laying out rules for goralconservation and an ecotourism approach. It hasaimed to protect the goral and their habitat,inclusive of the forests and other natural resources,as well as to carry out ecotourism activities forincome generation. Ecotourism activities areconsidered by the Conservation Club as the meansfor encouraging the participation of the localvillagers residing around Doi Mhoe Ka Do andDoi Pa Ti Do in both Chiang Mai and Mae HongSon provinces.

The eight villages under the administration ofTambon Mae Yuam Noi include Hua Mae La ka,Mae Kopi, Mae Ao, Ma Jae, Mae Haad, WhaNo, Hua Pon and Huay Ma Buab. The totalpopulation is 1,812 among 474 households. TheConservation Club is still active, although Mr.Chinnawut passed away in February 2012. Infact, the committee of Doi Mhoe Ka DoConservation Club plans to update the rules andregulations for further implementation of itsconservation approach.

The goral conservation scheme will be effectiveif local villagers understand more about goral – itsecology and forest ecology, as well as theirpopulation and behavior in their habitat. In 2012,Mae Yuam Noi TAO formed a new club, namelythe “Doi Mhoe Ka Do Resource ProtectionVolunteer Club,” based on the Doi Mhoe Ka DoConservation Club.

Goral ecology in a specific habitat along withcommunity-based conservation and an ecotourismapproach are necessary for the villagers aroundthe forest ecosystems of Doi Mhoe Ka Do. It isalso applicable to Doi Pa Ti Do wildlifeconservation and regulations at Baan Pang Ung,which have been flexibly enforced. The villagershave so far understood that participatoryconservation is necessary for maintaining andprotecting the goral population and their habitat.

There are several disturbing factors affecting thegoral ecosystem and interferences at Doi MhoeKa Do and Doi Pa Ti Do, including illegal hunting,forest encroachment for agriculture, forest grazingby domestic animals, forest fires, unsuitablebuilding of roads and shelters for tourists, islandbiogeography, and “disastrous” tourism.

Conclusion

Gorals use their specific habitat in the highmountains and steep cliffs for grazing, resting,mating and escape. With the exception of MaePing National Park, where goral were found at abeach (i.e.,Haad Pha Lhek), all habitats of goralare in the steep mountains and cliffs in the uppernorth of Thailand. The population of gorals at HaadPha Lhek may be the result of flooding in the areaby the construction of the Bhumibol dam in theearly 1960s, so some mountain areas becamebeaches.

In general, goral have a low capacity to adapt to anew ecosystem. It is thus necessary to understandgoral ecology prior to setting up any conservationactivities in order to ensure effectiveness andsuccess. Disturbance to the goral livelihood usuallycauses habitat limitations and accelerates thepossibility of extinction. The goral population inthe case study area (103.25 km2) is 13.37, implying13 adults and 1 offspring or young, which isconsidered very small.

Thus, it is significant to support goral protectionand forest conservation through a community-based approach in order to save the goral fromextinction. It is necessary to set up specific rulesand regulations which are suitable to the socialconditions, culture and livelihood of the local peoplefor goral protection. It is also important to foster

| Ecology and conservation of goral outside protected areas by com

munity-based approach in T

hailand |

2 02 0

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

correct knowledge about the goral medicinal myth.It is finally feasible to attain sustainable gorallivelihood, even though the area of Doi Mhoe KaDo and Doi Pa Ti Do is outside the legallyprotected area category.

References

Avery, T. E. 1975. Natural resourcesmeasurements. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 339 pp.

Bolen, E. G. and W. L. Robinson. 2003. Wildlifeecology and management. 5th ed. UpperSaddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall/PearsonEducation. 634 pp.

Chairat, R. 1997. Goral ecology in Om KoiWildlife Sanctuary, Chiang Mai and TakProvinces. Master of Science (Forestry).Bangkok: Kasetsart University. 106 pp. (inThai).

 

Ecological Research Division. 1997.Endangered plants and wildlife inThailand. 2nd ed. Bangkok: ThailandScientific and Technological ResearchInstitute. 242pp. (in Thai).

Hardwicke, T. 1825. Descriptions of twospecies of antelope from India. Trans.Linnean Soc. London (14): 518-520.

Humphrey, S. R. and J. R. Bain. 1990.Endangered animals of Thailand.Gainesville, Florida: Sandhill Crane. 468 pp.

Kekule, L. B. 2004. Thailand’s naturalheritage: A look at some of the rarestanimals in the Kingdom. Bangkok: WKT.227 pp.

Kimmins, J. P. 2004. Forest ecology: Afoundation for sustainable forestmanagement and environmental ethics in

1. Mae Teun Wildlife Sanctuary 2. Mae Ping National Park 3. Om Koi Wildlife Sanctuary 4. Doi Mhoe Ka Do – Doi Pa Ti Do 5. Doi Intanon National Park 6. Mae Lao – Mae Sae Wildlife Sanctuary 7. Chiang Dao Wildlife Sanctuary 8. Lum Nam Pai Wildlife Sanctuary 9. San Pan Daen Wildlife Sanctuary

Goral distribution in NorthernThailand(scale: 1:4,300,300 reducedfrom scale 1:50,000)

| E

colo

gy a

nd c

onse

rvat

ion

of g

oral

out

side

pro

tect

ed a

reas

by

com

mun

ity-

base

d ap

proa

ch i

n T

hail

and

|

2 1

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

2 12 1

forestry. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:Prentice Hall. 611 pp.

Krebs, C. J. 1978. Ecology: Experimentalanalysis of distribution and abundance. 3rded. New York: Harper & Row. 678 pp.

Kutintara, U. 1998. Ecology: Fundamentalbasics in forestry. Bangkok: Department ofForest Biology, Faculty of Forestry, KasetsartUniversty. 563 pp. (in Thai).

Lakanavichian, S. 2010. Wildlife conservation:Documents for Course 362421. ChiangMai: Department of Plant Science and NaturalResources, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang MaiUniversity. 224 pp. (in Thai).

Lakanavichian, S. and D. Pintana. 2002.Participatory Ecological InvestigationMethodology (PEIM): A pathway toecosystem management: Cases from theUpper Nan Watershed, NorthernThailand. Chiang Mai: Forest and PeopleResearch Centre, Chiang Mai University,Thailand and Danish National EnvironmentProgram, Denmark. 19 pp.

Lekagul, B. and J.A. McNeely. 1988. Mammalsof Thailand. 2nd ed. Bangkok: Associationfor the Conservation of Wildlife. 758 pp.

Nakhasathien, S. 1991. Shout from the wild:Compilation of Sueb Nakhasathien’sdocuments and ideas. Edited by W.Tantiwittayapitak. Bangkok: SuebNakhasathien Foundation. pp. 105-114. (inThai).

Overton, W. S. 1971. Estimating the numbersof animals in a wildlife population. In: R.

H. Giles, Jr. (ed.), Wildlife ManagementTechnique Manual. 3rd ed. Washington,D.C. Wildlife Society. pp. 403-445.

Parr, J. W. K. 2003. Large mammals ofThailand. Bangkok: Sarakadee. 205 pp.Phumpakpan, N. 2000. WildlifeManagement. Bangkok: Department ofForest Biology, Faculty of Forestry, KasetsartUniversity. 291 pp. (in Thai).

Pintana, D. and S. Lakanavichian. 2012. Ecologyand conservation of goral in Thailand. In:Proceedings of the 25th National GraduateResearch Conference, 4-5 October 2012.Bangkok: Sirinthorn Anthropology Center. 12pp. (in Thai).

Wacharakitti, S. 1982. Forest resourceinventory. Bangkok: Faculty of Forestry,Kasetsart University. 172 pp. (in Thai).

Wongthirawat, S. 1996. Goral. In: S.Wongthirawat et al. Reserved Wildlife ofThailand. Bangkok: Wildlife ConservationDivision, Natural Resource ConservationBureau, Royal Forest Department. pp. 41-46.(in Thai).

Authors’ addresses: Damrong Pintana, Ph.D.Program in Soil Science and Natural ResourceManagement, Graduate School and Facultyof Agriculture, Chiang Mai University, ChiangMai 50200, THAILAND; Prof. SureeratnaLakanavichian, Department of Plant Scienceand Natural Resources, Faculty of Agriculture,Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200,THAILAND

 

Two goral found across the peakof Doi Mhoe Ka Do in the earlymorning.

