Tigerpaper Vol XXXV No 1 January-March 2008

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. XXXV : No. 1

Featuring

Vol. XXII : No. 1

January-March 2008

REGIONAL OFFICEFOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

TIGERPAPER is a quarterly news bulletindedicated to the exchange of information

relating to wildlife and national parksmanagement for theAsia-Pacific Region.ISSN 1014 - 2789

Address

TIGERPAPERFAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

Maliwan Mansion, Phra Atit RoadBangkok, 10200, Thailand

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

Website: http://www.fao.org/world/regional/rap/tigerpaper/tigerpaper.htm

Editor: Janice NaewboonnienAdvisors: M. Kashio and 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 needs 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.

Cover: Common cerulean (Jamides celeno)Photo: D.M.S.S. Karunarathna

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.

Diversity of Papilonid Butterflies in the Indira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary, Western Ghats, Southern India........… 1A Review of Threats to Ramsar Sites and Associated Biodiversity of Nepal (Part II)......................................... 9New Sighting and Distribution Record of Ratel or Honey Badger in the Kachchh Forest of Gujarat.......................... 12Some Observations on the Non-Captive Faunal Diversity in the National Zoological Gardens, Dehiwala.................... 13Trapping Success and Inventory of Small Mammals in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary, India................................... 22Damage Caused by Migratory Elephants and the Socio- Economic Impact in South West Bengal.................……… 28

Forest Insects as Food: Humans Bite Back.......................... 1Forest Resources Assessment 2010 Launched..................… 4Towards Responsible Management of Planted Forests......… 5FAO Assisting Bhutan to Develop New Forest Policy........... 7Strengthening Leasehold Forestry in Nepal.......................... 8Partnership for Forest Restoration Research in Indochina..... 9Sustainable Development of Non-Timber Forest Products.... 9Australian-Swiss Region-Led Initiative on Regional Input in Support of the United Nations Forum on Forests........... 11RAP Forestry Staff Movement....................................…… 12New RAP Forestry Publications.......................................... 13Asia-Pacific Forestry Chips and Clips…………………....... 14FAO Asia-Pacific Forestry Calendar………………............. 16

1

Vol. 35: No. 1 Jan-Mar 2008

1

Introduction

Butterflies are among the most easilyrecognizable of all animals. They are instantly

familiar and also universally popular. Their wings,unlike those of most other insects, are colorful,opaque and are of characteristic shapes. Thedevelopment of color, the range, diversity, brillianceand the kaleidoscopic assortment of patternsexhibited by butterflies is unrivalled anywhere inthe animal kingdom, except possibly by the birds.Butterflies are truly the “jewels of creation.”Butterflies are typically active during the day andbecause they are so skilled in flight they haveachieved an almost world-wide distribution, thoughas with most animal groups (particularly cold-blooded ones) there is a greater diversity to befound in the tropics (Mathew, 2001).Unfortunately, butterflies are threatened by habitatdestruction and fragmentation almost everywhere(Mathew, 2001).

India has more than 1,400 species of butterflies,330 of them in the Western Ghats alone, and ofwhich 37 are endemic (Krushnamegha Kunte,2000). They are one of the important food chaincomponents of the birds, reptiles, amphibians,spiders and predatory insects; sensitive to habitatand environmental change, butterflies act as healthindicators of an ecosystem. Concern for butterflyconservation is growing apace as more and morepeople are becoming interested in these lovelyinsects, which, essentially, do no harm to the humanrace.

Among the Lepidoptera, the family Papilionidaecontains about 700 species distributed throughoutthe world (Smart, 1975). One hundred and seventyspecies of butterflies were recorded in NorthernAssam by Betts (1950). Best (1951) reported 70species of butterflies from Bombay and Salssetter.

In the Indian Ocean region (including India,Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma, Andaman and Nicobarislands) about 1,400 species have been found,including some of the most beautiful in the world(Wynter-Blyth, 1957). Sathyamurthi (1965) hascatalogued the butterflies of the Madras Museumwith reference to their morphology and habits -- avery useful guide to the butterfly fauna in thesouthern states. Chaturvedi and Satheesan (1980)reported 140 species of butterflies. The ZoologicalSurvey of India conducted several faunisticsurveys in the unexplored areas of Silent valley(1979-80). According to Chaturvedi and Satheesan(1980), the Indian subcontinent alone has over1,443 species of butterflies.

The Western Ghats is the “hottest hot spot” inSouth India, and needs urgent attention becauseof the high degree of plant and animal endemism,and the grave threats it faces. To avert the crisis,we need to prioritize and target conservationstrategies and investments in the Western Ghatstract. The Indira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary, partof the Western Ghats located in Tamil Nadu, is avarietal storehouse of economically importantplants and animals. The Anamalais is rich inbiodiversity and provides a wealth of genes, whichhas to be conserved. The forests of Anamalais areso rich that it continues to provide benefits andservices, purifying and regulating water supplies,cycling nutrients, creating and maintaining soils,providing pollination, pest control, habitat andrefuge. It also provides tourism education,recreation and a livelihood to the tribals within.

Extensive studies on butterflies of Western Ghats,Southern India, were carried out by Goenkar(1996), including the first study that took intoaccount of all 330 species in 166 genera, belongingto 5 families, recorded from this mountain range

DIVERSITY OF PAPILONID BUTTERFILES IN THEINDIRA GANDHI WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, WESTERNGHATS, SOUTHERN INDIA

| Diversity of P

apilonid butterflies in the Indira Gandhi W

ildlife Sanctuary |

22


and the adjacent areas. An intensive survey ofNilgiris and its environs by Gunathilagaraj et al.(1997) revealed 104 species of butterflies. Thebutterflies of Indira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuarywere listed in the management plan of the sanctuaryfor the first time in 1997 by Krishnakumar (1997).The diversity and habitat utilization of butterfliesin different forest types of Hosur forest divisionof Southern India, was documented by Kathikeyan(1998). The diversity of butterflies in the sacredgroves of Nagapattinam and Thanjavur districtsof Southern India, was studied by Vasuki (2000).

Swallowtails are classified into only threesubfamilies: the Baroniinae with a single speciesendemic to Mexico, the Parnassinae (Apollo

butterflies) with approximately 50 species and thePapilioninae with about 650 species.Papilioninae alone occurs in peninsular India.However, its taxonomy is a little complex withmany tribes, groups and distinct sub species. Asimple description of Swallowtails, which arerepresented in peninsular India, was given by Kunte(2000).

In view of the foregoing account, in the presentstudy an attempt has been made to study the bio-ecology of 10 selected species of Papilionidae inthe Indira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary viz.:

1. Southern Birdwing Troides minos2. Common Rose Pachliopta aristolochiae3. Crimson Rose Pachliopta hector4. Common blue bottle Graphium sarpendon5. Tailed jay Graphium agamemnon6. Lime Papilio demoles7. Red Helen Papilio helenus8. Common marmon Papilio polytes9. Blue marmon Papilio polymnestor10. Common bonded peacock Papilio crino

Diversity of butterflies

Counting of butterflies was carried out in fivechosen forest types, namely dry deciduous forest,moist deciduous forest, evergreen forest, scrub andthorny forest and teak plantation (mono-culture).In each forest type, two transects were laid acrossthe habitat, so as to cover all features of thehabitats. The length of each transect was 2 km.Butterflies were observed up to 20 m on both sidesof the transects. Observations were made for theentire transects (2,000 m). The transects wereaway from the influence of edges and ecotonesand well within the vegetation types. Places whichwere areas of major disturbances were avoided.

In the 2 km transect line, the ten selected Papilionidspecies were counted. Ocular observations weremade. The key characters used for identificationwere color pattern, wing span, mode of flight, etc.No collecting of specimens was done. During the

study, flight patterns, activity patterns and behaviorwere also noted. The interaction of the butterflieswith larval and adult host plants was also observed.The observations were made between 7 and 10a.m. for a period of 3 years from August 1999 toJuly 2002, covering the four seasons viz., winter(December, January, February), summer (March,April and May), southwest monsoon season (June,July and August) and northeast monsoon season(September, October and November). The larvaland adult host plants were also monitored andrecorded. All the ten species of Papilionidbutterflies chosen for the study were counted indifferent months and seasons. During the counts,their perpendicular distances from the transect linesand the heights at which they were seen first, aswell as the date, time, and general weatherconditions were also recorded. Densities ofbutterflies were calculated and the density/km2 wasarrived at as follows:

Density = No. of Butterflies / 2 * Length * Width (of the transect).

|

Div

ersi

ty o

f P

apil

onid

but

terf

lies

in

the

Indi

ra G

andh

i W

ildl

ife

Sanc

tuar

y |

3


3

Observations and results

Seasonal variations in butterfly diversity invarious habitats

1. Evergreen forest

Seasonal variations in the densities and diversitiesof the 10 Papilionid butterfly species in theevergreen forest is given in Table 1.1. In theevergreen forest T. minos, P. demoles, G.agamemnon, P. polytus, P. polymnestor, P. crino,were found in all the seasons of year. P.aristolochiae was found only during the southwestmonsoon and northeast monsoon, with higherdensities during the former. G. sarpendon wasfound only during the northeast monsoon. P.helenus was found during southwest monsoon andP. hector was not found at all in evergreen forest.

2. Moist deciduous forest

In the moist deciduous forest P. aristolochiae, P.hector, G. sarpendon, P. polytes, P. polymnestorand P. crino were found in all the seasons. G.agamemnon, P. demoles and P. helenus weretotally absent in all the seasons. (Table 1.2)

3. Dry deciduous forest

In dry deciduous forest T. minos, P. aristolochiae,G. sarpendon, P. polytes, and P. polymnestor werefound in all the seasons. P. hector was absent inthe summer. G. agamemnon was present in thesouthwest monsoon, while P. demoles was foundin the summer. P. helenus was absent in the winterand the southwest monsoon. P. crino was absentin the summer. (Table 1.3)

4. Scrub jungle

In the scrub jungle T. minos, P. aristolochiae, P.hector and P. polytes were present in all seasons.G. sarpedon, P. helenus and P. demoles wereabsent in all seasons. P. polymnestor was absentin the northeast monsoon and P. crino was absentin the southwest monsoon. P. agamemnon waspresent only in winter (Table 1.4)

5. Teak plantation

In the teak plantation P. aristolochiae, G.sarpendon, P. polymnestor, P. crino and P. hectorwere present in all the seasons, while P. demoles

and P. polytes were absent in all the seasons.(Table 1.5).

Correlation between vegetation features andbutterfly density

There was a correlation between the vegetationcharacteristics features in different habitats ofIndira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary, Anamalais,Southern India. Host plant density and diversitywere found to be the most important variables thatinfluenced the butterfly densities significantly (p <0.05).

Discussion

Seasonal variations in the diversity of butterfliesamong habitats

The density and diversity of treetop fliers likeT.minos can be disturbed because of patchinessand fragmentation of forest patches. T. minos hadthe highest diversity in dry deciduous forest andscrub forest and relatively low diversity in moistdeciduous and teak plantation. In evergreen forestthe diversity was average. This proves that moistdeciduous forest and teak plantation are notproviding the needed environment for T. minos inthe study area. Pachilopta aristolochea is generallyfound in scrub and deciduous forest and itsdiversity was high throughout the study period indry deciduous forest, poor in evergreen forest, andaverage in moist deciduous and teak forests. Itsdiversity was high in scrub jungle. Pachilioptaaristolochea is found to thrive in all the habitats.Pachiliopta hector is found in lower elevationsand is abundant in late monsoon and winter. It is abutterfly of dry deciduous forest and thick scrub.In this study its diversity in dry deciduous forestwas average, in evergreen a lot less and in scrubforest, moist deciduous and teak plantation it wasgood.

Graphium sarpendon is a species of evergreen andsemi-evergreen forests and it is also found alongside streams. In this study, Graphium sarpendonhad an average diversity in dry deciduous forestand poor diversity in evergreen forest, scrub forestand teak plantation and slightly better diversity inmoist deciduous forest. Graphium agamemnon isalso a forest butterfly found in the forest canopy

| Diversity of P


ildlife Sanctuary |

44


as well as near the ground. In the study it wasfound that its diversity was poor in the drydeciduous forest, scrub forest, moist deciduousforest and teak forest, while in the evergreen forestthe diversity was higher. Papilio demoles is abutterfly of the evergreen forest found during themonsoon and post monsoon seasons. It prefersherbs and thickets of Lantana and is lured by citrusplants. This species had a poor diversity in drydeciduous forest, scrub jungle, moist deciduousforest and teak plantation, while in the evergreenforest the diversity was comparatively good.Papilio helenus had a poor diversity in evergreen,scrub, moist deciduous and teak plantation, whilein dry deciduous it had higher diversity. Papiliopolytes is well accustomed to human habitationsand it is found in dry deciduous forest, evergreenand semi-evergreen forest. In this study it had anaverage diversity in dry deciduous forest, evergreenforest and teak plantation, while its diversity washigh in scrub and moist deciduous forest. Papiliopolymnestor is a butterfly of the thicker forestand found along ecotones and edges. In this studyit had an average diversity in all the forest typesstudied. Papilio crino had an average diversity inevergreen and dry deciduous forest, while it hadpoor diversity in moist deciduous forest, teakplantation and scrub forest.