| Ecology and conservation of goral outside protected areas by com

munity-based approach in T

hailand |

2 22 2

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

| D

istr

ibut

ion

and

cons

erva

tion

sta

tus

of C

hine

se p

ango

lin

in N

angk

holy

ang

VD

C,

Tapl

ejun

g, e

aste

rn N

epal

|

DISTRIBUTION AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF CHINESEPANGOLIN IN NANGKHOLANG VDC, TAPLEJUNG, EASTERNNEPAL

by Prakash Thalpa, Sushila C. Nepali, Ambika Prasad Khatiwada and

Shambhu Paudel

Introduction

Pangolins (Manis sp.), often called “scalyanteaters,” are nocturnal, shy, non-aggressive,

solitary and burrowing mammals which havereceived low scientific attention. Among eightdifferent pangolin species in the world, two speciesof pangolins, i.e., Chinese pangolin (Manispentadactyla) and Indian pangolin (Maniscrassicudata) are found in Nepal. Chinesepangolins occur in Nepal, Bhutan, northern India,northeastern Bangladesh, Myanmar, northern LaoPDR, northern Viet Nam, Thailand, China andTaiwan (Duckworth et al., 2008). In Nepal,Chinese pangolins are distributed in AnnapurnaConservation Area, Makalu Barun National Park,Taplejung, Illam, Panchtahar, Ramechap, Sindhulli,Pannauti (Beber area), Bhaktapur, Kavre,Soondarijal, Barabisse and Baglung (Majupuria& Majupuria, 2006; Shrestha, 1981; Kaspal, 2008;Suwal, 2011). Chinese pangolin is a vulnerablespecies due to its taxonomic uniqueness(monotypic order, family and genus), foodspecialization, very low reproductive rate (usuallyone cub per litter, one litter per year), strictrequirements for habitat and very poor defensemechanisms (Wu et al., 2004). The generic nameof pangolin in Nepal is “Salak” although it has somelocal names that are popular in particular areas.Chinese pangolins are listed as Endangered underthe IUCN category and are listed in Appendix IIof CITES. In Nepal they are protected by theGovernment of Nepal under the National Park andWildlife Conservation Act, 1973. Although,Chinese pangolins are ecologically beneficial theyhave not received much scientific attention. Theirecology, behavior, status and distribution in Nepalare relatively unknown. A few studies regarding

the Chinese pangolin were made by Acharya(1993), Gurung (1996), Kaspal (2008) and Suwal(2011) in Nepal but there is no significant researchabout this shy and nonaggressive species. Due toillegal trade and habitat destruction, the populationof Chinese pangolins is decreasing at an alarmingrate and the lack of information about this animalhas exacerbated the situation.

Objectives of the study

The general objective of this study was to gatherbaseline information about Chinese pangolin inNangkholyang Village Development Committee(VDC), Taplejung, Nepal. The specific objectivesof this study were: To study the distribution of Chinese pangolin

in the study area To study the habitat type utilized by Chinese

pangolin To explore the social beliefs about Chinese

pangolins To identify the conservation status of Chinese

pangolin.

Study site

The study site chosen was Nangkholyang VillageDevelopment Committee (VDC), Taplejung,eastern Nepal. It is situated at a distance of twelvekm from Taplejung Bazar. The field visit for thisstudy was conducted in September 2012.

This study area is rich in floral and faunal diversity.The human population is mainly composed of lowermiddle class farmers. People mainly practiceagriculture for their livelihood. According to the

2 3

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

2 32 3

Figure 1: Map of the study area

Figure 2: GIS map showing thedistribution of pangolins

Methodology

A preliminary survey was carried out initially inNangkholyang VDC to assess the situation andidentify potential sites where Chinese pangolinscould be found. Discussions were held with theDistrict Forest Office authorities and local peopleand a search was made of relevant literatures.Group discussions were carried out separatelywith school teachers, community forest users andthe local community with the use of a checklist. Aparticipatory mapping exercise was also carriedout in these group discussions to determine thepotential distribution of Chinese pangolin invillages. The distribution sites of Chinese pangolinas identified during the participatory mappingexercise were surveyed by diurnal walks alongthe available tracks for direct field observations.The random search method was also employedfor field observations. Information about pangolinburrows (old and new), scats, footprints, andtraces of tail movement were noted. GPS readingswere taken at the burrows and other related

matters of pangolins were recorded. About 52respondents to the questionnaire survey suppliedinformation such as hunting trends, the price ofscales, and so on. Respondents were selected byusing the snow-ball sampling technique. Forsecondary data, relevant journals, papers, books,and published and unpublished reports wereconsulted. Arc GIS 9.3 was used to map out thedistribution of pangolin.

Result and discussion

Distribution

This study investigated the distribution of Chinesepangolin burrows in all the wards (political unitsof VDC). Indirect signs such as footprints, scatsand tail traces were found during the fieldobservations. The distribution map showing thedistribution of Pangolin in the study area is shownin Figure 2.

Pangolin burrows were found in all the wards, withhighest number found in ward four and the lowest

2001 census, there were 730 households with anaverage household size of 5.373. Total populationwas 4,015. The main castes of this VDC are Rai,Limbu, Brahmin, Sunuwar and Gurung.

| Distribution and conservation status of C

hinese pangolin in Nangkholyang V

DC

, Taplejung, eastern Nepal |

2 42 4

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

in ward six. Altogether, 211 burrows were foundduring the field study, including 16 new and 195old burrows. The maximum number of burrowswere found in the southwest aspect and the leastamount in the northern aspect. Burrows were

found from 1,126 m to 2,406 m elevation, with themaximum burrows at the elevation range of 1,520m to 1,620 m. The average width and depth ofpangolins burrows were found to be 18 cm and49.630 cm.

Habitat utilization

Pangolin burrows were widely distributed in forestand agricultural land. The number of burrowspresent in forest and agricultural land were 146and 65 respectively. Among 146 burrows found inthe forest area, the maximum number of burrowswere found under a crown cover percentage of0-25. The fewest were found under a crown coverof 50-75 percent. The burrows were mainly foundnear Imperata cylindrica, Nephrolepisauriculata, Dendrocalamus, Ficus nerifolia andPinus roxburghii. Altogether 38 species of plantswere found to be associated with the burrows.The study conducted by Kaspal (2008) recorded35 species of vegetation and the distribution ofburrows near different plant species is similar.

Old Chinese pangolin burrow

New Chinese pangolin burrow

Social beliefs

It was found that the local people consideredChinese pangolins to be a sign of bad luck. Thisbelief kept people away from pangolins in the pastbecause it was believed that something bad wouldhappen if a pangolin was seen. A similar beliefwas reported from Vietnam(www.huffingtonpost.com) and China (Patel &Chin, 2008). But nowadays due to the high marketvalue of pangolin scales people are illegally huntingthis insectivorous mammal.

Conservation status

A total of 52 respondents were interviewedregarding the conservation status, trade issues andpossible threats to pangolins. Of those interviewed,43 respondents (82.7%) had seen Chinesepangolins during their life time, whereas ninerespondents (17.3%) had never seen a pangolin.However, all the respondents were aware ofpangolin signs, i.e., burrows. Forty-sevenrespondents (90.4%) were male and fiverespondents (10.6%) were female.

Population trend within the last five years

Among 52 people interviewed, 44 (84.6%) believedthat the pangolin population was decreasing; fiverespondents (9.6%) believed the population wasstable. Three respondents (5.8%) had noknowledge about the population trend.

Threats to Pangolin

About 45 respondents (86.6%) thought that huntingby humans was the main threat to pangolins. Sixrespondents (11.5%) thought habitat degradationwas the main threat. Only one respondent (1.9%)thought predation by wild animals was the mainthreat.

Causes of habitat degradation

Regarding the causes of habitat degradation, 19respondents (36.5%) focused on forest fires asthe main cause of habitat degradation. Twelverespondents (23.1%) focused on deforestation.Eleven respondents (21.2%) focused on roadconstruction. Six respondents (11.5%) focused on

| D

istr

ibut

ion

and

cons

erva

tion

sta

tus

of C

hine

se p

ango

lin

in N

angk

holy

ang

VD

C,

Tapl

ejun

g, e

aste

rn N

epal

|

2 5

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

2 52 5

fodder or grass collection and four respondents(7.7%) focused on grazing for the main cause.

Hunting pangolins

About 25 of the respondents (48.1%) said thathunting of pangolin was occasional (quarterly orhalf yearly). Nine of the respondents (17.3%) saidthat it was done regularly (weekly or monthly).Eight of the respondents (15.4%) thought thathunting was rarely done (annually or biannually).Ten of the respondents (19.2%) did not know aboutthe period of hunting of pangolins in villages.

According to the respondents’ views, 42 (17.3%)said that pangolins were hunted for trade. Ninerespondents (17.3%) said that the reason was formeat. Only one respondent (1.9%) answered thatit was for traditional medicine.

Price dynamics

About 15 respondents (28.8%) knew about theillegal trade in Chinese pangolin in that area.According to their response, the price dynamicsof scales within last five years is as follows:

Among 52 respondents, 11 (21.2%) were involvedin hunting. Five had hunted one time. Three hadhunted twice. Two had hunted 3 times and onerespondent had hunted 4 times.

Methods used to catch pangolin

Thirty-five respondents (67.3%) answered thatpangolins were caught by finding their burrows(wait, dig, fire). Nine respondents (17.3%)answered that pangolins were caught by trapping.Four respondents said that dogs were used to catchpangolins. Four respondents did not know aboutthe methods used to catchpangolins.

| Distribution and conservation status of C

hinese pangolin in Nangkholyang V

DC

, Taplejung, eastern Nepal |

2 62 6

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

Pangolin scales were seen in two houses duringquestionnaire survey. The local price of pangolinscale was very high (Rs. 26,000). Special skillsare not needed to kill this animal so anyone fromschool children to old people can be involved inthe search for pangolin. The price of pangolinscales varies from seller to seller and the placeof the sale. Respondents stated that the price ofpangolin scales depends upon the seller and hisbargaining power with the purchaser. The priceof a pangolin scale is higher if it is sold in the

market (Taplejung bazar, Birtamod), but whenit is sold in the village the price is comparativelylow. The price of pangolin scales also dependsupon the quality of the scales. The scales areof a mature animal will bring a higher price thanthose of an immature one. The trend seems toindicate a rapidly increasing price for scales.Five hunting tunnels were found during the fieldobservation.

| D

istr

ibut

ion

and

cons

erva

tion

sta

tus

of C

hine

se p

ango

lin

in N

angk

holy

ang

VD

C,

Tapl

ejun

g, e

aste

rn N

epal

|

Pangolin scales found in village

Bag of pangolin scales

Hunting tunnel dug by hunters tocatch pangolins

2 7

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

2 72 7

Gurung, J.B. 1996. A Pangolin Survey in RoyalNagarjung Forest in Kathmandu, Nepal.Tigerpaper 23(2): 29-32.