The study has established that resources forPapilionids are available in abundance during thenortheast monsoon and winter periods. As seenfrom this study, scorching summer and southwestmonsoon periods are probably not favorable forthe Papilionids when there is probably a resourceshortage. The southwest monsoon generally hasintensive rain coupled with moderate wind velocity,which is probably the reason why the Papilionidsremain dormant and inactive during this season.Although butterflies are directly dependent onplants for larval and adult requirements, they donot use all resources equally and all plants are notused as resources. It seems that even thoughvegetation structure is important for Papilionidspecies diversity and density, climate seems to playa greater role in deciding the diversity and density.Among forest patches there is a change in theavailability and composition of host plants, whichalso decides the butterfly diversity. This is probablyone reason why moist deciduous forest and drydeciduous forest seem to be supporting more

butterflies than evergreen forest, which has thehighest plant species diversity. Season-wise, foresttype-wise studies reveal that species likePachiliopta aristolochea, Troides minos,Pachiliopta hector, Graphium serpendon, Papiliopolytus, Papilio polymnestor and Papilo crinoare able to adapt themselves better in all the seasonscompared to Graphium augememnon, Papiliodemoleus and Papilio helenus, which are sensitiveto small changes and fluctuations. Papiliodemoleus and Papilio helenus have poor diversitythroughout all seasons. Papilio demoleus, thougha species found in more diverse habitats than anyother swallowtail, and whose home range includessavannas, gardens and evergreen forest, hasstrikingly poor density in all the areas studied.

This study revealed that in evergreen forest, thediversity of butterflies was highest during thenortheast monsoon, followed by winter. In themoist deciduous forest, the diversity of butterflieswas highest during the northeast monsoon andsouthwest monsoon. In the dry deciduous forest,winter had the highest diversity, followed by thenortheast monsoon. In the scrub forest, thenortheast monsoon had the highest diversity,followed by winter. In the teak forest the highestdiversity was in summer, followed by thesouthwest monsoon. Thus, butterfly diversitypatterns do not show any season-wise fixed patternin the various forest types. Troides minos had thehighest diversity in winter, followed by thesouthwest monsoon. Pachiliopta aristolochea hadthe highest diversity in the northeast monsoon,followed by winter. In the case of Pachilioptahector, the diversity was almost the same in winterand during the southwest monsoon, with the lowestin summer. Graphium serpendon had the highestdiversity in the southwest monsoon. Graphiumaugeamenon had the highest diversity in winter.Papilio demolius had the highest diversity insummer, while during the southwest monsoon andnortheast monsoon it was insignificant. Papiliohelenus showed poor diversity throughout the year.The reason for this needs further monitoring andintensive study. Papilio polytes had the highestdensity in southwest monsoon, followed by thenortheast monsoon. Papilio polymnestor is theonly species which had the highest diversity insummer, followed by the northeast monsoon.Papilio polymnestor was found to have an average

|

Div

ersi

ty o

f P

apil

onid

but

terf

lies

in

the

Indi

ra G

andh

i W

ildl

ife

Sanc

tuar

y |

5


5

density all through the seasons. Papilio crino hadthe highest density in winter. Winter and thenortheast monsoon seem to be favorable seasonsfor butterfly diversity in Indira Gandhi WildlifeSanctuary.

A comparison of butterfly diversity andvegetation characteristics

Similarly, the study made by Kunte (1999) on thecorrelation between foliage height diversity, plantspecies diversity and butterfly diversity showedthat the increase in butterfly diversity was not linearwith vegetation diversity. It increased from highelevation grassland through shrub savannah, teakplantation and deciduous forest and then dippeddown in the Shola evergreen forest. In this study,butterfly diversity had the highest correlation withhost plant diversity, followed by host plant density,herb density and foliage height diversity.

A tremendous field lies open in the study ofLepidopteran behavior. We do not know how farindividuals normally travel, how much they movearound or how much they are attached to particularplaces or territories (Munroe, 1959). Thedistribution of the studied Papilionids in variousforest types needs further investigation. Morestudies are needed on where populations originated,their migratory patterns, the causes of variationsin densities and diversities, colonization, individualbehavior and activities. The effect of feeding onhost plants and the effectiveness of Papilionidpollinators also need detailed studies. This studyis just a beginning and paves the way for furtherstudies.

In the light of this study, it is suggested that moreintensive study on the population ecology andpresent distribution of Papilionids and all otherbutterflies are needed, including the basicenvironmental parameters required for theirsurvival and conservation. A species specificecology and conservation biology program, assuggested for the Homerus swallowtail in Jamaica(Emmel, 1990), is also essential for all Papilionidsstudied in this tract.

References

Best, A.E.G. 1951. The butterflies of Bombayand Salsette. Journal of the Bombay NaturalHistory Society, 50: 331-339.

Betts, F.N. 1950. On a collection of butterfliesfrom the Bahipara Frontier Tract and theSubansiri Area. (Northern Assam). J.Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. 49(3), page 93.

Chaturvedi, N. and S.M. Satheesan. 1980-1984.Butterflies of Bombay. Part I – Part 14.Hornbill, Part I. 1980(1):6-8, 32 (Danainae,Papilionidae); Part 2. 1980(2): 8-9, 16(Papilionidae); Part 3. 1980(3) : 26-28(Pieridae); Part 4. 1980(4) :30-31; Part 5.1981(1): 27-28, Part 6. 1981(2): 28-29(Nymphalidae); Part 7. 1981(3) : 34-35(Nymphalidae); Part 8. 1981(4): 34-35(Lycaenidae); Part 9. 1982(1):28-29(Lycaenidae); Part 10. 1982(2) : 38-39(Lycaenidae); Part 11. 1982(4) :32-33(Lycaenidae); Part 12. 1983(1): 30-31(Hesperiidae); Part 13. 1984 (1): 38-39(Hesperiidae); Part 14. 1984 (3) : 38-39(Satyrinae, concluded) (WG:MH Contains 119coloured figs. Some host-plant data aremisidentifications. The series are useful forthe identification of butterflies of the northernWestern Ghats).

Emmel, T.C., and E. Garraway. 1990. Ecologyand conservation biology of the homerusswallowtail in Jamaica (Lepidoptera :Papilionidae), Tropical Lepidoptera, 1(2):63-76.

Gunathilagaraj, M., Ganeshkumar, and P.T.Ramesh. 1997. Butterflies of Coimbatore,Zoo’s Print. 97: 26-27.

Krishnakumar, N. 1997. Management plan forIndira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary,Anamalais. 1997-2002. Tamil Nadu ForestDepartment.

Karthikeyan, M. 1998. Diversity and habitatutilization of butterflies in different foresttypes of Hosur division, Tamil Nadu, SouthIndia. M.Sc., Dissertation, A.V.C. College,Mannampandal, India. 45pp.

Kunte, K. 2000. India-A Lifescape – butterfliesof peninsular India (Editor Madhav Godgiland Forward E.O. Wilson). Indian Academyof Sciences Universities Press, India I : 1-286.

| Diversity of P


ildlife Sanctuary |

66


Mathew, G. 2001. Conservation ofinvertebrates through captive breeding: Astudy with reference to Butterflies. KFRIResearch Report No. 220. pp 210.

Munroe, E. 1959. Professional and amateurresearch in Lepidoptera.

Sathyamurthi, T. 1966. Descriptive catalogue ofthe butterflies in the collection of theMadras Government Museum Bulletin.Madras Government Museum, pp. 1-255.

Smart, P. 1975. The Illustrated Encyclopediaof the Butterfly World. In colour, SalamanderBooks Ltd., London.

Vasuki, S. 2000. Studies on the diversity ofbutterflies in the sacred groves of

Nagapattinam and Thanjavur districts,Tamil Nadu. A.V.C. College, Autonomous,Mayiladurhurai, Southern India.

Wynter-Blyth, M.A. 1957. Butterflies of theIndian Region. Bombay Natural HistorySociety, Bombay.

Authors’ addresses: N. Krishnakumar,Conservator of Forest, Research Circle, Chennai,India; A. Kumaraguru Ph.D Scholar of Dept. ofZoology & division of WildLife Biology, A.V.CCollege, Mayiladuthurai 609 305, India;K.Thiyagesan and S. Asokan, Dept. of Zoology& Division of Wildlife Biology, A.V.C College,Mayiladuthurai, India.

Table 1.1: Seasonal variations in the butterfly density (No./km2) diversity (H’) in the evergreen forest of Indira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary, Anamalais, Southern India.

SEASONS*

S.No SPECIES NAME WINTER SWM NEM SUMMER

1 Troides minos 12 3 12 11 2 Pachliopta aristolochiae 0 62 3 0 3 Pachliopta hector 0 0 0 0 4 Graphium sarpendon 0 0 9 0 5 Graphium agamemnon 6 7 3 6 6 Papilio demoles 9 3 3 1 7 Papilio helenus 0 3 0 0 8 Papilio polytes 3 8 6 3 9 Papilio polymenstor 9 4 15 6 10 Papilio crino 12 14 6 6 Total 51 104 57 33 Diversity (H`) 0.1947 0.3117 0.2292 0.1547

*WINTER = Winter Season (December – February) SWM = Southeast Monsoon Season (June – August) NEM = Northeast Monsoon Season (September – November) SUMMER = Summer Season (March – May)

|

Div

ersi

ty o

f P

apil

onid

but

terf

lies

in

the

Indi

ra G

andh

i W

ildl

ife

Sanc

tuar

y |

7


7

Table 1.2 : Seasonal variations in the butterflies density (No./km2) diversity (H’) in the moist deciduous forest of Indira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary, Anamalais, Southern India.

SEASONS* S.NO

SPECIES NAME WINTER SWM NEM SUMMER

1 Troides minos 0 6 0 0 2 Pachliopta aristolochiae 19 20 39 2 3 Pachliopta hector 50 18 56 20 4 Graphium sarpendon 19 7 6 9 5 Graphium agamemnon 0 0 0 0 6 Papilio demoles 0 0 0 0 7 Papilio helenus 0 0 0 0 8 Papilio polytes 45 23 45 29 9 Papilio polymenstor 19 19 6 15 10 Papilio crino 12 5 12 2 Total 164 98 164 77

Diversity (H`) 0.2748 0.2975 0.2916 0.1926

*WINTER = Winter Season (December – February); SWM = South West Monsoon Season (June – August); NEM = North East Monsoon Season (September – November); SUMMER = Summer Season (March – May)

Table 1.3 : Seasonal variations in the butterflies density (No./km2) diversity (H’) in the dry deciduous forest of Indira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary, Anamalais, Southern India.

SEASONS* S.NO SPECIES NAME

WINTER SWM NEM SUMMER 1 Troides minos 16 8 17 18 2 Pachliopta aristolochiae 133 98 108 76 3 Pachliopta hector 58 10 8 0 4 Graphium sarpendon 24 13 8 2 5 Graphium agamemnon 0 1 0 0 6 Papilio demoles 0 0 0 8 7 Papilio helenus 0 0 25 21 8 Papilio polytes 16 26 25 18 9 Papilio polymenstor 8 1 16 18 10 Papilio crino 8 42 25 0

Total 263 199 232 161

Diversity (H`) 0.6296 0.3805 0.5962 0.4111

* WINTER = Winter Season (December – February); SWM = South West Monsoon Season (June – August); NEM = North East Monsoon Season (September – November); SUMMER = Summer Season (March – May)

| Diversity of P


ildlife Sanctuary |

88


Table 1.4: Seasonal variations in the butterflies density (No./km2) diversity (H’) in the scrub jungle of Indira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary, Anamalais, Southern India.