Kaspal, P. 2008. Status, distribution, habitatutilization and conservation of ChinesePangolin in the community forests ofSuryabinayak range post, Bhaktapurdistrict. M.Sc. Thesis, Khowpa college, T.Uaffiliated, Nepal

Lim, N.T.L. & P.K.L. Ng. 2008. Home range,activity cycle and natal den usage of afemale Sunda Pangolin Manis javanica(Mammalia: Pholidota) in Singapore.Endangered Species Research. Vol. 4 233-240.

Majupuria, T.C. & R.K. Majupuria. 2006.Wildlife and Protected areas of Nepal. S.Devi, India.

Pantel, S. & S.Y. Chin (eds.). 2008. Proceedingsof the Workshop on Trade andConservation of Pangolins Native toSouth and Southeast Asia, S.Y. TRAFFICSoutheast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Selangor,Malaysia.

Shrestha, B. 2005. Distribution and diversityof mammals in Shivapuri National Park.M.Sc. Thesis, Tribhuwan University, Nepal

Shrestha, T.K. 1981. Wildlife of Nepal. A studyof Renewable Resources of Nepal,Himalayas. Curriculum Development Center,T.U., Kathmandu.

Suwal, T.L. 2011. Status, distribution, behaviorand conservation of Pangolins in privateand community forests of Balthali in Kavre,Nepal. M.Sc. Thesis, Tribhuwan University,Nepal

Wu, S.B., Liu, N.F., Zhang, Y.M. & G.Z. Ma. 2004.Assessment of Threatened Status ofChinese Pangolin (Manis pentadactyla).Chinese Journal of Applied EnvironmentalBiology 10 (4): 456-461

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/scaly-anteater-Pangolin-b_n_742282.html

Author’s address: Institute of Forestry,Hariyokharka-35, Pokhara, Email:prakash.thapa68@gmail.com

Conclusion

Chinese pangolins were distributed in all the wardsof Nangkholyang VDC, Taplejung. Indirect signsof pangolin found in the study area included 211burrows (16 new, 195 old), scats, footprints andtraces of tail scrapes. The burrows weredistributed from sub-tropical to temperate regions,i.e., 1,126 to 2,406 m altitude, with the highestlocation found at 1,520 – 1,620 m. The mostpreferred aspect was the southwest. The habitatutilized was in agricultural land and forest. In forest,the maximum number of burrows were found inopen forest with crown cover of 0-25%. Thirty-eight types of plant species were found aroundthe burrows.

Social belief about Chinese pangolin was found tobe negative, but due to the profit motive peoplewere hunting this creature.

The conservation status of Chinese pangolin wasfound to be worsening. Hunting and trapping forillegal trade was found to be the major threat forpangolins. Habitat degradation was also a threat.The population trend within the last five years wasfound to be decreasing.

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the NationalTrust for Nature Conservation, PangolinConservation Committee, Nangkholyang and theresidents of Nangkholyang VDC, Taplejung.

References

Acharya, P., Rana, K., Devkota, M. and Y. Gurung.1993. A report on conservation status ofPangolins in the protected forest ofNagarjune. Tigerpaper 3(1): 35-38

CBS. 2001. Central Bureau of Statistics. HMG/Nepal, Thapathali, Kathmandu.

Duckworth, J.W., Steinmitz, R., Pattanavibool, A.,Than Zaw, Do Tuoc & P. Newton. 2008.Manis pentadactyla. In: IUCN 2012. IUCNRed List of Threatened Species. Version2012.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloadedon 07 August 2012.

| Distribution and conservation status of C

hinese pangolin in Nangkholyang V

DC

, Taplejung, eastern Nepal |

2 82 8

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

| St

atus

of s

eagr

asse

s in

Mar

ine

Nat

iona

l Par

k, G

ulf o

f Kac

hchh

, Ind

ia |

STATUS OF SEAGRASSES IN MARINE NATIONAL PARK,GULF OF KACHCHH, INDIA

by R.D. Kamboj

Introduction

The lesser known but vibrant coastal ecosystem of seagrass meadows are very important

for coastal communities as they provide variousgoods and services and are critical componentsof a vital, interdependent and interconnected seriesof coastal ecosystems. Along coastlines,mangroves, coral reefs, seagrasses and sand dunesare often found together and form a mosaic ofmicro-organisms, algal, fungal, floral and faunalcommunities. Each of these form integral parts ofinterdependent coastal ecosystems (Kallese etal., 2008).

Seagrasses are seed-bearing, flowering, rootedplants, which grow submerged, exclusively inmarine coastal waters and coastal wetlands. Likegrasses in terrestrial habitats, they form meadowson the bed of coastal seas. They are dependenton light penetration for photosynthesis; therefore,they generally grow only in clear, shallow waters,in estuaries and coastal seas. They cannot surviveout of water; therefore, they often grow wherethere is shelter from a sand bar or coral reefs.Seagrasses are different from the seaweeds whichare also found in a marine environment comprisingmostly algae or kelp. These seaweeds lack thevascular systems for the transport of food andwater which are found in seagrasses. Similarly,seaweeds also lack flowers and fruits that arespecialized for reproduction, as well as roots.

Seagrasses are the only flowering plants that haveadapted to a completely submerged life in the sea.In order to thrive in tidal and subtidal marineenvironments, these grasses have specialadaptations to withstand the wave energy of thesea and sub-marine pollination. Air-filled tissuesin the leaves facilitate gas exchange with theenvironment and the plants have salt tolerance upto 36 parts per thousand. Seagrasses growunderwater rooted to the sea floor. The

underground rhizomes and roots are in blacksediments with no oxygen and therefore the plantsneed the sugars and oxygen produced duringphotosynthesis in the above-ground parts for theirsurvival. Seagrasses need more sunlight thanalgae, which do not have underground parts. Thislimits the depth to which seagrasses can grow(Orth et al., 2006). They need more than 10% ofthe light falling at the water surface compared toalgae, which only need 1% (Bjork et al., 2008).

Importance of seagrass

Seagrass meadows constitute ecologically andeconomically important habitats as they providemany goods and services to our ecosystem whichalso benefit human beings such as the many ediblefish found living in seagrass; they are nurseriesfor many commercial fin and shellfish species; theyprovide for the aquaculture and aquarium trades;and the plants themselves are used as insulationand thatching material for housing and packaging.They also offer regulating services such asprevention of erosion, prevention of pollution andsedimentation in coastal waters, stabilizing the floorof coastal seas, giving supporting services likeprimary production in the ecosystem, supportingcoastal biodiversity, enriching nutrients in coastalwaters and acting as indicators of health of thecoastal ecosystem. They also offer cultural andrecreational services and in many countries alsosupport traditional fishing practices. They act asfilters for coastal waters as they slow down watercurrents, trapping particles, nutrient organic matterand pollutants washed from inland waters to coastalareas.

There are only about 60 species of seagrassesrecorded all over the world (Phillips and Menez,1988). From India, 15 species of seagrassesbelonging to seven genera have been reported,which accounts for about 30% of the totalseagrasses reported in the world (Jagtap, 1991).

2 9

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

2 92 9

In Marine National Park, Gulf of Kachchh, sixspecies of seagrass are reported from the regionshaving mudflats and sand from the lower intertidalzone to a depth of 10-15 m along the islands inmost cases.

Distribution of seagrass in Marine NationalPark

The Marine National Park and Sanctuary(MNP&S) is situated along the southern coast ofthe Gulf of Kachchh in Jamnagar and Rajkotdistrict between 20 15’ N to 23 40’ N latitudesand 68 20’ to 70 40’ E longitudes. An area of620 km2 was declared as the Marine National Parkand Sanctuary by the Government of Gujarat in1980 and 1982. There are 42 islands, each rangingfrom only a few hectares to as large as 7,000hectares in area. It encompasses a variety ofhabitats, viz., coral reefs, mangrove forests, sandybeaches, mudflats, rocky coast, seagrass beds,wide intertidal areas, etc. This diversity of habitatscaters to the needs of thousands of flora and faunaand provides them suitable shelter.