WINTER SWM NEM SUMMER 1 Troides minos 31 19 19 15 2 Pachliopta aristolochiae 75 90 82 88 3 Pachliopta hector 63 29 51 45 4 Graphium sarpendon 0 0 0 0 5 Graphium agamemnon 6 0 0 0 6 Papilio demoles 0 0 0 0 7 Papilio helenus 0 0 0 0 8 Papilio polytes 69 23 37 44 9 Papilio polymenstor 6 8 0 8 10 Papilio crino 6 0 6 2

Total 256 169 195 202

Diversity (H`) 0.3368 0.3805 0.3601 0.4061

*WINTER = Winter Season (December – February); SWM = South West Monsoon Season (June – August); NEM = North East Monsoon Season (September – November); SUMMER = Summer Season (March – May)

Table 1.5: Seasonal variations in the butterfly density (No./km2) diversity (H’) in the teak plantation of Indira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary, Anamalais, Southern India


WINTER SWM NEM SUMMER 1 Troides minos 8 9 0 6 2 Pachliopta aristolochiae 68 65 58 82 3 Pachliopta hector 21 22 51 21 4 Graphium sarpendon 8 8 4 7 5 Graphium agamemnon 13 4 0 0 6 Papilio demoles 0 0 0 0 7 Papilio helenus 4 0 8 4 8 Papilio polytes 0 0 0 0 9 Papilio polymenstor 16 10 4 14 10 Papilio crino 4 1 8 2 Total 142 119 133 136 Diversity (H`) 0.1016 25418 0.1724 0.2631

* WINTER = Winter Season (December – February); SWM = South West Monsoon Season (June – August); NEM = North East Monsoon Season (September – November); SUMMER = Summer Season (March – May)

|

Div

ersi

ty o

f P

apil

onid

but

terf

lies

in

the

Indi

ra G

andh

i W

ildl

ife

Sanc

tuar

y |

9


9

A REVIEW OF THREATS TO RAMSAR SITES ANDASSOCIATED BIODIVERSITY OF NEPAL (Part II)

by Gandhiv Kafle, Mohan K. Balla and Bimal K. Paudyal

Threats to Beeshazar and Associated Lakes

The surrounding forest area of the lake ispopulated by nearly 100,000 people who

practice farming and fish in the lake, which ismanaged through a fishing contract, awarded oncea year (Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2004). Thelake area is quite vulnerable to human interventiondue to easy accessibility, contiguity and proximityto the dense settlement and highway. The naturalthreats to the lake ecosystem include naturaleutrophication and siltation that leads to vegetationsuccession. The anthropogenic disturbancesinclude eutrophication, pollution, fishing, irrigation,recreation, uncontrolled use of local fauna, over-grazing, timber felling and illegal hunting (IUCN,1998b). The lake is connected with Khageri canaland with the rains a lot of mud and other deadvegetation flows down and is deposited in the lake,which causes siltation and heavy infestation ofinvasive species like Water hyacinth (Eichhorniacrassipes) in the lake (Pradhan, 2005).

Threats to Jagadishpur Reservoir

The current use of the reservoir by the localpopulation includes fishing, grazing, fuelwood andfodder collection, domestic use and supply of waterfor irrigation of the surrounding cultivated land(Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2004). Thereservoir has a fluctuating water level accordingto the demand for the irrigation of cultivated land.Threats to the site include hunting, disturbance,deposition of aquatic macrophytes, water pollutionfrom agricultural chemicals and aquatic invasion.In 2004, the entire reservoir was drained by thelocal people in order to catch fish, although theformer water level is likely to be restored in due

course by monsoon rains and some fish maynaturally return with the incoming river water(Baral and Inskipp, 2005).

Threats to Koshi Tappu

Located in a densely populated area, the site issubject to livestock grazing and attempts by localpeople to re-establish themselves in the reserve.Land use in surrounding areas includes subsistencefishing and rice cultivation (Ramsar ConventionSecretariat, 2004). Koshi Tappu is threatened bythe large population of subsistence farmers andfishermen living in close proximity to the reserve.The major threats to the Koshi Tappu wetlandincludes illegal grazing by domestic animals, foddercollection, hunting, illegal fishing, disturbance ofnesting and feeding areas and poisoning. Significantpopulations of feral cattle and buffalo add to theproblem of illegal grazing (Baral and Inskipp, 2005,Petersson, 1998, Giri, 2002).

At Koshi Tappu, 90% of the households withinthe vicinity of the Reserve collect firewood, ofwhich 26.3% comes from forest and 16.4% fromdriftwood collected within the Reserve, and 16%of the households collect fodder from within theReserve. Overgrazing and the movement oflivestock along the shoreline contribute to soilerosion and high input of nitrogenous nutrients tothe wetlands, resulting in elevated eutrophicationof water and excessive growth of certain aquaticvegetation, which again leads to loss of suitablehabitat for birds and other aquatic life (IUCNNepal, 2004a).

The Koshi Barrage area is unprotected, affectedby hunting, over-fishing, disturbance and drainage.

Editor’s note: We regret that due to technical problems, some of the text from “A review of threats toRamsar sites and associated biodiversity of Nepal” was missing from the article when it appeared inTigerpaper Vol.34:No.4, and is now presented here.

| Review

of threats to Ram

sar sites and associated biodiversity of Nepal |

1010


Two invasive alien plant species – Water hyacinth(Eichhornia crassipes) and Mikania micrantha– are both widespread at Koshi and are causingmajor problems (Baral and Inskipp, 2005).

The Koshi Barrage, built to retain water and protectthe vast river plains of Bihar, India from flooding,has proved markedly attractive to water bodies,but has had significantly adverse effects on riparianvegetation and animal communities, particularlypopulations of mammals. Even the relict populationof Asian wild buffalo is severely affected andspends a substantial amount of time on agriculturelands outside Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve.

Use of agricultural chemicals on the adjacentcultivated land is prevalent in the area. EpizooticUlcerative Syndrome (EUS) has been reported inthe Koshi Tappu area since 1983, where it hascaused high mortality of native fish resources. EUSis a disease caused by the fungus Aphanomycesinvadans in the internal tissue of fish. It is suspectedthat the source of contamination of EUS is theexcessive use of inorganic fertilizers in the adjacentfarmlands and their mixing in the lake system. InKoshi Tappu, many of the wetlands have changedfrom mesotrophic to eutrophic due to theaccumulation of nutrients from natural and humanactivities. Sedimentation at Koshi Tappu hasincreased significantly as a result of disruption ofthe river dynamics by the Koshi Barrage and itsembankments (IUCN Nepal, 2004a, 2004b).

Poaching is widespread in Koshi Tappu; 763 wildanimals were reportedly killed between 1994 and1999, including 683 wild boars, 65 hog deer and15 spotted deer, of which 81 (76 wild boars, 3hog deer and 2 spotted deer) were poached in 1999alone. Wild buffalo, turtles and birds are also killed,but no records are kept of the specific numbers(IUCN Nepal, 2004b).

Conclusion

Nepal’s wetlands cover approximately 5% of thetotal land area of Nepal. These wetlands have greatbiodiversity as well as socio-economic values.There is close interaction between the local peopleand the wetland environment, which causes manyproblems and disturbances in the wetlands andassociated biodiversity. Nepal’s Ramsar sites are

affected by eutrophication, erosion andsedimentation, overuse of resources,encroachment, agricultural expansion, populationpressure, agricultural runoff, pollution, fishing,over-grazing, drainage and irrigation and aquaticinvasion. The loss and degradation of wetlandsand their associated biodiversity will continue untilintegrated participatory programs that benefit thelocal community as well as maintain the integrityof wetland ecosystem are implemented.

References

Baral, H. S. and C. Inskipp. 2005. Important BirdAreas in Nepal: Key Sites for Conservation.Bird Conservation Nepal and BirdLifeInternational, Kathmandu and Cambridge.

Bhandari, B. 1998a. An Inventory of Nepali’sWetlands. Final Report, IUCN Nepal,Wetlands and Heritage Unit, Kathmandu,Nepal, xvi + 309 pp.

Chaudhary, R.P. 1998. Biodiversity in Nepal -Status and Conservation. Tecpress Books,Bangkok.

DOAD. 1992. National Fisheries DevelopmentPlan, 1992/93. Fisheries DevelopmentDivision, Department of AgricultureDevelopment, HMGN, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Dudgeon, D., A. H. Arthington, M. O. Gessner,Z. Kawabata, D. J. Knowler, C. Lévêque, R.J. Naiman, A. Prieur-Richard, D. Soto, M. L.J. Stiassny and C. A. Sullivan. 2005.Freshwater Biodiversity: Importance,Threats, Status and ConservationChallenges. Cambridge Journal Online.Cambridge University Press.

Giri, T. 2002. Threats to Birds at Koshi. Danphe11(1): 35-36.

Gurung, S. B. 2003. Education throughLearning by Doing. In: Bhandari, B., OsamuAbe, Masahiro Takahashi and AkihiroNakahata (Eds.) Doing Education at WetlandSites: Examples and Modalities from Asia.Japan: International Institute for GlobalEnvironmental Strategies (IGES), RamsarCenter Japan and Mahidol University.

Hussain, S. A. 1994. The present status ofwetland conservation in Asia. The Futureof Cranes and Wetlands. 160-165 pp.

IUCN Nepal. 2004a. A Review of the Status andThreats to Wetlands in Nepal. 78 + v pp.

|

Rev

iew

of

thre

ats

to R

amsa

r si

tes

and

asso

ciat

ed b

iodi

vers

ity

of N

epal

|

11


11

IUCN Nepal. 200b4. Conservation andsustainable use of wetlands in Nepal:Project Brief and Annexes. Unpublished.

IUCN. 1998b. A Study on Conservation ofBeeshazar Tal. Wetlands and Heritage Unit,IUCN Nepal, Kathmandu.

Parish, F. 1996. An Overview of Asian Wetlands.In: Hails, A. J. (Ed.) Wetlands, Biodiversityand the Ramsar Convention: The role of theConvention on Wetlands in the Conservationand Wise Use of Biodiversity. RamsarConvention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland.

Petersson, D. 1998. What is happening at KoshiTappu Wildlife Reserve? Danphe 7(1/2): 6-7.

Pradhan, D. K. 2005. Population Status ofGlobally Threatened Bird Species andVegetation Analysis in and aroundBeeshazar Lake, Chitwan, Nepal.

Ramsar Convention Secretariat. 2004. TheAnnotated Ramsar List, English LanguageEdition. Ramsar Convention Secretariat,Gland, Switzerland.

Ramsar Convention Secretariat. 2006. TheRamsar Convention Manual: A Guide tothe Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran,1971), 4th ed. Ramsar Convention Secretariat,Gland, Switzerland.

Sah, J. P. and J. T. Heinen. 2001. WetlandResource Use and Conservation Attitudesamong Indigenous and Migrant Peoples inGhodaghodi Lake Area, Nepal.Environmental Conservation 28(4): 345-356.

Shrestha, J. 2001. Taxonomic Revision of Fishesin Nepal. In: Jha, P. K., S. B. Karmacharya,S. R. Baral and P. Lacoul (Eds.) Environmentand Agriculture: At the Crossroad of the NewMillennium, pp 171-180. Ecological Society,Kathmandu, Nepal.

Shrestha, P. 1998. Aquatic Weeds of the PokharaValley Lakes: Status Review andManagement Perspective. In: Present Statusof Fisheries Research, Development andEducation in Nepal. NARC/JICA, pp. 141-149.

Shrestha, T. B. and R. M. Joshi. 1996. Rare,Endemic and Endangered Plants of Nepal.WWF Nepal Program, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Author’s Addresses: Gandhiv Kafle, Prof. MohanK. Balla and Dr. Bimal K. Paudyal: Departmentof Watershed Management and EnvironmentalScience, Institute of Forestry, PO Box 43,Pokhara, Nepal.Correspondence: [email protected]

| Review

of threats to Ram

sar sites and associated biodiversity of Nepal |

1212


During a field survey in October 2007 formedicinal plants in the mixed thorn forest

along the hills range of Tapkeshwari ReserveForest (RF) in Bhuj (Kachchh district), the authorssighted track marks of Ghurnar-Ratel or Honeybadger (Mellivora capensis indica) (Prater, 2005).The tracks were on an open, sandy gravel soilpath with slightly undulating substratum in thedesert thorn forest (6B/C1) (Champion and Seth,1968). The Honey badger has a broad, squat,bear-like body with stumpy legs and strong largeclaws. The track appeared to have clearly beenmade with the animal’s toe claws and palm pads.

The major dominant plant species documentedwithin a 50 meter radius of the sighting wereAcacia senegal, Acacia leucophloea,Commiphora wightii, Premna resinosa andProsopis chilensis. The ground vegetation coverwas 70%-75% with predominant grass species likeAristida spp., Eleusine spp. Cymbopogon spp.,Indigofera cordifolia and Dicoma tementosa(Shah, 1978).

Diverse fauna has been reported from the areaincluding the Small Indian Civet (Viverriculaindica), Indian Porcupine (Hystrix indica), Jackal(Canis aureus), Wild boar (Sus scrofa), GreyMongoose (Herpestes edwardsii) and Desert Hare(Lepus nigricollis dayanus) (Menon, 2003).

Singh (2001) stated that the Honey badger isrestricted to the desert and the dry and moist forestsof Gir, Girnar, Narayan Sarovar Sanctuary,Ratanmahal, Jambughoda and Shoolpaneshwar inGujarat. Our report of this species in this mixedthorn forest of Tapkeshwari area is the first recordin the Kachchh district of Gujarat and a new sightingand range extension. A more extensive survey of

NEW SIGHTING AND DISTRIBUTION RECORD OFRATEL OR HONEY BADGER (Mellivora capensis indicaKerr, 1792) IN THE KACHCHH FOREST OF GUJARAT

by P.N. Joshi and Latchoumanan Muthu Andavan

this species in this mixed thorn forest patches wouldgive more sightings and their distribution status.

The Honey badger is a fearless carnivore, listed inCITES Appendix-III, (Nowell and Jackson, 1996)and in Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act1972.