Attempts to study the seagrass ecosystemexclusively in Marine National Park, Gulf ofKachchh, are not encountered through a reviewof literature. However, information on theoccurrence of seagrass has been recorded byvarious agencies/organizations studying themangroves, coral reefs and related aspects ofMarine National Park. Jagtap (1991) reported theoccurrence of four species of seagrass from theGulf of Kachchh. Halophila beccarii wasreported to have common occurrence whereasthree other species, viz., Halodule uninervis,Halophila ovalis and H. ovata were very rare.The status of seagrass was reported to bedegraded. Nair (2002) reported three species viz.,Halodule univervis, Halophila ovate and H.beccari on sandy regions of Narara reef andKalubhar reef. A comprehensive study on thebiodiversity and management issues of MarineNational Park carried out by Singh et al. (2004)shows the locality-wise status of seagrass. Thelocalities with maximum abundance were observedat Paga reef, Chandri reef, Noru reef, Bhuralchank reef, Kalubhar reef, Narara reef, Boria,Mangunda, Goose and Pirotan. The locationswithout seagrass were Bet Dwarka, Sonemiar,

Khara chusna, Dedeka, Mundeka, Okha andArambhda. The localities with the minimumabundance of seagrasses were Meetha Chusna,Bhaidar, Chank, Ajad, Jindra, Chhad and Poshitra.This study recorded only three species from theintertidal reef areas of Marine National Park asagainst the six species reported by SAC in 2010.The scientific investigations carried out by theSpace Application Centre (Indian Space ResearchOrganization) Ahmedabad, during the period from2004 to 2007, revealed the presence of seagrasson different islands in Marine National Park. Theresults of these investigations indicated thepresence of six species of seagrass from the Gulfof Kachchh. Seagrass (Thalassia hermprichii)has been mapped along with algae on the inwardside of the reef flats of Bural Chank and Pagareefs, Kalubhar, Narara reef and Pirotan. Thecommon seagrasses found growing on the muddysubstrate are Halophila ovalis, H. beccarii andZostrea marina (SAC, 2010).

The Gujarat Ecology Commission andBhaskaracharya Institute for Space Applicationand GEO-Informatics, Gandhinagar, jointlypublished the “Coral Atlas of Gujarat State” in2011, in which an attempt has been made tocompile the area-wise distribution of seagrassesin different areas of Marine National Park. Theresults of the compilation are reproduced in Table1.

During an inspection of various areas/islands ofMarine National Park during last two years, theauthor has observed seagrass patches on variouslocalities which have been photographed andreproduced as figures A to D.

It is interesting to observe that the area underseagrass in Marine National Park may be morethan 2,500 ha, as some of the islands havingpresence of seagrass as per SAC (2010) havebeen not included in Table 1. The largest extentof the area has been reported from Bhural reef,comprising Chank, Noru, Bhaidar, Khara chusnaand Meetha chusna islands.

Seagrass associated fauna

Due to the occurrence of a large area of seagrasshabitat, the Marine National Park supports a large

| Status of seagrasses in Marine N

ational Park, G

ulf of Kachchh, India |

3 03 0

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

Table 1: Extent of Seagrass in Marine National Park

Sr. No. Name of Reef/Islands Area (ha) 1 Bhural reef (Chank, Noru, Bhaider and Chusna both) 1,321.72 2 Ajad Tapu 8.94 3 Gandhio kado 3.01 4 Goose reef 15.65 5 Sikka reef 198.81 6 Dedika-Mundika reef 354.62 7 Pirotan 504.18 8 Chhad and Jindra 25.38

Total : 2,432.31  

array of marine fauna including vulnerable specieslike green sea turtles and dugongs. A researcherfrom the GEER Foundation, Mr. Yashpal Anand,detected and photographed watery, trail-likeconfigurations amidst the seagrass beds dominatedby Halophila spp. at a place adjoining PirotanIsland in Marine National Park (22 34’ 40.4" N;69 59’ 07.3"E) in May 2009. Subsequently, thephotographs of these trails were sent to ProfessorHelene Marsh (Australia), who confirmed theseto be likely feeding trails of dugong, indicatingindirect evidence of the occurrence of dugong inMarine National Park. The study also recordedfor the first time large seagrass beds dominatedby Halophila spp. near Pirotan Island, Gulf ofKachchh (Pandey et al., 2010). Similarly, theauthor, along with staff, during inspection ofBhaider Island in first week of January 2012, cameacross patches of seagrass near this island andalso found four carcasses of sea turtles on theisland confirming its presence in the area.

Threats to seagrass meadows

Like all coastal ecosystems, seagrasses are alsosubjected to multiple impacts that are often frominland sources at local, national and global levels.Many anthropogenic activities impact the seagrassecosystem and it is estimated that to date 65% ofthe seagrass meadows has been lost as a resultof coastal development and alteration (Bjork etal., 2008). In Marine National Park, there are bothnatural and anthropogenic threats to seagrassdescribed as follows.

Pollution

One of the major threats to the seagrass meadowsin Marine National Park is pollution due to variousindustries and sedimentation affecting the waterquality. Because sea grass meadows aredependent on sunlight for photosynthesis, waterclarity and quality are important for the health ofthis ecosystem. When there is excessivesedimentation and the turbidity of the waterincreases, then seagrass meadows are affected.Dredging and coastal development also causeswater turbidity affecting seagrass.

Eutrophication

Industrial and domestic pollution and runoff frominland areas carrying with it excessive nitrogenand phosphorus from fertilizers, animal anddomestic waste leads to an extreme burst of growthof algae which blocks light and oxygen fromreaching the waters below the surface. The waterthen turns cloudy and green, further blocking lightpenetration and thus adversely affecting theseagrasses.

Other sources of pollution such as oil spillage fromtankers, ships, sub-sea pipelines and hot waterdischarge from industries also affect the conditionof seagrasses.

Port, harbor and jetty development facilities onthe coastline are leading to the increase of

| St

atus

of s

eagr

asse

s in

Mar

ine

Nat

iona

l Par

k, G

ulf o

f Kac

hchh

, Ind

ia |

3 1

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

3 13 1

sedimentation, solid waste and marine pollutionaffecting the seagrass.

Irresponsible fishing is another threat toseagrasses in Marine National Park. Fishingactivity, in particular trawlers, shore seineoperations, gill net operations and boat anchorageare adversely affecting the seagrasses. Whenfishing boats enter into areas where there areseagrass meadows, their propellers can slashleaves as well as the rhizomes of seagrass, leadingto fragmentation of the habitat, which, in turn,adversely affects the seagrass.

Climate change

Seagrass meadows are much more at risk fromclimate change as it will cause many changes inthe oceans. Water temperature will be higher,acidity will increase (as a result of increaseddissolved CO

2), the sea level will rise, storms and

extreme weather events will increase in intensityand frequency, the amount of falling rain willchange, wave climates will be altered, and seawater will intrude into fresh water (IUCN, 2007).

Acknowledgements

The author is thankful to Dr. Chandresh S.Dave, Marine Biologist, Integrated CoastalZone Management Project, Marine NationalPark, Jamnagar for rendering academic andsecretarial assistance in preparation of thismanuscript.

References

Anon. 2011. Coral Atlas of Gujarat State,Gujarat Ecology Commission, Gandhinagar,India, 96 pp.

Bjork, M., Short, F., Mcleod, E. and S. Beer. 2008.Managing Seagrasses for Resilience toClimate Change. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.56 pp.

IUCN. 2007. Climate Change. CoastalEcosystems 6, October 2007. http://iucn.org/p l a c e s / a s i a / c o a s t a l i n f o r / d o c s /Coastal_Ecosystems_Newsletter_6.pdf

Jagtap, T.G. 1991. Distribution of seagrassesalong the Indian coast. Aquatic Botany 40:379-386.

Kallese, M.F., Bambaradeniya, C., Iftikhar,U.A., Ranasinghe, T. and S. Miththapala.2008. Linking Coastal Ecosystems andHuman Well-Being: Learning fromconceptual frameworks and empiricalresults. Colombo: Ecosystems andLivelihoods Group, Asia, IUCN. Viii+49 pp.

Mithathapala, S. 2008. Seagrass and SandDunes. Coastal Ecosystem series (Vol. 3) pp1.36+iii, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Ecosystem &Livelihood Group Asia, IUCN.

Nair, V. 2002. Status of flora and fauna of Gulfof Kachchh. National Institute ofOceanography, Goa. 157 pp.

Orth, R. J. et al. 2006. A global crisis forseagrass ecosystems. BioScience 56(12):987-996.

Pandey, C.N., Tatu, K.S. and Y.A. Anand. 2010.Status of Dugong (Dugong dugon) in India.Gujarat Ecological Education & Research(GEER) Foundation, Gandhinagar. 146 pp.

Phillips, R.C. and E.G. Menez. 1988. Seagrasses.Smithsonian Contributions to the MarineSciences. Washington DC: SmithsonianInstitution Press. 34 pp.

SAC. 2007. Atlas of the coastal habitats of theselected Marine Protected Areas. SpaceApplication Centre, (I.S.R.O.) Ahmedabad,India. 76 pp.

SAC. 2010. Coral Reef Atlas of the WorldVol.1 Central Indian Ocean. SpaceApplication Centre, (I.S.R.O.), Ahmedabad,India. 282 pp.

Singh, H.S., Pandey, C.N., Yennawar, P., Asari,R.J., Patel, B.H., Tatu, K. and B.R. Raval.2004. The Marine National Park andSanctuary in the Gulf of Kachchh – acomprehensive study on biodiversity andmanagement issues. GEER Foundation,Gandhinagar, 370 pp.