References

Champion, G. and S.K. Seth. 1968. A revisedsurvey of the forest types of India. Managerof Publication, GOI, New Delhi.

Menon, V. 2003. A field guide to Indianmammals. Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt.Limited. 99 p.

Nowell, K and P. Jackson (Eds). 1996. Wild cats,status survey and conservation action plan.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 382 p.

Prater, S.H. 2005. The Book of Indian Animals.12th Ed. Bombay Natural History Society,Bombay. 162 p.

Shah, G.L. 1978. Flora of Gujarat State (PartI). University Press. Sarder Patel University,Vallabh Vidyanagar.

Singh, H.S. 2001. Natural heritage of Gujarat.Published by Gujarat Ecological Education andResearch (GEER) Foundation,Gandhinagar.262 p.

Authors’ address: c/o Gujarat Institute of DesertEcology, Post Box # 83, Mundra Road, Bhuj-Kachchh, Gujarat: 370 001 (India); E-mail:[email protected].

|

New

sig

htin

g an

d di

stri

buti

on r

ecor

d of

Rat

el o

r H

oney

bad

ger

in K

achc

hh F

ores

t |

13


13

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE NON-CAPTIVEFAUNAL DIVERSITY IN THE NATIONAL ZOOLOGICALGARDENS, DEHIWALA AND ITS ENVIRONS IN SRILANKA

by D.M.S.S. Karunarathna, D.A.M.M. Athukorale, W.A.A.D.G. Pradeep, J.K.P.P.D. Jayawardena,

K.P.A. Rashintha, W.W.D.H.P. Perera, W.A.D.S.P. Wijesinghe and M.H.S.A. Jayasekara

Introduction

Despite its relatively small land area of 65,650km2, Sri Lanka is a biodiversity hotspot rich

in faunal assemblages (Bossuyt et al., 2004;Meegaskumbura et al., 2002; Surasinghe, 2006).Wet and dry zones are determined by differentialrainfall from the northeast and southwestmonsoons. Remarkably, much of this endemicbiodiversity is concentrated in the wet,southwestern portion of the island, which coversa mere 15,000 km2. Favorable environmentalfactors such as high rainfall and humidity, anddiverse habitats support a rich faunal assemblage,especially in the wet zone of the island. Thedistribution of fauna in the island is governed bythe geology, altitude, climate, geography andhabitats (Goonawardena et al., 2006; Pethiyagoda,2005).

The National Zoological gardens of Sri Lanka, orthe Zoo as it is popularly known, serves botheducational and recreational purposes (Weinman,1957), and also functions as a national heritagecenter (Malsinghe et al., 2004). Apart from theexotic as well as native animals held in captivity,these premises also harbor several species of non-captive native animals in different habitat types;however, these naturally occurring animals withinthe zoo and its immediate environs have not beenstudied previously. Therefore, the ResearchCommittee of the Young Zoologists’ Association(YZA) decided to conduct a survey on thebiodiversity of the National Zoological Gardens(NZG) and its environs. The main objective ofthis survey was to document the vanishing urbanbiodiversity sustained by the NZG, in order to raise

conservation awareness and promote relevantactions to conserve this urban biodiversity refuge.

Study area

The NZG is approximately 19 acres in extent,located at a mean elevation of 25 m above sealevel. The NZG area lies at the intersection of 6°50’northern latitudes and 79°54’ eastern longitudes,approximately 2 km from Dehiwala town and 11km from Colombo (Weinman, 1957). Mean annualtemperature is approximately 29.4 °C and averageannual rainfall for the study area is >2,500 mm(Somasekaran, 1988). The NZG consists ofseveral habitat types which can be categorized assmall grasslands, scrublands, several small ponds,home gardens, man-made habitats and large shadytrees (i.e., Ficus spp.).

Methodology

The present study was carried out during January-April 2006. A total of 12 days were spent forfieldwork during the four months. General areasurveys were carried out in different habitat typeswithin the NZG. Surveys were conducted duringboth day and night and flashlights were used atnight. All collected species were examined carefullyand their measurements noted down before beingreleased back to the same habitats. The diagnostickeys given by Dutta and Manamendra-Arachchi(1996), Manamendra-Arachchi and Pethiyagoda(2005), Manamendra-Arachci and Pethiyagoda(2006), Das and De Silva (2005), Deraniyagala(1953), Deraniyagala (1955), De Silva (1990), DeSilva (1980), Harrison (1999), Rasmussen andAnderton (2005), D’ Abrera (1998), Woodhouse

| Some observations on the non-captive faunal diversity in the N

ational Zoological G

ardens, Dehiw

ala |

1414


Table 1: Faunal diversity of the NZG and its vicinity

Taxa Total no. of

species Endemic species

Threatened species

Individual Counts

Amphibians 12 3 3 36 Birds 53 3 2 274 Fishes 4 0 0 162 Mammals 10 1 1 48 Reptiles 21 5 5 73 Butterflies 52 0 6 428 Total 152 12 17 1,021

Discussions

The amphibians consisted of 12 species (3endemics) belonging to 3 families (Appendix 1),including toads, narrow-mouthed frogs, aquaticfrogs and tree frogs. These representedapproximately 11.6 % of the total amphibianspecies in the island. Among them, 3 species arevery common - the common toad (Bufomelanostictus), Skipper frog (Euphlyctiscyanophlyctis) and Common paddy field frog(Fejervarya limnocharis), while 5 species are veryrare at NZG - Red narrow mouth frog (Microhylarubra), Small wood frog (Rana aurantiaca), Sri

Lanka wood frog (Rana gracilis), Common hour-glass tree frog (Polypedates cruciger) and Chunamtree frog (Polypedates maculates). Most of thesespecies could be observed after a short spell ofrain. Three species are nationally threatened.

The reptiles consisted of 22 species (5 endemics)belonging to 6 families (Appendix 2), covering11.3% of the island’s reptile fauna. These included12 species of tetrapod reptiles and 10 species ofSerpentoid reptiles. Five species are nationallythreatened. The Green garden lizard (Calotescalotes), Common garden lizard (Calotesversicolor), Four-claw gecko (Gehyra mutilata),Spotted house gecko (Hemidactylus brookii),Common house gecko (Hemidactylus frenatus),Common rat snake (Ptyas mucosa), Land monitor(Varanus bengalensis) and Water monitor(Varanus salvator) were very common reptiles atthe NZG. The Sri Lanka keelback (Xenochrophisasperrimus), Gans’s lankaskink (Lankascincusgansi) and Dumerul’s kuki snake (Oligodonsublineatus) are rare in the NZG.

A total of 10 species of mammals, belonging to 7families, were recorded in NZG (Appendix 3),covering 7.6% of the island’s mammal fauna. This

(1950), Pethiyagoda (1991) and Phillips (1980)were used for species identification.

Results

The study (the first such survey within the NZG)recorded 100 species of vertebrate fauna and 52species of butterflies (Table 1). Of the total numberof species recorded, 11 (7%) are endemic, while16 (10%) are nationally threatened (IUCN Sri

Lanka, 2000). The vertebrates comprised 12species of amphibians, 21 species of reptiles, 10species of mammals, 53 species of birds, and 4species of fishes. Birds were the most abundantfaunal group in NZG, according to the presentsurvey, while fish were the least abundant faunagroup. Among the butterflies recorded, theSilverstreak blue Iraota timoleon is a very rarebutterfly species, and this survey is a second siterecord after D’ Abrera (1998), and a new site recordfor Sri Lanka after 50 years.

Polypedates maculates (Chunam tree frog)

|

Som

e ob

serv

atio

ns o

n th

e no

n-ca

ptiv

e fa

unal

div

ersi

ty i

n th

e N

atio

nal

Zoo

logi

cal

Gar

dens

, D

ehiw

ala

|

15


15

includes the endemic and threatened Purple-facedleaf monkey (Trachypithecus vetulus). Themammals have diverse food habits, and can becategorized as granivorus, frugivorous, carnivorousand insectivorous. The Flying fox (Pteropusgiganteus), Brown mongoose (Herpestesbrachyurus), Grey mongoose (Herpestesedwardsii), Mole rat (Bandicota bengalensis),Malabar bandicoot (Bandicota indica), Commonrat (Rattus rattus) and Palm squirrel (Funambuluspalmarum) were very common mammals, whilethe Painted bat (Kerivoula picta) and Purple-facedleaf monkey (Trachypithecus vetulus) are very rarespecies in the NZG. The single troop ofTrachypithecus vetulus consisted of six individuals.

Birds appeared to be the dominant group ofvertebrates at NZG, consisting of 53 species (2endemic) belonging to 23 families (Appendix 4).NZG has become a paradise for birds, includingmany migratory species, and these representapproximately 11.4% of the Sri Lankan avifauna.Among the total species recorded at NZG were 2winter migrants, 1 globally threatened species(Pelecanus philippensis) and 2 nationallythreatened species. The mixture of vegetation typesand aquatic habitats in NZG makes it an idealecotone for a variety of birds; about half of thebirds species recorded were associated withwetland ecosystems, such as herons, egrets,cormorants, kingfishers and pelicans which feedon aquatic organisms.

The NZG “Gal wala” is an important breedinghabitat for native birds, and it is also a preferredfeeding and resting habitat of several other species.The Brown-headed barbet (Megalaima zeylanica),

White-throated kingfisher (Halcyon smyrnensis),Greater coucal (Centropus sinensis), Rose-ringedparakeet (Psittacula krameri) and Rock pigeon(Columba livia) were commonly found birds,while the Crested serpent eagle (Spilornis cheela),Sri Lanka yellow-fronted barbet (Megalaimaflavifrons) and Stork-billed Kingfisher (Halcyoncapensis) are very rare species at NZG.

A total of 4 species of fishes, belonging to 4families, were recorded in NZG (Appendix 5). Allfish species are exotics in the water ponds and nonative species were recorded. Species such asHypostomus plecostomus and Oreochromismossambicus are invasive alien species. The fishfauna is mainly based in the Gal wala area at theNZG and others are found around Lion Island.The most common fish species is Oreochromismossambicus, while Osphronemus goramy is rarein the NZG. These fish form an importantcomponent of the diet of water birds such asPelecanus philippensis and Phalacrocoraxfuscicollis in the NZG.

Crested serpent eagle (Spilornis cheela) (Photo:L.J.M. Wickramasinghe)

Bandicota indica (Malabar bandicoot)Photo: V.A.P. Samarawickrama

Xenochrophis asperrimus (Sri Lanka keelback)



ardens, Dehiw

ala |

1616


Fifty-two species of butterflies were recorded inthe NZG, belonging to 5 families (Appendix 6).The butterflies found in NZG representedapproximately 20.5% of the total species in SriLanka. Six species are nationally threatened. Limebutterfly (Papilio domoleus), Tailed jay(Graphium Agamemnon), Psyche (Leptosia nina),Jezebel (Delias eucharis), Mottled emigrant(Catopsilia pyranthe), Common grass yellow(Eurema hecabe), Common tiger (Danausgenutia), Grey pansy (Junonia atlites), Tawnycostor (Acraea violae), White four-ring (Ypthimaceylonica), Common cerulean (Jamides celeno)(Fig. 4) and Tiny grass blue (Zizula hylax) werecommon species. The Three-spot grass yellow(Eurema blanda), Apefly (Spalgis epeus), Indiansunbeam (Curetis thetis), Redspot (Zesiuschrysomallus) and Silverstreak blue (Iraotatimoleon) were rare butterfly species at the NZG.

Conclusions

During the survey period, several threats to thenon-captive biodiversity in the NZG were observedincluding water pollution and use of chemicals.This preliminary investigation of the fauna of theNZG clearly shows that it is an important locationin terms of biodiversity. It also evident that NZGis an important refuge for threatened faunas in thewet zone.

AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to thank Dr. ChannaBambaradeniya (IUCN – The World ConservationUnion) for reviewing the manuscript. We wouldalso like to thank Mr. Tiran Abeywardena, Mr.Panduka Silva, Mr. Thasun Amarasinghe, Mr.Ramyanath Sirimanna, Mr. Gihan, Mr. Jeewana,Mr. Ziyard, Mr. Asanka, Mr. Praneeth, Mr.Suranga, Mr. Nirmala, Mr. Faraj, Mr. Thilina,Mr. Deepankara, Miss. Indika, Miss. Jayathri,Miss. Malithi, Miss. Kosalani and Miss. Thilina(YZA – Young Zoologists’ Association) andresearch committee members for their kind helpduring the field visit and other activities in theNational Zoological Gardens. We wish to extendour heartfelt gratitude to Mrs. Renuka

Bandaranayeke, Mrs. Dammika Malsinghe andother support field staff of the NZG.

References

Bossuyt, F., Meegaskumbura, M., Beenaerts, N.,Gower, D.J., Pethiyagoda, R., Roelants, K.,Mannaert, A., Wilkinson, M., Bahir, M.M.,Manamendra-arachchi, K., Ng, P.K.L., Schneider,C.J., Oommen, O.V. & M.C. Milinkovitch. 2004.Local endemism within the Western Ghats –Sri Lanka Biodiversity Hotspot. Science, 306:479–481.

D’ abrera, B. 1998. The Butterflies of Ceylon.Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka.

Das, I. & A. De Silva 2005. Snakes and otherReptiles of Sri Lanka. New Holland Publishers.

De Silva, P. H. D. H. 1980. Snake Fauna of SriLanka: with special reference to skull,dentition and venom in snakes, NationalMuseums of Sri Lanka.

De Silva, A. 1990. Colour Guide to the snakesfauna of Sri Lanka. R & A Publishing Ltd, Avon,England.

Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1953. A Colored Atlas of somevertebrates from Ceylon, Tetrapod Reptilia,National Museums of Sri Lanka, Colombo. Vol.02.

Deraniyagala, P. E. P. 1955. A Coloured Atlas ofSome Vertebrates from Ceylon, SerpentoidReptilia, National Museums of Sri Lanka,Colombo. Vol. 03.

Dutta, S.K. & K.N. Manamendra-Arachchi. 1996. TheAmphibian Fauna of Sri Lanka. WildlifeHeritage Trust of Sri Lanka.

Goonewardena, S., Drake, J. & A. De Silva. 2006. TheHerpetofauna of the Knuckles range.Lyriocephalus, 6(1&2): 17-32.

Gunatilleke, I.A.U.N. & C.V.S. Gunatilleke. 1990.Distribution of floristic richness and itsconservation in Sri Lanka. ConservationBiology, 4(1): 21-31.

Harrison, J. 1999. A Field Guide to the Birds of SriLanka. Oxford University Press Inc, New York.

IUCN Sri Lanka. 2000. The 1999 Red List ofThreatened fauna & flora of Sri Lanka.Colombo, IUCN Sri Lanka.

Malsinghe, D., Senarath, N., Premalal, S., Jayantha,L.P. & R.A. Rathnasiri. 2004. The Butterfly Parkof the National Zoological Garden, Dehiwala,Sri Lanka. Zoos’ Print Magazine, 19(5): 5-7.

Manamendra-Arachchi, K. & R. Pethiyagoda. 2005.The Sri Lankan shrub-frogs of the genusPhilautus Gistel, 1848 (Ranidae:Rhacophorinae) with description of 27 new

(continued on p.17)

|

Som

e ob

serv

atio

ns o

n th

e no

n-ca

ptiv

e fa

unal

div

ersi

ty i

n th

e N

atio

nal

Zoo

logi

cal

Gar

dens

, D

ehiw

ala

|

17


17

species. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology,Supplement No. 12: 163-303.

Manamendra_Arachchi, K. & R. Pethiyagoda 2006.Amphibians of Sri Lanka (text in sinhala).Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka.

Meegaskumbura, M., Bossuyt, F., Pethiyagoda, R.,Manamendra-Arachchi, K., Bahir, M.M.,Milinkovitch, M.C, & C.J. Schneider. 2002. SriLanka: an Amphibian hotspot. Science, 298:379.

Pethiyagoda, R. 1991. Fresh water Fishes of SriLanka. Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka.

Pethiyagoda, R. 2005. Introdution: Exploring SriLanka’s biodiversity. The Raffles Bulletin ofZoology, Supplement No. 12: 1 - 4.

Phillips, W.W.A. 1980. Manual of the mammals ofSri Lanka. Wildlife and Nature ProtectionSociety of Sri Lanka (Part - I / II / III).

Rasmussen, P.C. & Anderton, J.C. 2005. Birdsof South Asia. The Ripley Guide. Vols. 1

and 2. Smithsonian Institution and LynxEdicions, Washington, D.C. and Barcelona.

Somasekaran, T. 1988. The National Atlas ofSri Lanka. Surveys Department Sri Lanka.

Surasinghe, T.D. 2006. Conservation overviewof Herpetofauna of Sinharaja Man andBiosphere Reserve of Sri Lanka. Zoos’ PrintJournal, 22(1): 2535-2538.

Weinman, A.N. 1957. A zoological guide to theZoological Gardens of Ceylon. GovernmentPress of Ceylon.

Woodhouse, L.G.O. 1950. The Butterfly faunaof Ceylon. Ceylon Government Press,Colombo.

Authors’ address: c/o The Young Zoologists’Association of Sri Lanka, Department of NationalZoological Gardens, Anagarika DarmapalaMawatha, Dehiwala, Sri Lanka. E-mail:[email protected]

Appendix 1: Amphibian species recorded from the National Zoological Gardens Family - Bufonidae 01 Bufo melanostictus (Common house toad) Family - Microhylidae 02 Kaloula taprobanica (Common bull frog) 03 Microhyla rubra (Red narrow mouth frog) 04 Ramanella variegate (White-bellied pugsnout frog) Family - Ranidae 05 Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis (Skipper frog) 06 Fejervarya limnocharis (Common paddy field frog) 07 Hoplobatrachus crassus (Jerdon's bull frog) 08 Rana aurantiaca (Small wood frog) TR 09 Rana gracilis (Sri Lanka wood frog) E / TR 10 Philautus popularis (Common shrub frog) E 11 Polypedates cruciger (Common hourglass tree frog) E / TR 12 Polypedates maculates (Chunam tree frog)

(continued from p.16) | Som

e observations on the non-captive faunal diversity in the National Z

oological Gardens, D

ehiwala |

1818


Appendix 2: Reptile species recorded from the National Zoological Gardens Family - Bataguridae 01 Melanochelys trijuga (Black turtle) Family - Agamidae 02 Calotes calotes (Green garden lizard) 03 Calotes versicolor (Common garden lizard) Family – Gekkonidae 04 Gehyra mutilate (Four-claw gecko) 05 Hemidactylus brookii (Spotted house gecko) 06 Hemidactylus frenatus (Common house gecko) Family – Scincidae 07 Lankascincus fallax (Common lankaskink) E 08 Lankascincus gansi (Gans's lankaskink) E / TR 09 Lygosoma punctatus (Dotted skink) 10 Mabuya carinata (Common skink) Family – Varanidae 11 Varanus bengalensis (Land monitor) 12 Varanus salvator (Water monitor) Family – Colubridae 13 Ahaetulla nasuta (Green vine snake) 14 Amphiesma stolatum (Buff striped keelback) 15 Lycodon aulicus (Wolf snake, house snake) 16 Lycodon osmanhilli (Flowery wolf snake) E / TR 17 Oligodon sublineatus (Dumerul’s kuki snake) E / TR 18 Ptyas mucosa (Common rat snake) 19 Sibynophis subpunctatus (Jerdon’s polyodent) 20 Xenochrophis asperrimus (Sri Lanka keelback) E / TR 21 Xenochrophis piscator (Checkered keelback) Family – Typhlopidae 22 Ramphotyphlops braminus (Common blind snake)

Appendix 3: Mammal species recorded from the National Zoological Gardens Family – Pteropodidae 01 Pteropus giganteus (Flying fox) Family - Vespertillionidae 02 Kerivoula picta (Painted bat) Family – Cercopithecidae 03 Trachypithecus vetulus (Purple-faced leaf monkey) E / TR Family – Herpestidae 04 Herpestes brachyurus (Brown mongoose) 05 Herpestes edwardsii (Grey mongoose) Family – Viverridae 06 Paradoxurus hermaphoditus (Palm cat) Family – Muridae 07 Bandicota bengalensis (Mole rat)

|

Som

e ob

serv

atio

ns o

n th

e no

n-ca

ptiv

e fa

unal

div

ersi

ty i

n th

e N

atio

nal

Zoo

logi

cal

Gar

dens

, D

ehiw

ala

|

19


19

08 Bandicota indica (Malabar bandicoot) 09 Rattus rattus (Common rat) Family – Sciuridae 10 Funambulus palmarum (Palm squirrel) Appendix 4: Bird species recorded from National Zoological Gardens Family – Picidae 01 Dinopium benghalense (Black-rumped flameback) 02 Chrysocolaptes lucidus (Greater flameback) Family – Magalaimidae 03 Megalaima zeylanica (Brown-headed barbet) 04 Megalaima flavifrons (Sri Lanka yellow-fronted barbet) E / TR 05 Megalaima rubricapilla (Crimson-fronted barbet) Family - Alcedinidae 06 Alcedo atthis (Common kingfisher) 07 Halcyon capensis (Stork-billed kingfisher) 08 Halcyon smyrnensis (White-throated kingfisher) Family - Meropidae 09 Merops philippinus (Blue-tailed bee-eater) Family - Cuculidae 10 Eudynamys scolopacea (Asian koel) Family - Centropodidae 11 Centropus sinensis (Greater coucal) Family - Psittacidae 12 Loriculus beryllinus (Sri Lanka hanging parakeet) E / TR 13 Psittacula eupatria (Alexandrine parakeet) 14 Psittacula krameri (Rose-ringed parakeet) Family - Apodidae 15 Collocalia unicolor (Indian swiftlet) 16 Apus affinis (House swift) Family - Strigidae 17 Otus sunia (Oriental scops owl) 18 Ninox scutulata (Brown hawk owl) Family - Columbidae 19 Columba livia (Rock pigeon) 20 Streptopelia chinensis (Spotted dove) Family - Accipitridae 21 Haliastur indus (Brahminy kite) 22 Spilornis cheela (Crested serpent eagle) 23 Accipiter badius (Shikra) Family - Phalacrocoracidae 24 Phalacrocorax niger (Little cormorant) 25 Phalacrocorax fuscicollis (Indian cormorant) Family - Ardeidae 26 Egretta garzetta (Little egret) 27 Ardea cinerea (Grey heron) 28 Ardea purpurea (Purple heron) 29 Casmerodius albus (Great egret) 30 Mesophoyx intermedia (Intermediate egret) 31 Bubulcus ibis (Cattle egret)



ardens, Dehiw

ala |

2020


Appendix 5: Fish species recorded from National Zoological Gardens Family – Loricarridae 01 Hypostomus plecostomus (Tank cleaner) Family - Poecilidae 02 Poecilia reticulate (Guppy) Family – Cichlidae 03 Oreochromis mossambicus (Tilapia) Family – Osphronemidae 04 Osphronemus goramy (Giant gouramy)

32 Ardeola grayii (Pond heron) 33 Nycticorax nycticorax (Black-crowned night heron) Family - Pelecanidae 34 Pelecanus philippensis (Spot-billed pelican) Family - Ciconiidae 35 Anastomus oscitans (Asian openbill) Family - Laniidae 36 Lanius cristatus (Brown shrike) Family - Corvidae 37 Corvus splendens (House crow) 38 Corvus macrorhynchos (Large-billed crow) 39 Oriolus xanthornus (Black-hooded oriole) 40 Dicrurus caerulescens (White-bellied drongo) 41 Terpsiphone paradisi (Asian Paradise- flycatcher) 42 Tephrodornis pondicerianus (Common woodshrike) Family - Muscicapidae 43 Muscicapa daurica (Asian brown flycatcher) 44 Copsychus saularis (Oriental magpie robin) Family - Sturnidae 45 Acridotheres tristis (Common myna) Family - Hirundinidae 46 Hirundo rustica (Barn swallow) 47 Hirundo daurica (Red-rumped swallow) Family - Pycnonotidae 48 Pycnonotus cafer (Red-vented bulbul) Family - Nectariniidae 49 Dicaeum erythrorhynchos (Pale-billed flowerpecker) 50 Nectarina zeylonica (Purple-rumped sunbird) 51 Nectarina asiatica (Purple sunbird) 52 Nectarina lotenia (Loten’s sunbird) Family - Passeridae 53 Passer domesticus (House sparrow)