Author’s address: Chief Conservator ofForests, Marine National Park, “Van Sankul”,Near Nagnath Gate, Jamnagar – 361001;Email: rdkamboj@yahoo.com

| Status of seagrasses in Marine N

ational Park, G

ulf of Kachchh, India |

3 23 2

Vol. 40: No. 3 2013

Fig. 1 Seagrass patch on Bhaidar Island

Fig. 2 Seagrass patches on Goose Island

Fig. 3 Seagrass on Narara Reef

Fig. 4 Seagrass on Noru Island

| St

atus

of s

eagr

asse

s in

Mar

ine

Nat

iona

l Par

k, G

ulf o

f Kac

hchh

, Ind

ia |

1

Vol. 27: No. 3 2013

1

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

Vol. 27: No. 3 2013

FAO’S WORK ON COMBATING CLIMATE CHANGERECEIVES RECOGNITION AT THAILAND’S CLIMATECHANGE ADAPTATION EXPO

The Climate Change Adaptation Expo, organizedby the Office of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Policy and Planning (ONEP) underMoNRE, was aimed at promoting greaterawareness on climate change adaptation amongthe general public. FAO was one of around 30organizations (UN, bilateral, Thai governmentagencies, and the private sector) that participatedin the expo held 26-28 September at Central WorldSquare in Bangkok.

Mr. Vili A. Fuavao, FAO Deputy RegionalRepresentative, received a “Friends of Thailand’sClimate” award on behalf of the Organization.The award cited FAO’s efforts in combatingclimate change, with its role in formulating aclimate change strategy and action plan.

The FAO booth highlighted the approach of FAOin mitigation and adaptation to climate changeacross all sectors. The organization has madeclimate change mitigation and adaptation a majorprogram by mainstreaming climate change intothe development planning of countries. Theprogram’s objective is to build resilientcommunities and capable government agenciesable to handle the challenges of climate change.The booths displayed posters depicting the impactof climate change on vulnerable communities, howone can mitigate climate change through simplelifestyle measures, and FAO’s work on adaptation,entitled “FAO in Action”. This poster capturedthe entire gamut of work that FAO is undertaking,which includes climate-smart agriculture, climate-smart livestock, invasive species, droughtmanagement, gender and climate change,indigenous knowledge, forests and climate change,water cycles and climate change, etc.

Besides information on climate change, FAO’sbooth adopted a participatory approach wherevisitors were invited to undertake a computer-based quiz on climate change, and alsoparticipate in the “FAO Hero” contest, whichrequired them to post their ideas on how toaddress climate change. The successfulparticipants received certificates and a chanceto pose for a photograph with the “FAO Hero”.

We would like to thank a number of individualswho contributed to FAO’s booth. They include:Patrick Durst, Matthew Leete and Leyla Arpacfor ideas on poster designs; Gerard Sylvesterand Kevin McKeen for designing the computer-based quiz; Ms Kanyapat Seneewong NaAyudhaya and Sakchai McDonough for posterdesign work; and Simmathiri Appanah forpulling the entire scheme together.

By Kallaya Meechantra & Sarinna SunkphayungOctober 2013

Vili Fuavao, FAO Deputy Regional Representative for Asia

and the Pacific, receiving the “Friends of Thailand Climate

trophy on behalf of FAO from Vichet Kasem-thongsri,

Minister of Natural Resources and Environment.

Vol. 27: No. 3 2013

22

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

FAO’s booth and staff atthe Expo with the “FAOHero.”

Children taking the climatechange quiz.

After successfully completing the quiz,certificates were issued.

The “My Action, My Idea” board drew manypeople to post their ideas about climatechange.

3

Vol. 27: No. 3 2013

3

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

WORLD TEAK EXPERTS, PRODUCERS AND TRADERSCONVENE IN THAILAND

“Sharing our planet: Teak model development towards the improvement of mankind”

The World Teak Conference 2013 convened inBangkok, Thailand, 25-30 March 2013. TheConference was jointly hosted by TEAKNET,The Plant Genetic Conservation Project under theRoyal Initiative of Her Royal Highness PrincessMaha Chakri Sirindhorn of Thailand (RSPG),Plant Genetic Conservation Foundation, FAO,ITTO and the IUFRO Teakwood Working PartyD5.06.02 and co-hosted by a total of 31 agencies.

Teak grows naturally in India, Myanmar, Thailandand Lao PDR, covering over 29 million hectares.Planted teak is raised in 38 tropical countries andcovers 4.3 million hectares. The estimated marketshare of teak logs in the total tropical roundwoodproduction is less than 2%; however, teak is partof the high-value hardwood market, and is a majorcomponent of the forest economies of many

tropical countries. The superior qualities of teakwood make it a preferred species for ship building,construction, furniture making and other multipleend-uses. Substantial experience has been gainedin the management of teak resources forsustainable teak wood production from tropicalplantations worldwide.

Objectives

The major objective of the programme was toexamine the multiple aspects of teak cultivationand management in the context of sustainabledevelopment with social, ecological and economicimplications.

Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindorn graciously presided over the Opening Ceremony of theWorld Teak Conference.

Vol. 27: No. 3 2013

44

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

Opening Ceremony

In his opening remarks Mr. Hiroyuki Konuma,Assistant Director-General, FAO Regional Officefor Asia and the Pacific, highlighted the importanceand support given to the management andutilization of this high-value species in plantationsand farm lands in the Asia-Pacific region. Hepointed out that teak is an excellent crop for timberproduction in small farms, agroforestry, and withrehabilitation of degraded lands. Thesedevelopments can potentially lead to small andmedium industries in rural settings. However, inmost instances, the policies, regulations andinstitutional setups are not adequately developedto foster such positive changes. FAO has beenactively seeking countries to implement theseprerequisites, so rural communities can benefitfrom forestry, their livelihoods are raised, and urbanmigration can be stemmed. Simultaneously, FAOis also exploring other win-win strategies wherebyfarm and agro-forestry developments can alsoaddress climate change mitigation whilecontributing to sustainable development. Teak canbe an anchor species in all such initiatives.

Technical Sessions

Symposium I: Genetics, Silviculture, andUtilization

Conclusions: Under the present situation, a strategy for the

genetic improvement of teak should beformulated with more consideration given toconservation of the existing gene pool.

Mutual cooperation among international,regional and national agencies under theauspices of TEAKNET and IUFRO needsto be strengthened.

For practical application, the delineation ofprovenance zones is suggested.

Seed production of clonal seed orchardsrequires more urgent research to overcomethe existing problems.

Biotechnological tools in conjunction withintensive breeding programs need to bedeveloped.

Risk assessment should be taken intoconsideration in conjunction with an insurancepackage.

Symposium II: Environment, Climate Changeand Carbon Trading

Key issues: Sustainable carbon sinks of teak plantations

for sustainable forest management, as a toolto maintain or increase carbon stocks and tomeet eligibility for sustainable forestmanagement standards (e.g., ForestStewardship Certification: FSC and ISO) andas a screen for forestry mitigation projects.

Low carbon teak products can be developedthrough reducing emission from woodproducts of teak, carbon capture and storage(CCS) in teakwood products and assessmentof the carbon profile and carbon footprint ofteakwood products.

The potential of teak plantations in carbontrading includes new facilities or creditingopportunities under the UNFCCC (e.g.,REDD+, Nationally Appropriate MitigationActivities (NAMAs) and sectoral creditingopportunities); incentives for teak plantationsin carbon markets (e.g., government subsidiesor tax incentives to stimulate carbon marketsin the forestry sector); voluntary carbonmarket (VCM) and CSR with high qualitystandards and other sustainable forestmanagement standards (e.g., FSC).

Recognition of the co-benefits of teakplantations refers to benefits from tradingcarbon other than carbon benefits, such asbiodiversity conservation, environmentalservices and their significance for locallivelihoods in REDD+, VCM and otherforestry projects.

Symposium III: Economics and Investments

Major issues in teak investments: Based on the wood’s aesthetic qualities,

strength and durability, teak has been utilizedfor centuries in high-end furniture and shipbuilding and the mindset of the consumers wasbased on tradition and the preference fornatural forest teak that has matured with age.One significant difference between naturalteak and plantation teak is the relatively lowerlevels of tectoquinone (anti-termite) orlapachol (antifungal), which contributes to

5

Vol. 27: No. 3 2013

5

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

decay resistance in the latter. However, thereare some ways to improve plantation teak tomake its qualities closer to that of natural teak.

The prices of natural teak and plantation teakdiffer greatly at the moment. This willdefinitely affect the ROI depending on whichprices are in use. A number of investors gotinto the investment by looking at the highprices of natural teak in the market.

Teak is excellent for carbon trading.Compared to other investments, wood isbecoming important as it is renewable andconsidered very eco-friendly. The investmentin plantations means they are also investing incarbon trading, which shows theorganization’s Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR) to the world.

Based on the investment criteria, there is noevidence of successful cases among the smallholders. Investing in the forest is long-termand involves fringe benefits. Studies have tofocus on successful options for the small scaleinvestments in order for the small holders toprofit from the teak plantation as well.

Extensive research has gone into geneticimprovement, raising tissue culture plantationsand manipulation of nature to improve thedimensions, straightness, and percentage ofheartwood and to reduce the rotation yearsto 20 years, focusing on the yield.

Research on teak has been done extensivelyon silvicultural aspects, but is very limitedregarding the production and improvement ofplantation teak; in particular, the aesthetic

attributes were not covered as driven bymarket demands in the high-end categories.

Symposium IV: Rural Development

The highlights were: Awareness of intercropping methods among

farmers and small holders is needed due tothe long-term returns from teak cultivation.Ownership of land is also essential if teak isto make significant contributions to thelivelihood of rural communities.

Make available quality teak germplasm toavoid planting of poor quality seedlings by thefarmers.

The important role of Government, supportagencies and policy makers for adoptingimproved silvicultural and marketingmanagement systems for the smallholders.