Appendix 6: Butterfly species recorded from National Zoological Gardens Family - Papilionidae 01 Pachliopta hector (Crimson rose) 02 Pachliopta aristolochiae (Common rose) 03 Papilio domoleus (Lime butterfly) 04 Papilio polytes (Common mormon)

|

Som

e ob

serv

atio

ns o

n th

e no

n-ca

ptiv

e fa

unal

div

ersi

ty i

n th

e N

atio

nal

Zoo

logi

cal

Gar

dens

, D

ehiw

ala

|

21


21

05 Papilio polymnestor (Blue mormon) 06 Graphium doson (Common jay) 07 Graphium agamemnon (Tailed jay) Family - Pieridae 08 Leptosia nina (Psyche) 09 Delias eucharis (Jezebel) 10 Appias albina (Common albatross) 11 Catopsilia pyranthe (Mottled emigrant) 12 Catopsilia pomona (Lemon emigrant) Family - Nymphalidae 13 Eurema hecabe (Common grass yellow) 14 Eurema blanda (Three-spot grass yellow) 15 Ideopsis similis (Blue glassy tiger) 16 Tirumala limniace (Blue tiger) 17 Danaus chrysippus (Plain tiger) 18 Danaus genutia (Common tiger) 19 Euploea core (Common crow) 20 Euploea phaenareta (King crow) 21 Cupha erymanthis (Rustic) 22 Phalantha phantha (Leopard) 23 Junonia lemonias (Lemon pansy) 24 Junonia atlites (Grey pansy) 25 Junonia almana (Peacock pansy) 26 Hypolimnas bolina (Great eggfly) 27 Hypolimnas misippus (Danaid eggfly) 28 Neptis hylas (Common sailor) 29 Acraea violae (Tawny costor) 30 Melanitis leda (Common evening brown) 31 Orsotriaena medus (Nigger) 32 Ypthima ceylonica (White four-ring) 33 Elymnias hypermnestra (Common palmfly) Family - Lycaenidae 34 Spalgis epeus (Apefly) 35 Curetis thetis (Indian sunbeam) 36 Arhopala amantes (Large oakblue) TR 37 Zesius chrysomallus (Redspot) TR 38 Jamides bochus (Dark cerulean) 39 Jamides celeno (Common cerulean) 40 Catochrysops strabo (Forget-me-not) 41 Castalius rosimon (Common pierrot) 42 Zizeeria karsandra (Dark grass blue) TR 43 Zizina otis (Lesser grass blue) 44 Zizula hylax (Tiny grass blue) TR 45 Talicada nyseus (Red pierrot) 46 Abisara echerius (Plum Judy) 47 Iraota timoleon (Silverstreak blue) Family - Hesperiidae 48 Ampittia dioscorides (Hedge hopper) 49 Panara bada (Smallest swift) 50 Taractrocera maevius (Common grass dart) 51 Telicota ancilla (Dark palm dart) TR 52 Telicota colon (Pale palmdart) TR



ardens, Dehiw

ala |

2222


|

Tra

ppin

g su

cces

s an

d in

vent

ory

of s

mal

l m

amm

als

in J

alda

para

Wil

dlif

e Sa

nctu

ary

|

TRAPPING SUCCESS AND INVENTORY OF SMALLMAMMALS IN JALDAPARA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY,INDIA

by Gopinathan Maheshwaran & Ashok Kumar

Introduction

Although mammals in general appear very wellrepresented in the conservation agenda,

attention in fact appears to be directed to a limitednumber of species. The high profile mammals aregenerally large and charismatic, includingcarnivores, large primates, elephants andungulates. In contrast, smaller mammal species(mass <1 kg) appear less represented in theconservation agenda. The small mammal fauna isoften seen as a broad assemblage, with theassumption that ‘a rat is a rat’ (Ceballos and Brown,1995). Although there has been increasingrecognition of the important role of small mammalspecies in ecological processes and ecosystemfunctions (Fujita and Tuttle, 1991, Ceballos andBrown, 1995), this does not appear to have beenreflected in how such species are incorporated intoconservation programs. Mammalian speciesdiversity values and rate of endemism for eachcountry have been used, along with measures ofrecent rates of habitat loss, human populationgrowth and density parameters, to identify globalanthropogenic threats to biodiversity (Sisk et al.,1994). However, many gaps still exist in ourknowledge of the mammals in some tropicalregions (Schaller, 1996).

In India, small mammals are always under-represented in any conservation-oriented programand proper research and inventory has only beencarried out on a very few species, mostly inwestern India. While many larger mammals areyet to be studied fully in India, small mammalsare not given adequate attention, even though theyplay a crucial role in the maintenance of theecosystem. The effect of habitat loss and alterationis assessed readily with respect to larger mammals,whereas the same is not appreciably assessed inthe case of small mammals. The loss of small

mammals in an ecosystem has not been properlydocumented to frame any conservation-orientedplans. For example, hunting pressure on the smallmammal population in many places is ignored, andthis could severely undermine any localconservation efforts. Thus, documentation of thesmall mammal population in a place where manyendangered mammals occur is essential.

This study on the small mammals of Jaldaparawould also benefit many other mammals ofconservation interest, such as One-hornedRhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis, Hispid hareCaprolagus hispidus, Asiatic elephant Elephusmaximus, Indian Gaur Bos gaurus and Hog deerAxis porcinus.

An inventory/study of small mammals (rodents andshrews) was carried out in the Jaldapara WildlifeSanctuary from 12 December 2002 till 15 January2003. Since no information is presently availableregarding the small mammal species present in theSanctuary, this survey was mainly undertaken inorder to have a base inventory of small mammals,which would be essential for any future detailedstudies or surveys to ascertain the status ofparticular species. The only authentic list (see Ingliset al., 1918) of small mammals available for thisregion is old and based on a survey conducted byInglis in the early 20th century through the BombayNatural History Society’s mammal survey.However, many changes have taken place both inthe administrative structure of the region as wellas in the ecosystem. New developmental activitiesand the creation of more tea gardens (at the costof destruction of the forests) have dramaticallyaltered the demography of many species. Mostaffected were the mammalian fauna which wereonce abundant in the rich and fertile natural forestsof North Bengal. Many threatened species suchas Hispid hare and Pygmy hog Sus salvanius came

23


23

under great pressure. Although the latter has beenexterminated from the region the former stillsurvives, but in low numbers. In addition, the fateof many other mammals, including rhinoceros andelephants, is heavily dependent on the manner inwhich the whole Sanctuary is managed. Back inthe 1900s, Inglis and others had seen and reportedmany other larger mammals which have not beenrecorded in recent years. Possible reasons for theirabsence could be the unchecked developmentactivities and alteration/conversion of prime foresthabitats into croplands and tea gardens.

Study area and methods

This study was carried out in Jaldapara WildlifeSanctuary from December 2002 to January 2003.Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary in West Bengal islocated in the flood plains of the river Torsa andother small rivers, which have created a large tractof savanna grasslands sustaining a small populationof One-horned rhinoceros.

The wet and tall savanna grasslands are the onlyremnants left inside the protected areas in WestBengal, and they include grasses such asSaccharum narenga. S. arundinaceum, S.spontaneum, S. munja, Imperata cylindrica,Phragmitis karka, Heteropogon contortus, Arundodonax, and Themedea spp. The natural successionin such grasslands always leads to colonization bythe trees like khair-sissoo (Acacia catechu andDalbergia sissoo), simul-siris, and simul-sidhaassociations. Such natural succession results in theconversion of grasslands into woodlands, whichbasically reduces the utilizable habitat of speciessuch as Rhinoceros, Hog deer and Hispid hare.

Initially, two days were spent in identifying potentialareas within the Sanctuary in which to set upSherman Traps and a few forest patches and somepatches of tall grasslands were selected. Dependingupon the size of the patches, the traps were baitedwith dry fish and roasted groundnut. Each forest/grassland plot (Table 1) was selected randomly,whereas the traps (N=10) were placed in a selectedlocality within those patches. The distance betweentwo such plots varied from 100m to 3,000m andthe distance between two successive traps withinthe patch varied from 5m to 30m.

Traps were placed at the bottom of tree trunks orunder fallen logs. A few traps were also set up onthe lower tree branches, mainly for shrews as theyare mostly arboreal. Traps were checked everymorning and evening for rodents and also to replacethe baits. On most occasions, dry fish baits werepartially eaten by ants and the traps had to bereplenished with new fish almost daily. Within thegrassland patches, the traps were hidden belowthe thick grass clumps and were partially coveredby dried grass to camouflage the shiny metal ofthe trap. Some of the traps in a few selectedpatches were rearranged within the host patch tokeep the animals from getting acclimatized to thetraps. By changing the position of traps in the studyplots, the chances of catching the animals in thetraps increased. Every four days the traps wereremoved and relocated in a totally new patch in adifferent locality.

GPS locations of all the patches were taken tomark the plots on a map of the Sanctuary. Capturedindividuals were taken to the field station. Thefirst specimen of each captured species was killedand skinned after taking necessary morphometricmeasurements. The rest of the captured individualswere color marked and released back to wherethey had been caught in order to measure therecapture rate. Since the survey only lasted 25days, it was presumed that the color markingswould remain on the animals for the duration ofthe survey and it would not be necessary to markthe individuals by any other means such as furclipping and/or toe clipping. The total trap effortand percentage of trapping success was calculated.

Results and discussion

In total, 25 days were spent within the Sanctuaryand 30 individuals comprising six species of rodentsand shrews (three each) were captured from 14localities (Table 1). In total, we used 90 Shermantraps with ten traps per plot. Even though theproportion of shrews and rodents was the same(three each), the abundance of rodents, especiallythe House rat, was more than the shrews. Amongthe shrews, Grey musk shrews were captured moreoften than other species. Animals were caught fromalmost all the patches except for two where thegrass cover was less and did not have enoughground cover (weeds). In general, more specimens

| Trapping success and inventory of small m

amm

als in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary |

2424


Total trap effort = Total No. of traps x No. of days90 x 14 = 1260 trap efforts/night.

Percentage of trapping success = Number of animals captured / Total trap effort x 100.30/1260 x 100 = 2.4%

Table 1: Number of days and number of animals captured in each locality within the Sanctuary andoutside the Sanctuary in the villages.___________________________________________________________________________Plot/Site Location No. days* No. of animals+

___________________________________________________________________________Supari Plantation - 16 3In front of Horindinga 26°38’37N; 89°17’49E 14 1Behind Horindinga 26°38’32N; 89°17’50E 5 -West of Horindinga 26°38’53N; 89°17’76E 9 -Behind Saltlick 26°38’36N; 89°18’33E 16 2Elephant route 26°38’31N; 89°18’38E 4 2Hispid Plot 26°38’36N; 89°18’33E 4 -Waterhole Plot 26°38’40N; 89°18’34E 16 2Malangi Plot 26°38’40N; 89°19’37E 14 3Opposite to Malangi 26°38’42N; 89°19’29E 6 1Torsa River 26°38’79N; 89°19’77E 8 1Gaur Point 26°39’55N; 89°19’00E 11 2Siltorsa 26°40’05N; 89°19’14E 11 3From villager’s houses - 16 10____________________________________________________________________* - Total number of days spent in each plot to capture small mammals

(10 traps/plot).+ - Number of animals (irrespective of species) caught in each plot

Belanger’s Tree Shrew Tupaia belangeri(Wagner, 1841)Two individuals were trapped and one was releasedafter taking measurements and photographs.Sightings of Belanger’s tree shrew are very com-mon in Jaldapara and they are often mistaken forsquirrels as their behavior resembles that of asquirrel’s, especially their daily activities and theirfeeding habits, e.g., the way they hold food in theirforelimbs like Striped palm squirrels (Funnambulusspp) do. According to the villagers these shrewsare often considered pests as they feed or damagethe Areca nuts in the peak fruiting season. How-ever, according to the villagers, they can also betamed and kept as pets like palm squirrels.

In general, tree shrews (Family: Tupaiidae) aresubdivided into two subfamilies: the diurnal

Tupaiinae containing five genera (Tupaia,Anathana, Dendrogale, Lyonogale andUrogale) and the nocturnal Ptilocercinae, witha single genus, i.e., the Pin-tailed tree shrewPtilocercus lowii. The geographical distributionof the Tupaiidae extends from India to the Phil-ippines, and from southern China to Java,Borneo, Sumatra and Bali.

Tree shrews are similar to squirrels in their ex-ternal appearance and habits. Despite theirname, tree shrews have nothing to do with realshrews, and most species of tree shrews aremuch more active on the ground than in trees.The difference from shrews is also demonstratedin the dental formula of the Tupaiidae: incisors2/3; canines 1/1; premolars 3/3; molars 3/3. Theterrestrial tree shrews have a long snout and

|

Tra

ppin

g su

cces

s an

d in

vent

ory

of s

mal

l m

amm

als

in J

alda

para

Wil

dlif

e Sa

nctu

ary

| were trapped from the closed canopy forest areas, followed by the grasslands with scattered trees.

25


25

sharp claws which are used to obtain food by root-ing through the leaf litter on the forest floor. Thearboreal species are smaller than the terrestrial spe-cies.

Tupaia apparently breeds throughout the year.Kawamichi and Kawamichi (1982) reported thatT. glis is probably reproductively inactive fromAugust through November and then has the breed-ing period in December, with births taking place inFebruary, followed by a postpartum oestrus, andmore births in April. The gestation period for T.glis is 46 to 50 days and the litter size of the genusis usually two.

Based on their external morphology alone, Tupiaglis and Tupaia belangeri are very difficult to dis-tinguish from one another. The exact taxonomicclassification could be ascertained by means ofgeographical origin, morphological criteria, cyto-genetic analysis, and acoustic signals (Toder et al.,1992).

This genus of about ten species is found in south-western China, Sikkim, Manipur, Assam, south-eastern Asia, Sumatra, Java and Borneo. Thelength of the head and body is about 150 to 225mm. And the length of the tail varies from slightlyless to a little more than the length of the head andbody. The weight is about 20 to 30 grams.

Grey Musk Shrew Suncus murinus (Linnaeus,1766)This is the most common shrew found in JaldaparaWildlife Sanctuary and is distributed evenly in al-most all habitats except the tall grassland patches.The survey team invariably came across this shrewin thick forest patches and semi-evergreen forests.Villagers brought captured shrews from theirhouses and consider them as pests as they dam-age stored grains and often prey on chicks. Theywere found feeding mostly on the dried fish keptas bait inside the Sherman Traps. A few shrewsdied after being kept for more than 12 hours in-side the Sherman traps, especially in the mid-win-ter period.

The Grey Musk Shrew or House Shrew, althoughexceptionally large in size for a shrew, is fairlytypical in shape and appearance, having relativelysmall black eyes, a long, pointed, mobile snout

and profuse soft vibrissae. The head and bodylength is 110-140 mm and the hind feet measure14-24 mm. The naked ear has rather distinct foldswithin the conch, giving a crumpled appearance.The body fur is very short, dense and velvety andof a uniform pale ash-grey color, sometimes witha brown wash. The House Shrew is not a gregari-ous species and generally lives a solitary existence.They are typically shrew-like in having voraciousappetites and spend the hours of nightfall scurry-ing about using their sensitive noses to detect prey.The captured shrews were fed small dried fish andit seems that shrews are fond of dry fish becausethey completely ignored the groundnuts that werealso offered at the same time.

Himalayan White-toothed Shrew Crociduraattenuata (Milne-Edwards, 1872)This seems to be a rare species in Jaldapara since10 traps were set but only one individual was cap-tured after eight days. In Jaldapara, an individual(probably a young shrew) was caught from‘Malangi Plot’ where Sherman traps were set upon tree branches at a height of one-and-half metersabove the ground level. It seems that it is morearboreal and nocturnal in behavior. Suncus murinusand Rattus rattus were collected the same nightfrom the same plot.

Crocidura inhabits Africa, the Scilly Islands, theChannel Islands and much of Europe, includingsome Mediterranean islands where large local formsoccur. It also can be found in Asia to the Philip-pines and possibly to the Moluccas and Kei Is-lands. In India they are distributed in Assam,Sikkim and Bhutan Duars. Hutterer, in Wilson andReeder (1993) gives the distribution of C. attenuataas including only Assam in India and eastwardsthrough Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesiaand parts of China. Thus, the capture of a Hima-layan White-toothed Shrew from Jaldapara Wild-life Sanctuary in West Bengal is a first record forthe state, as they were not previously reported fromWest Bengal. According to Corbet and Hill (1992)the main distribution of this species seems to be inthe humid eastern regions of the Himalayas, al-though specimens have been collected westwardsas far as the Kulu Valley in India.

White-toothed shrews occur in both damp and dryforests, open areas and human habitations. The


amm


2626


length of the head and body is 40-150 mm with atail length of 40-100 mm. The general colorationis shades of fawn, brown, gray or black and thefur is close and velvety. The genus Crocidura isdistinguished chiefly by having only three unicuspidteeth behind the incisors in the upper jaw andgenerally having a relatively long tail (more than60 per cent of head and body length, in some casesup to 160 per cent), which bears a scattering oflonger white hairs. The teeth are always white-tipped.

White-toothed shrews tunnel through loose humusand leaf mold and are often active under fallentrees and heaps of brushwood or stones. Themembers of this genus are active mainly at nightthroughout the year. The diet consists ofinvertebrates and the bodies of freshly killedanimals. They also feed on frogs, toads, andlizards. The breeding season is from March toOctober. In the wild they survive only one winter.

Indian Bush Rat Golunda elliotii (Gray, 1837)An individual was captured from ‘in front ofHornigdinga watch tower’ close to a stream undera thick grass clump. We do not know the exactstatus of this species in Jaldapara because otherthan this individual we did not capture any otheranimals in 14 days. According to Inglis et al.(1918), it was once very common in Jalpaiguridistrict of West Bengal and usually inhabitedswamps, grasslands and the vegetation at the edgesof cultivated areas and jungles (at least in SriLanka). However, the population seems to havedecreased considerably in the region in recent days,as we could not capture more than one animalfrom the ten traps set up close to a stream inmedium height grassland patches.

Golunda ellioti occurs in Sri Lanka, Punjab,western Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan. It is endemicto the Indian subcontinent. In India, its distributionis somewhat irregular. It is mainly found in theDeccan, the Nilgiris and Sri Lanka. It occurs inRajputana and Kathiawar and also in Punjabincluding the Kangara Valley.

The length of the head and body is usually 110-150 mm with a tail 90-130 mm long. The tail isshorter than the head and body. The texture ofthe pelage varies considerably. In some animals

the covering is fairly soft with only a few harshhairs; in others it is coarse and the longer hairs,some of which are spiny, are flattened and grooved.The coat is generally thin, but the hairs are ratherlong. The coloration above may be grayish,yellowish brown, reddish brown, or fairly darkbrown. These rodents are thickest and heavy andrather vole-like in appearance. The head is shortand rounded, and the ears are rounded and hairy.The tail is stout at the base, tapers toward the endand is covered with coarse, short hairs.

Rat-like in form and general coloration, Golundacould be mistaken in the field for Rattus rattus.Closer examination, however, reveals the followingdistinctions. Golunda is considerably smaller in sizethan Rattus rattus and the tail is generally slightlyshorter than the head and body length. Plus,although showing annulations and a semi-nakedscaly appearance, the body is much better coveredwith short hairs than Rattus species. Its prominentblack eyes are relatively bigger than in Rattusspecies and the ear conch is more flattened andcircular in outline, being well covered both insideand outside of the pinna with short buff hairs.

Golunda rarely burrows. It makes its nest on theground or just above the ground, usually on densegrass. The globular nest is made of plant fibersand is 150-230 mm in diameter. The animalsgenerally live alone or in family groups; they aremost active in the early morning and evening. Someobservers have stated that Golunda is slow in itsmovements; others consider it to be quick. Theserodents are good climbers, but they usually moveabout on the ground in definite pathways. Theirfood consists almost exclusively of plant material,normally the roots and stems of such plants as the“dub” or “nariyali” grass (Cynodon). In regionsof better vegetative cover and less humandisturbance they can be active at any time of theday and have frequently been seen actively feedingin the middle of the day or mid morning. Its dietconsists of a mixture of seeds, berries, youngshoots as well as grass stems and all kinds ofsucculent vegetable matter. In South India, theyfeed largely on the seeds of the Lantana bush(Prater, 1965).

|

Tra

ppin

g su

cces

s an

d in

vent

ory

of s

mal

l m

amm

als

in J

alda

para

Wil

dlif

e Sa

nctu

ary

|

27


27

House Rat Rattus rattus (Linnaeus, 1758)Very common in Jaldapara in almost all habitattypes (except riverine habitat) from tall grasslandpatches to thick evergreen forest, cultivated landsand human dwellings. They are considered pestsby villagers as they feed on stored grains andvegetables. Able to survive outdoor temperaturesas low as 8°C and much lower when kept in theSherman traps made of tin sheets.

Fawn-coloured Mouse Mus cervicolor(Hodgson, 1845)Family: Muridae and Subfamily: Murinae. This isa terrestrial species that inhabits crop fields, housesand godowns. It is distributed in India, Nepal,Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and Indonesia.Within India it is distributed in Jammu & Kashmir,Nagaland, Manipur, south Andaman and Assam.

An individual was captured from a riverine habitatin the Sanctuary. It has not been reportedpreviously from West Bengal and this is the firstreport of the species occurring in West Bengal. Itseems to inhabit the tall grassland patchesdominated by Saccharum spontaneum situated allalong the Torsa River. An individual was capturedin a tall grassland patch amidst the Torsa River,which it had probably reached by crossing theswelling river during the monsoon when the wholeriver is in spate. Washed away wooden logs andtree trunks may provide shelter during rainy season.Looking at the distance from the mainland to thepatch where it was captured, the chances of ittraveling a distance of more than 300 m seemimpossible as they have to beware of predators,especially the birds of prey.

Mus comprises about 40 species (Marshall, 1977;Corbet and Hill, 1992), 17 of which occur in theIndo-Malayan region (Corbet and Hill, 1992).These are small rodents with a head and bodylength generally under 80 mm. The body fur issometimes hispid. Often confused with Musbooduga, the Fawn Colored Mouse is confined tothe eastern Himalayas from central Nepaleastwards into Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Sumatraand Java (Corbet and Hill, 1992). It would be worthstudying how they live during the monsoon seasonas most of the area gets flooded, submerging thewhole grassland under 3-4 meters of water.

Conclusion

Apart from the species described above, bandicootsand porcupines are also reportedly present in theSanctuary, but neither of them were sighted directly.Past literature says that some other species (otherthan what was seen during the survey) were alsopresent in the whole of Jalpaiguri district of WestBengal (e.g., Inglis et al., 1918). Human pressureand the growing tea industry have put tremendouspressure on the already burdened habitats ofJaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary. Thoroughdocumentation of the entire small mammal faunaof the Sanctuary is essential before taking up anyfurther studies which would lead to effectivemanagement of the Sanctuary. However, it is tooearly to say anything about the conservationaspects of the small mammals, especially therodents and shrews, as we do not have muchinformation about the diversity of these animalswithin the Sanctuary. More status surveys areneeded to document the entire list of smallmammals present in the Sanctuary, as the speciesthat were identified may not be a completeinventory for the area and the chances of morespecies occurring in this ecologically important areaare great.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ms. Sally Walkerof the Zoo Outreach Organisation, Coimbatorefor financial assistance and for providing 100Sherman traps to carry out the study. We alsowould like to thank the Bombay Natural HistorySociety, especially the Conservation Department,for giving a small grant through the Salim AliNature Conservation Fund (SANCF). Our thanksalso to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forestsand Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), WestBengal, for giving us permission for trappingrodents and shrews. We are also grateful to Dr.M.S. Pradhan of the Zoological Survey of India,Western Regional Field Station, Pune, foridentifying the specimens.

References

Ceballos, G., and J. H. Brown. 1995. Globalpatterns of mammalian diversity,


amm


2828


endemism and endangerment. ConservationBiology 9: 559-568.

Corbett, G.B. and J.E. Hill. 1992 The Mammalsof the Indo-Malayan Region: A systematicreview. Natural History Museum Publication,Oxford University Press. 488p.

Finn, F. 1929. Natural History of the Mammaliaof India and Ceylon – A new and abridgededition of Sterndale’s work. Thacker &Spink, Calcutta. 347p.

Inglis, C.M., W.L. Travers and H.V. O’Donel.1918. A tentative list of the vertebrates ofthe Jalpaiguri District, West Bengal. J.Bombay. Nat. Hist. Soc. 26: 819-825.

Kawamichi, T., and M. Kawamichi. 1979. Spatialorganization and territory of tree shrews(Tupaia glis). Anim. Behav. 27: 381-93.

Kawamichi, T. and M. Kawamichi. 1982. Socialsystem and independence of offspring intree shrews. Primates 23: 189-205.

Maheswaran, G. 2002. Status and ecology ofendangered Hispid hare Caprolagushispidus in Jaldapara Wildlife Sanctuary,West Bengal. Final Report. WildlifeConservation Society, New York & BombayNatural History Society, Mumbai, India. 45p.

Marshall, J.T. 1977. Family Muridae (Rats andMice). In: The Mammals of Thailand.Published by Association for Conservation ofWildlife, Bangkok. p.397-487.

Prater, S.H. 1965. The book of Indian Animals.2nd Ed. (Rev.) Bombay Natural History Society,Bombay. 323p.

Schaller, G.B. 1996. Introduction: Carnivoresand conservation biology. In: Gittleman J.L.(Ed) Carnivore Behaviour, Ecology andEvolution, p.1-10. Cornell University Press,Ithaca and London.

Sisk, T.D., A.E. Launer, K.R. Switky and P.R.Ehrlich. 1994. Identifying extinction threats.BioScience 44: 592-604.

Sterndale, R.A. 1884. Natural History of theIndia and Ceylon. Thacker and Spink,Calcutta. 540p.

Toder, R., D. von Holst, and W. Schempp. 1992.Comparative cytogenetic studies in treeshrews (Tupaia). Cytogenetics and CellGenetics 60(1): 55-59.

Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder. 1993. Mammalspecies of the world: a taxonomic andgeographic reference. 2nd Edition.Smithsonian Institution, U.S.A.

Authors’ addresses: Gopinathan Maheswaran,Zoological Survey of India, M-Block, NewAlipore, Kolkata-700 053, INDIA, E-mail:[email protected]; Ashok Kumar,Bombay Natural History Society, HornbillHouse, S.B. Singh Road, Mumbai-400 023,INDIA.