There is need for collaborative research andpartnership with teak-growing countries toenhance the livelihood of small holdersthrough sustainable forestry.

Establishment of a Community Tree Bank asa model of self-sufficiency for rural people toencourage them to plant trees which havegreat potential for mitigating greenhouse gasemissions which lead to global warming, andalso creating investment opportunities.

Source: Teaknet Bulletin Volume 6 Issue 2&3 April& July 2013

Source: Facebook meme

Vol. 27: No. 3 2013

66

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

GLOBAL MEETING IN PREPARATION FOR FRA 2015

Prepared by Örjan Jonsson, Forestry Officer, FAO

Introduction

The “Global Meeting in Preparation for FRA2015” and the “Collaborative Forest ResourcesQuestionnaire Reporting” took place 6-10 May2013, in Chiang Mai, Thailand. It was jointlyorganized by the Royal Forest Department ofThailand and FAO. More than 120 participantsfrom 96 countries, including the NationalCorrespondents to FRA 2015, representatives ofpartner organizations, FAO Headquarters and theFAO Regional office for Asia and the Pacific(RAPA) attended the event.

The programme included plenary presentationsand small group sessions organized according tolanguages, plus a computer room for interactivework. An open knowledge fair and small groupsessions allowed participants to clarify any issuesrelated to the FRA 2015 reporting.

Background to FRA 2015

Global forest resources assessments have beencarried out by FAO since 1946. The mandate tocarry out these assessments stems both from thebasic statutes of FAO and the Committee onForestry (COFO). Global forest resourcesassessment reports have been published at periodicintervals of five to ten years. The latest of thesereports, FRA 2010, was published in 2010. TheGlobal Forest Resources Assessment 2015, orFRA 2015, was mandated by the twentieth sessionof COFO.

The key milestones of FRA 2015 are outlinedbelow to give an overview of the process and thedeadlines.

7

Vol. 27: No. 3 2013

7

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

Activity Tentative date Comment/output Global meeting, Regional, sub-regional and national workshops

March 2013 – November 2013

Country reporting process, technical assistance including regional workshops and review of draft country reports.

Deadline for submission of draft country reports

15 July 2013 Countries are strongly encouraged to submit draft reports well in advance of the deadline.

Deadline for completion of final country reports

15 October 2013 Country reports reviewed and completed.

Confirmation of final country reports

15 December 2013

Official request for validation of the final country reports will be sent to countries.

Public release of FRA 2015 report(s), public access to FRIMS

September 2015 Several publications are planned for FRA 2015 release at the World Forestry Congress, Durban South Africa

Key outcomes

All National Correspondents were informedabout the FRA 2015 country reporting processand the CFRQ working modalities;

All aspects of FRA 2015 were clarified andcountry reporting capacity was improved;

National Correspondents are familiar with theuse and functionalities of the Forest ResourcesInformation Management System (FRIMS);

National Correspondents were informed aboutthe FRA 2015 remote sensing activities;

National Correspondents were informed aboutthe Forest Futures study and scenarioformulation is improved;

National Correspondents are informed aboutthe national capacity building plan activitiesand benefits derived from its implementation;

Improved plan for the analysis and publicationsof FRA 2015 results; and

Networking and exchange of experiencesamong national experts in forest monitoringassessment and reporting was fostered.

For more details regarding the Global ForestResources Assessment Programme, please visitthe FRA website at: www.fao.org/forestry/fra.

Vol. 27: No. 3 2013

88

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

THE ILLEGAL TIMBER TRAIL

1 Robert Simpson, EU FAO FLEGT Programme Manager; Bruno Cammaert, Forestry Officer & FAO FLEGT FocalPoint, Asia; Giulia Muir, information consultant

2 UNODC. Environmental Crime, The Trafficking of Wildlife and Timber.

3 INTERPOL/ UNEP. 2012. Green Carbon, Black Trade: Illegal Logging, Tax Fraud and Laundering in the Worlds TropicalForests.4 EIA. 2012. Apetite for Destruction: China’s trade in Illegal Timber.5 EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), Lacey Act Amendment (USA), Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill (Australia) and GreenPurchasing Law (Japan).

How global timber demand is causing the destruction or degradation of carbon-rich forests andvital wildlife habitats around the world, and what consumer countries are doing about it.

By Robert Simpson, Bruno Cammaert and Giulia Muir1

The challenge

In a carbon-rich forest in Madagascar, a CITES-protected rosewood (Dalbergia spp.) tree is beingfelled illicitly. This tree will very likely follow acomplex and illegal timber trail thousands ofkilometers long into a private home or businessaround the world. Malagasy rosewood fetchesaround US$45-50,000/ton in China and a set offurniture made from rare rosewoods has beenfound to reach an asking price of US$1,000,000,making the trade fuel for illegal crime andcorruption. This insatiable appetite for rosewoodis having an equally devastating impact in thegreater Mekong region – including Myanmar,Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam – alsohome to a number of rosewood species of theDalbergia and Pterocarpus genera. Demand forrosewood is just one example of the effectsconsumer choices are having on forests in theregion and around the globe.

Compounding the problem is that many tropicaltimber-producing countries are plagued by weakgovernance and corruption in the forest sector.Together with rising consumer demand, thesetrends are fuelling widespread forest loss anddegradation throughout Asia, with repercussionsbeing felt far beyond the region. In contrast tosales of elephant ivory, rhino horn and tiger parts

worth an estimated US$75 million2 which havequickly and legitimately captured the publicimagination, the illegal timber trade betweenSouth-East Asia and the European Union (EU)and other areas in Asia is estimated to be worthUS$3.5 billion, with global estimates of trade inillegal timber reaching as high as US$30-100billion3. Asian and European consumption of illicittimber now makes up more than half of theglobal market.

So what?

The trade in illegal timber and associated illicitpractices in the forest sector – such as illegallogging, corruption, unlawful concession allocation,illicit conversion of forests to agricultural use andso on – can have a series of devastating impacts.In addition to destroying carbon-rich forests,devastating biodiversity hotspots, exacerbatingpoverty, fuelling conflicts with local communities,creating market distortions and political instabilityand contributing to growing greenhouse gasemissions, illegal forest practices exacerbaterevenue loss from the forest sector (forests aredegraded and the citizens of those countries reapno benefits). At the peak of Indonesia’s illegallogging problem, when 80 percent of the timberbeing exported was illegal or considered suspect,

9

Vol. 27: No. 3 2013

9

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

the Indonesian Government estimated that thistrade was costing them US$4 billion annually fromfailed collection of royalties and tax evasion, fivetimes more than the country’s 2004 health budget4.What’s more, recent years have seen a shift inmentality among a number of consumer countriesaround the world, including the European Union,the United States, Australia and Japan, to adoptsustainable procurement policies5. If this trend inconsumer mentality continues, failure todemonstrate legality and improve governance inthe forest sector will increasingly limit access tointernational markets in the years to come.

What is the European Union doing to counterthe illegal timber trade?

The illegal timber trade and associated organizedand criminal activity thrives on weak forestgovernance, unrealistic and unenforced laws andcorruption in the forest sector. In light of this, andin part swayed by growing public concern aboutthe environmental, social and legal credentials oftimber, the EU adopted an Action Plan on ForestLaw Enforcement, Governance and Trade(FLEGT) in 2003. The FLEGT Action Planinvolves a series of supply- and demand-sidemeasures that aim to improve forest governanceand in turn, legality in the sector. One of the maintools of the Action Plan is the negotiation andconclusion of Voluntary Partnership Agreements(VPAs), bilateral accords between the EuropeanUnion and timber-producing partner countries thatwork to support measures and technologies thatcan distinguish between illegally and legallyproduced forest products and that strengthen forestgovernance altogether. The Action Plan alsocontains many options for countries interested inaddressing forest governance without engaging inthe VPA process.

What is the EU FAO FLEGT Programme?

The EU Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)FLEGT Programme is a demand-drivenProgramme which provides grants of up to €100,000 to local stakeholder groups includinggovernment institutions, private sectororganizations and civil society in timber-producingdeveloping countries to help put the FLEGT ActionPlan into practice. In addition to working in Africa

and Latin America, the Programme is building apresence in the Asia-Pacific region, working withlocal stakeholders in countries negotiating orimplementing a VPA and other eligible timberproducing countries. For example, the Programmeis supporting implementing partners in: 1) VietNam to effectively address stakeholderconsultation and legality of imported timber in thecontext of a VPA; 2) Myanmar to developsustainable Community Forestry (CF) initiativesby enhancing the legality of timber production andtrade and improving CF and smallholder timberrevenues; and 3) Nepal to promote goodgovernance and increase transparency ofproduction and trade of Shorea robusta bydeveloping independent monitoring of timbertraceability, verification and control systems andbuilding necessary capacities of differentstakeholders. The Programme will also beoperating in Indonesia, Lao PDR and Malaysia in2013 and is currently soliciting proposals fromother eligible timber-producing countries in theregion.

For more information, please see: www.fao.org/forestry/eu-flegt/en/

REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON CAPACITY BUILDING NEEDS,

16–17 October, Bangkok, Thailand This workshop provides an opportunity for government, civil society and private sector representatives to learn more about existing and emerging international timber market requirements and the available forest governance support programmes in the region. Participants will be invited to identify key regional FLEGT support and capacity building priorities, in particular in the areas of stakeholder engagement in forest governance improvement processes, compliance to market requirements, especially for SMEs, and the development and local implementation of systems that help governments assure the legality of their timber production. The event is co-organized by the EU FAO FLEGT Programme, the EU FLEGT Facility, RAFT, UK-DFID and GIZ under the auspices of the Thai Royal Forest Department. For more information, please contact: Bruno.Cammaert@fao.org

 

Vol. 27: No. 3 2013

1 01 0

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

FLEGT IN ASIA: SUPPORTING GOOD GOVERNANCE ANDRESPONSIBLE TRADE FOR ASIA’S FORESTS

A Regional Workshop on Capacity Building Needsto Support FLEGT in Asia is being organized byFAO and the Royal Thai Forest Department inBangkok, Thailand, 16-17 October 2013.Participants will include government, civil societyand private sector representatives from regionalVPA countries (Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia,Thailand and Vietnam), plus Cambodia,Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines,Solomon Islands; representatives of EUdelegations of concerned countries; andrepresentatives and resource persons fromFLEGT-related support programmes (EFI, RAFT,DFID, FAO, GIZ)

Background

In 2003, the European Union (EU) adopted itsAction Plan on Forest Law Enforcement,Governance and Trade (FLEGT) with the aim tohalt illegal logging and promote better governance.The negotiation and conclusion of a VoluntaryPartnership Agreement (VPA) between the EUand a Partner Country has been the predominanttool, but there are many measures in the ActionPlan to support improved governance. Theultimate objective of a VPA is to ensure, througha licensing scheme, that only legal timber isimported into the EU. Each VPA is dependent onthe development and implementation of a LegalityAssurance System (LAS), which includes adefinition of legal timber, a verification system, alicensing system and an independent audit. Fivecountries in Asia have initiated actions to developa VPA: Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, the LaoPeople’s Democratic Republic, and most recentlyThailand. Indonesia, which concluded negotiationsin May 2011, is due to sign its VPA soon, and ismaking significant progress towardsimplementation of the VPA requirements.

The EU Timber Regulation became applicable inMarch 2013 and prohibits the placing of illegaltimber and timber products on the EU market.

The United States and Australia have both adoptedsimilar legislations, completing a significantdemand-side incentive to address illegal loggingin supplier and processing countries. China, Japanand South Korea are contemplating the furtherdevelopment of policy instruments to curb the tradein illegal timber and timber products.

A number of programmes support regional andcountry-level action to address illegal logging andto facilitate the implementation of these new trade-related legal instruments. The executing agencyof the EU FLEGT Action Plan is the EuropeanForest Institute’s (EFI) EU FLEGT Facility. Since2007, EFI has been providing technical andfinancial support to VPA processes and otherelements of the EU FLEGT Action Plan. SinceMay 2012, the EU has further strengthened itssupport with the EU-FAO FLEGT Programme,implemented by FAO. The programme supportslocal stakeholder groups in developing countriesto put the FLEGT Action Plan into practice. Inaddition, the European Commission has thematicprogrammes such as the EU-ENRTP (ThematicProgramme for Environment and SustainableManagement of Natural Resources) and countryprogrammes that can support FLEGT-relatedactivities. Concurrently, substantial support is alsoprovided by the UK Forest Governance, Marketsand Climate (FGMC) Programme, ITTO’sThematic Programme on Tropical Forest LawEnforcement, Governance and Trade (TFLET),the GIZ Forest Governance Programme and theResponsible Asia Forestry and Trade (RAFT)Partnership and the Asia-Pacific Network forSustainable Forest Management and Rehabilitation(APFNet), funded through the Australian and USgovernments.

1 1

Vol. 27: No. 3 2013

1 1

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

APEC FORESTRY MINISTERS COMMIT TO INCREASEDCOOPERATION ON SFM

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)Forestry Ministers have released the CuscoMinisterial Statement, which sets out theiraspirations for future cooperation in the area offorestry. The Statement was released at the closeof the Second APEC Meeting of MinistersResponsible for Forestry, held in Cusco, Perufrom 14–16 August.

Ministers and senior officials attending the meetingdiscussed the importance and potential of forestresources in the APEC region, conditions forsustainable forest management (SFM), as wellas threats and challenges to SFM. APEC notesthat its economies produce 60 percent of theglobal forest products and account for 80 percentof the global trade in such goods, with annualrevenue from trade valued at over US$150 billion.

The key outcome of the meeting was the CuscoMinisterial Statement, in which APEC forestryministers aspire to, inter alia: advance theimportant contributions of forests to the emerginggreen economy through research on, innovationin and demonstration of new wood-based andnon-timber forest products, services andapplications; strengthen private sector investmentin SFM across the APEC region, along withaccess to better technology and markets, bypromoting, among other things, market-basedinstruments such as certification, and social andenvironmental safeguards; recognize, whereapplicable, the key role of indigenous people andlocal communities and traditional knowledge inSFM; promote technical cooperation amongAPEC economies to share best practices, lessons

learned and experiences in governance, especiallyinstitutional and legal frameworks, regulation andpublic policies; encourage the development oflocal forest industries that generate employmentand value-added products from sustainablesources; maintain and strengthen the efforts ofAPEC economies to combat illegal logging andassociated trade including through educationprograms; promote trade in legally harvestedforest products; and consider establishingmutually agreed policy partnership dialogues toaddress the implementation of APEC forestobjectives.

The Cusco Statement reaffirms and strengthensprevious commitments and declarations made byAPEC Leaders in Sydney (2007), Yokohama(2010), Honolulu (2011) and Vladivostok(2012). The full text of the Cusco Statement isavailable at: http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Ministerial-Statements/Forestry/2013_forestry.aspx.

APEC member economies include: Australia;Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Chile; China; HongKong; Indonesia; Japan; the Republic of Korea;Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Papua NewGuinea; Peru; the Philippines; the RussianFederation; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand;US; and Vietnam.

Source: Forests Policy & Practice – iisdReporting Serviceshttp://forests-l.iisd.org/news/apec-forestry-ministers-commit-to-increased-cooperation-on-sfm/

Vol. 27: No. 3 2013

1 21 2

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

VIETNAM LAUNCHES NATIONAL UN-REDD PHASE II

Vietnam is the first of the 47 UN-REDD partnercountries to move into the second phase with anadditional US$30 million investment to reducegreenhouse gas emissions through improved forestand land-use management. The start of Phase IIof the UN-REDD Programme, will significantlyexpand national efforts to reduce deforestation,enhance forest quality, and increase overall forestcover in Vietnam.

Financed by the Government of Norway, theNational UN-REDD Programme to ReduceEmissions from Deforestation and forestDegradation (REDD+) will be a major pillar ofVietnam’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gasemissions from the agriculture and ruraldevelopment sector by 20 percent by 2020. Bydeveloping and implementing improved policiesthat address the drivers of deforestation and forestdegradation, the aim is to increase Vietnam’soverall forest cover to 45 percent by 2020.

As one of the original pilot countries of the UN-REDD Programme, Vietnam has been on thefrontline of global REDD+ activities for the pastfour years. The country has successfully pilotedREDD+ readiness work in a number of key areasincluding supporting strong coordination amongnational stakeholders, developing a framework forMeasurement, Reporting and Verification, andtesting approaches for the free, prior and informedconsent of ethnic minorities and other forest-dependent communities.

Phase II will build on the REDD+ readiness workof Phase I, and start implementing Vietnam’sNational REDD+ Action Programme in sixprovinces across the country, namely Lao Cai, BacKan, Ha Tinh, Binh Thuan, Lam Dong, and CaMau. Over the next 3 years the Programme willhelp identify, negotiate, plan and implement land-use practices that are sustainable, climate-smartand adapted to local needs. Additional financialincentives will be made available by theGovernment of Norway and other internationalpartners for transparently measured and verifiedgreenhouse gas emissions reductions achievedthrough the Programme.

UN-REDD is a key UN joint programme, whichharnesses the complementary global expertise ofFAO, UNDP and UNEP. FAO is supportingnational forest resource monitoring andassessment; UNDP supports democraticgovernance and stakeholder engagement; andUNEP will help secure multiple ecosystembenefits.

For more information, please contact:Dr. Pham Manh CuongDirector of Vietnam REDD Office Email: manhcuongpham@vnforest.gov.vn orAkiko InoguchiFAO/VietnamEmail: Akiko.Inoguchi@fao.org

Signing ceremony

1 3

Vol. 27: No. 3 2013

1 3

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

UN-REDD PROGRAMME TRAINS SOLOMON ISLANDSFORESTRY OFFICERS IN FOREST INVENTORY

Chris Heider (Watershed Professionals Network, USA) explains to a team of trainees how to establish permanentcarbon inventory plots for assessing in a lowland primary forest, southern Choiseul Province, Solomon Islands.(Photo: Fred Pattison, UN-REDD Programme)

The Solomon Islands Ministry of Forest andResearch, in collaboration with the Ministry ofEnvironment, Climate Change, DisasterManagement and Meteorology (MECDM) andother partners, successfully completed a two-weekforestry field training course that was conducted9-23 August 2013. The course focused onmethodologies for forest inventory and wasdelivered to 35 government forestry officers. Ittook place in South Choiseul in the northernSolomon Islands, with logistical support from theBoeboe Community.

The training course followed a very practicalapproach, and over the course of the two weeksthe teams of trainees established 18 forestinventory plots in a variety of forest types, includingmangroves and low-, mid- and high-elevationforests. One focus of the inventory activities wasto measure the carbon content of different forest

types and forests that had been subject todisturbances. To this end, the total ecosystemcarbon contents of natural, secondary and loggedforests were measured during the training course.In addition to field measurements, training includedintensified team building and leadership skills tobest allocate personnel capacity and resources tosuccessfully meet the project goals. Following thecompletion of the training course, the MECCDMMhosted a closing dinner, during which participantswere given certificates, and the Ministry reiteratedits commitment to ongoing forest inventorycapacity-building activities.

The course was organized and delivered by theSolomon Islands UN-REDD National Programmeand received additional technical and financialsupport from the SPC-GIZ Pacific RegionalProject on Climate Protection through ForestConservation, which funded the participation of

Prepared by Joel Scriven, Forestry Officer, UN-REDD Programme

Vol. 27: No. 3 2013

1 41 4

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

four officers from the Fijian Government’sDepartment of Forest and Fisheries. The Fijianparticipants were able to share their knowledgeand experience of carrying out forest inventory insimilar forest types in Fiji. The Government ofthe Solomon Islands also contributed substantiallyto the training by purchasing all the necessaryequipment and funding the majority expedition. Inthis respect, the training course was a modeloutcome of national commitment and regional andinternational support for forestry.

The knowledge gained through this training coursewill feed into the formulation of the national forestinventory (NFI) methodology of the Governmentof the Solomon Islands, which will eventually berolled out across the entire country. The addedvalue of increased regional collaboration with Fijistrengthens the role of standardized methodologiesfor the Pacific region in inventory design,management and qualified personnel capacity. TheNFI will aim to capture information on the conditionof the country’s forests and forest carbon stocks,as well as other useful forest information such aslevels of biodiversity and social uses of the forestby local communities. The NFI will play a keyrole in tracking changes in forest carbon stocks,

and carbon emissions from the Solomon Islands’forests, as part of the country’s National ForestMonitoring System (NFMS) for REDD+. REDD+is the country’s effort to reduce emissions fromdeforestation and forest degradation (plusconserve forest carbon, sustainably manageforests and enhance forest carbon stocks).

The UN-REDD Programme is a capacity-buildingproject to raise awareness and technical capacitieson REDD+ of all relevant stakeholders in theSolomon Islands. To achieve this, the UN-REDDNational Programme is working closely withvarious ministries of the government, national andinternational NGOs and the private sector. Thework on the Solomon Islands NFI and NFMSrepresents one of the work areas of theProgramme, with other work areas and activitiesincluding stakeholder engagement, analyses of thedrivers of deforestation and forest degradation,and the formulation of a National REDD+Readiness Roadmap document.

Further information on the UN-REDDProgramme can be found at: http://www.un-redd.org/.

(Left to right) Terence Titiulu and Gusgrandy Mua (Ministry of Forests and Research) conduct downed woodsampling and data recording while Jimmy Kereseka (The Nature Conservancy) measures trees in a permanentplot located in a primary Bruguiera mangrove forest in southern Choiseul Province, Solomon Islands. (Photo:Chris Heider, Watershed Professionals Network)

1 5

Vol. 27: No. 3 2013

1 5

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

STAFF MOVEMENT

Mr. Kenichi Shono, a Japanese national, joinedthe RAP NRE group as Forest Resources Officer,effective 20 September 2013, for an initialassignment duration of two years.

Mr. Shono holds a Master’s degree in ForestScience and Management from the Yale Schoolof Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Mr. Shono has 10 years of broad experience inforest management and conservation, includingproject coordination, research and policy analysis.Mr. Shono first gained experience as a fieldresearcher for the Center for International ForestryResearch (CIFOR). Subsequently, he coordinateda research project on forest restoration in Singaporefor the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute.From 2005 to 2008, Mr. Shono worked asAssociate Professional Officer at FAO RAP,where he was involved in various programmesand projects related to promoting sustainable forestmanagement in Asia-Pacific. Prior to rejoiningFAO, Mr. Shono served as Technical &Operations Director for a Canadian environmentalconsulting firm based in Indonesia.

Mr. Shono has also been active in forestmanagement and land use carbon projectcertification in the region as an accredited leadauditor for the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)Forest Management Standard, as well as voluntarycarbon standards including the Verified CarbonStandard (VCS) and the Climate, Community andBiodiversity (CCB) Standards.

Mr. Yurdi Yasmi, an Indonesia national, has joinedthe RAP NRE group as Forestry Officer (Policy),effective 10 October 2013, for an initial assignmentof two years.

Mr. Yasmi holds a PhD degree (Forest and NatureConservation Policies) and MSc (TropicalForestry) from Wageningen University, theNetherlands and a BSc in Forest Managementfrom Bogor Agriculture University, Indonesia.

Mr. Yasmi has over 15 years working experiencein the forestry sector in the areas of forest policyand governance, participatory forest management,decentralization, conflict management andcommunity forestry. He started his professionalcareer in 1997 as a researcher at the Center forInternational Forestry Research (CIFOR) inBogor. From 2003 to 2007 he worked forWageningen University in the Netherlands. Hemoved to RECOFTC, the Center for People andForests, in Bangkok in 2007, where he becamethe Head of Capacity Building and Research untilearly 2013. Before joining FAO, Mr Yasmi workedas Coordinator of Mekong Action Area at theWorld Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) in Hanoi,Vietnam.

Mr. Yasmi serves on a number of internationalexpert panels for organizations such as the WorldBank, the International Union of Forest ResearchOrganizations (IUFRO), the International TropicalTimber Organization (ITTO) and ASEAN.

Ms. Wirya Khim, a Cambodian national, hasjoined the RAP NRE group as a JuniorProfessional Officer – Natural ResourcesManagement (Asia-Pacific), effective 31 August2013, for an initial assignment of two years.

Ms. Khim holds a post-graduate degree in NaturalResource Management from Massey Universityin New Zealand and an undergraduate degree inEnvironmental Management from RoyalUniversity of Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Ms. Khim has been working with variouscommunity-based natural resource management(CBNRM) initiatives since 2003. She spent twoyears working for an ADB-funded initiative –Skills and Awareness Building for the Tonle Sap,Cambodia. Most recently, Ms. Khim worked forFAO Cambodia as a Monitoring and EvaluationOfficer for the Regional Fisheries LivelihoodsProgramme for South and Southeast Asia (GCP/RAS/237/SPA) for three years.

Bruno Cammaert, a Belgian national, has joinedRAP as Forestry Officer of Project GCP/GLO/395/EC (EU FAO Forest Law Enforcement,Governance (FLEGT) and Trade Support, II),effective 31 August 2013, for an initial assignment

Vol. 27: No. 3 2013

1 61 6

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

FAO ASIA-PACIFIC FORESTRY CALENDAR

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

duration of one year. He will be responsible forthe implementation of programme activities in theAsia-Pacific Region.

Mr. Cammaert holds an Engineering degree fromthe Faculty of Agronomy and Forestry of theUniversity of Ghent (Belgium) and a Diploma inBusiness Administration from the University ofLouvain (Belgium).

He has some 20 years of experience in Agro-forestry,Participatory Forestry and Forest Governance andsome of his main assignments include East-Africa/Kenya (ICRAF), Cambodia (FAO, UNDP and WorldBank), Afghanistan (FAO), Nepal (SNV), Cameroon(EU), Lao PDR (UNDP and FAO) and Myanmar(UN-REDD Programme). The development ofParticipatory Forest Management has been the main

focus of his work, but his involvement in FLEGTand REDD+ projects allowed him to gain experiencein a much wider range of forest governance issues.

Leyla Arpac, a national of Turkey, joined the RAPNRE group in May 2013 as a consultant for theEU-FAO Forest Law Enforcement in Governanceand Trade (FLEGT) Support Programme. Ms.Arpac is a graduate in International Relations fromBilkent University and holds an MA in EuropeanStudies from Sabanci University.

Prior to her assignment at FAO, Ms. Arpac workedas a technical officer at the Carbon BusinessOffice of the Thailand Greenhouse GasManagement Organization. She has substantiveexperience in climate change mitigation, eventmanagement and environmental issues.

29-30 January 2014. Regional Consultation and Publication on “Forests and climate changeafter COP19 (Warsaw): An Asia-Pacific perspective. Kathmandu, Nepal. Contact: Patrick Durst,FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 39 Phra Atit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand; E-mail:Patrick.Durst@fao.org

1st quarter 2014 (dates to be announced). Inception Workshop for TCP/RAS/3408 - Control andmanagement of destructive forest invasive species in South Asian natural and planted forests.”Kerala, India. Contact: Patrick Durst, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 39 Phra Atit Road,Bangkok 10200, Thailand; E-mail: Patrick.Durst@fao.org

10-14 March 2014. 32nd Session of the Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific. Ulaanbaatar,Mongolia. Contact: Joachim Ottee, Secretary APRC, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 39Phra Atit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand; E-mail: Joachim.Ottee@fao.org

Late March (dates to be announced). Regional Seminar on the impacts of climate change innatural resources management. Bangkok, Thailand. Contact: Simmathiri Appanah or Wirya Khim,FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 39 Phra Atit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand; E-mail:Simmathiri.Appanah@fao.org;/Wirya.Khim@fao.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Helping forests take cover (RAP Publication 2005/13)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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