DAMAGE CAUSED BY MIGRATORY ELEPHANTS ANDTHE SOCIO ECONOMIC IMPACT IN SOUTH WESTBENGAL

by Ajit Kumar Santra, Ashis Kumar Samanta and Subhranshu Pan

Introduction

Increasing human-elephant conflict in recentyears has been a major issue for managing wild

elephants in different parts of India (Johnsingh &Panwar, 1992; Daniel et al., 1995; Nath &Sukumar, 1998). During last two decades therehas been a routine phenomenon of elephant herds

from Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary, Jharkhand,migrating into different forest areas of South WestBengal (Anon, 2001), where they remain for 6-7months. Besides these migratory elephants, SouthBengal forests also harbor 35 resident elephants(Anon,2000). Before 1987, wild elephants usedto roam in certain parts of hilly areas of SouthBengal such as Ajodyha and Bandwan of Purulia,

|

Tra

ppin

g su

cces

s an

d in

vent

ory

of s

mal

l m

amm

als

in J

alda

para

Wil

dlif

e Sa

nctu

ary

| D

amag

e ca

used

by

mig

rato

ry e

leph

ants

|

29


29

| Dam

age caused by migratory elephants |

Belpahari and Banspahari of West Midnapur, andRanibandh of Bankura districts (Anon,1996).Elephants use the forest as shelter during the dayand raid cultivated crops at the fall of dusk untilmidnight. During the last few years, elephantshave been moving further northeast to forest areasof Bankura (north) forest division. In December1993, a herd of 42 elephants moved up to Bandelin Hooghly district, within 50 km of Kolkata. Themigration of elephants to South Bengal forests takesplace because of disturbances in the forests ofSinghbhum and the Dalma hill range (Olivier,1978). Over the years, the herds have been movingup their date of arrival in the South Bengal forestsand delaying their departure.

During their stay, the elephants become a subjectof great concern in terms of economic loss andloss of human lives in this region. Elephants inflicthuge damage, including killing humans andlivestock, raiding crops, destroying houses,damaging food stocks and other assets. Thepresent situation is also posing many questionsabout the myriad conservation problems regardingthis endangered species in its one of last fewstrongholds. Most of the forest staff remainengaged in managing the elephant menace, but sofar without any fruitful outcome. As a result, thenormal activities of the forest department havesuffered. Agitated farmers, road blockades andeven physical assaults on the forest staff havebecome routine affairs during elephantdepredations. However, no permanent solution isin sight as more information is needed about thepeculiar phenomena of the pachyderm.

Study area

The study area is located in the districts of WestMidnapur, Bankura and Purulia, between latitudes22°25’ to 23°15’ North and longitudes 86°30’ to87°49’ East. The geographical area covers about11,000 km2, of which forests are spread over 1,850km2. The area is bounded by Burdwan district innorth and Jharkhand and Orissa states in the west.Dalma forest, home of the migratory elephants, islocated at the west of the study area withinJharkhand state. The terrain is hilly to undulatingand forms the boundary of the last reaches of theolder formations of the peninsula with the Indo-Gangetic alluvial zone. The eastern and southern

parts are flat plains and popularly known as thecountry of the “red earth” due to the preponderanceof laterite. There are two major seasons – hot humidand cold moist. The forest types are tropical drydeciduous (Champion & Seth, 1968).

Methods

The elephant depredation pattern on differentagricultural crops viz. paddy, sugarcane, potato,cabbage and wheat was monitored by directobservation. The data on the different types ofcrops damaged, what parts are consumed, thestages of the crops when damaged, etc., wererecorded by visual appraisal and damage areameasurement (Manakadan & Rahmani, 1998).Information on damages viz. killing and injuringhumans, damaging houses, killing livestock,damaging food stocks and other assets werecollected through spot visits and from recordsmaintained by Forest Department, Government ofWest Bengal.

Results and discussion

Human casualties

Between 1976 and 2001, 183 people were killedby elephants. Out of these, 16 deaths occurredduring 1976 to 1986, while 167 deaths werereported between 1987 and 2001. The highestdeaths were recorded during 2002-2003, duringwhich period 35 people were killed. The overalldata on human casualties shows an increase since1987-88. Based on the records from EastMidnapur forest division, it was observed that therewere no human casualties in this division prior to1987. However, such incidents have escalatedsince 1988. This was due to the mass migrationof elephants from West Midnapur forest divisionto East Midnapur forest division, crossing theKangsabati river. Elephants never migrated to thoseareas before 1987. Elephants have also beenstaying for longer durations in the migration rangesince 1988.

An analysis of the seasonal frequency of deathsrevealed that 43.47% of the deaths occurred inthe winter months during 1996-2001. Only26.08% of the deaths were reported in the summermonths, while the figure was 30.43% in the rainy

3030


|

Dam

age

caus

ed b

y m

igra

tory

ele

phan

ts | season. The greater number of deaths in the winter

months is directly correlated with the increasedoutdoor activities of the people, either in crop fieldsor in the forests.

The victims largely hailed from the forest fringevillages. According to eyewitness accounts, themajority of the killings occurred outside the forests(e.g. in village or agricultural fields) during lateevening or at night. However, killings in the foresttook place during the day. The higher death rateat night coincided with the time of cropdepredations by the migratory herd. Some peoplewere killed by elephants during their forestcollections or while they were in an intoxicatedstate. The possibility of sudden elephantencounters at close quarters is higher in the forest,where visibility is very low within 5-10 meters.Persons that were killed while in an intoxicatedstate might have had a delayed reaction to thepresence of the elephant or total loss of fear. Manyhuman deaths may be due to the ignorance of localpeople unaccustomed to wild elephants (Sukumar,1991). Since human deaths are random events,some factors such as topography of the place ofencounter, degree of intoxication, time of the day,age and sex of the person, can often decide thefate of an individual (Datye & Bhagwat, 1995).It was also observed that most of the humancasualties were caused by the adult male elephants.This may be due to an increased level of bloodtestosterone during musth leading to highaggressiveness (Jainudeen et al., 1972).

Damage to houses

A large number of houses damaged by elephantswas reported by the people living in the forest fringevillages of South Bengal. Almost all the housesdamaged by elephants were earthen thatched huts.According to estimates, on an average fifty houseswere demolished by elephants annually. However,a total of 210 houses were damaged in the studyarea during 2000-2002. Patterns of house damagerevealed that 20% of the houses were totallydemolished by the elephant, while 35% weredamaged halfway, and the rest were either partiallyor minimally damaged. The highest amount ofdamage to houses was noticed in Palasia villageunder Panchkahaniya beat of Nayagram range, ina single night in January 2002. Out of a total 19

damaged houses, five were virtually flattened tothe ground, whereas the rest were partiallydamaged. The herd was driven by the hoolaparties since early afternoon on that fateful day,so as to push them toward the Orissa border fromNayagram range of West Midnapur forest division.The reason for the heavy damage might be due tothe disturbance to their routine crop raidingactivities, resulting in hunger and consequentsearching for food in the dwelling area. Furtheranalysis revealed that the entire banana orchardwith bamboo and other plants were either totallyconsumed or trampled in the aforesaid village. Asimilar pattern of house damages caused byelephants was noticed in other areas viz.Chandabilla and Patrasayer. Elephants raid housesfor various reasons, viz. searching for stored foodgrains, salt and country liquor. There are desperatesolitary elephants known to be habitual housebreakers (Bist, 1996). Damages to some housesmay be due to the elephants’ indulgence in play.

Killing of livestock

Cases of elephants killing cattle, buffaloes and otherlivestock were reported from South Bengal.According to estimates (Anon,1996), on an averagethere were 20 cattle deaths and 40 cattle injuriesin different parts of the elephants range in SouthBengal annually. A typical case of a cow beingkilled by a migratory elephant was observed inTildanga village under Patrasayer range of Bankura(north) forest division on 19th November 2001. Acow and three bullocks were roped by the owneron the bank of a pond in the early morning. Anelephant cow with her calf was returning to theforest after a night raid on crops. On seeing thegigantic animal, the bovines tried to run away.Unfortunately the elephant kicked the cow,probably in apprehension of being attacked by it.The livestock kills usually take place around thehuman habitations or when the animals are grazingin the forest areas during the day (Veeramani etal., 1996)

Depredation of other assets

Other valuable assets damaged by elephants,though not quantified here, have also beenreported. Machines used for extracting sugarcanejuices, temples, forest sign posts, tube wells,

31


31

boundary walls of many educational institutes andutensils have all been damaged by migratoryelephants. Pachyderms demolished one forest signpost on their way moving to another patch offorest land at Lalgarh beat. The damaged signpost was possibly an obstruction to the freemovement of the elephants. A few temples inSaulia village under Brindabanpur beat of Beliatorerange were demolished by the migratory herd. Asugarcane juice extracting machine was damagedby the herd in the field located at Kurchiboni villageunder Nayagram range. The smell of sugarcanejuice might have attracted the elephant herd tothe site where sugarcane was threshed.

Crop raiding

Elephants invariably raided the agricultural fieldsbordering the forests. For a few consecutive daysthey repeatedly raided a cluster of fields locatednear the forest where the elephants took theirdaytime shelter. This practice continued until theelephants turned their attention to other locations,or they were driven away by the determined effortsof the driving party. The study revealed that paddy,potato, sugarcane, maize, wheat, cabbage,pumpkin, cucumber and cauliflower were raidedby elephants. Four crops, viz. paddy, sugarcane,cabbage and potato, formed the bulk of theelephants’ diet. Migratory elephants were almosttotally dependent on paddy up to December.During this period (August-December) elephantsmoved into vast areas of paddy fields spreadingover different forest divisions. They invariablyconsumed the middle part of a vegetative hill ofpaddy, discarding the basal and leafy parts.

Maize was found to be one of the dietaryingredients of resident elephants. They were moreselective in picking out both the terminal malespikes and the auxiliary female spikes forconsumption. Sometimes succulent stems andleaves were also consumed by the residentelephants. Sugarcanes were broken at the terminalportion of the stem for consumption. Elephantsinvariably consumed the whole part of the wheatplants. However, plants in the inflorescence statewere highly relished by the elephant for the sweettaste due to the high sugar content. Cabbage wasmostly plucked by the elephants, leaving a fewmature leaves at the basal part. Pachyderms also

consumed cucumber, sweet potato and pumpkin,depending on their availability. It was noticed thata large number of fields were damaged when theymoved through the crop fields without feeding.This phenomenon was particularly noticed whenthe elephants were being driven. The reason isthat the herd tried to secure a safe place as earlyas possible without roaming much through the cropfields for feeding. Elephants are ‘preprogrammed’to recognize all the crops available to them, notonly as potential food, but also preferred ones byapplication of their nutrition wisdom (Olivier,1978).

Socio-economic impact

Migratory elephants cause considerable agonyamong people living on the periphery of forests.As a result, anti- elephant conservation feelingsrun high among the people. It has become a seriouslaw and order problem whenever someone getskilled by an elephant in a village. Since 1987, ithas been a regular phenomenon of staff beingassaulted or injured by irate villagers. It wasespecially noticed during the elephant drivingoperation. The major development activities of theforest department are severely hampered as mostof the staff in the elephant range are busy managingthe problematic elephant herd during Septemberto February. Forests in some areas have beencleared by desperate villagers to deny shelter tothe elephants near the village. Such clearing offorest was observed in some areas of Brindavanpurbeat. Many farmers even left their land withoutcultivation to avoid damage by elephants.Casualties often occur when villagers try to protecttheir crops from elephants. With continuous lossof habitat, pachyderms are forced to extend theirrange and raid agricultural crops to meet theirenergy requirements. During such forays ofelephants into the dwellings and crop fields, andhuman forays into the forests for collection offorest produce, confrontation is inevitable. Thenumber of deaths has decreased in and aroundDalma Wildlife Sanctuary since 1983, with acorresponding increase in the number of deaths inSouth Bengal. This could be directly related tothe time spent by the migratory elephants in thesetwo areas. Increasing drains of public money forex-gratia payment towards losses of human life,crops, livestock and other property is but one of

| Dam

age caused by migratory elephants |

3232


the many aspects of the problem. The highestamount of ex-gratia (Rs.41.45 lakh) was paidduring 1997-1998. There is also considerableexpenditure from the non-plan budget forpurchasing kerosene, diesel, crackers, jute, etc.,to meet the cost of elephant drives. Moreover,villagers often harvest premature crops, especiallyrice, potato and cabbage, because the chances ofattack increase once the crops are mature. Thisreduces the value of the harvest even if theelephants do not eat it.

There is no universal recipe for controlling problemelephants. Many of the proposed solutions (e.g.capturing elephants and creation of an elephantmanagement zone) are very expensive and timeconsuming, and do not guarantee a better future.Socio-economic development programs through“participatory management” with the help of localvillagers may be helpful in minimizing man-elephant conflicts.

Acknowledgements

The authors are highly thankful to the Departmentof Forest, Government West Bengal, for givingpermission to carry out the research in the SouthWest Bengal forests.

References

Anonymous.1996. A report on management ofelephants in the south–western part of WestBengal. Wildlife Wing, Directorate of Forests,Kolkata, Government of West Bengal.

Anonymous.2000. Biodiversity conservation inWest Bengal. Wildlife Wing, Directorate ofForests, Kolkata, Government of West Bengal.

Anonymous.2001. A report on elephant menacein South West Bengal. Wildlife Wing,Directorate of Forests, Kolkata, Governmentof West Bengal.

Bist, S.S.1996. Man- elephant conflict: Causesand control measures. Zoos’ Print, 6: 43-46.

Champion, H.G. and S.K. Seth.1968. A revisedsurvey of the forest types of India.Government of India Publications, New Delhi.

Daniel, J.C., Krishnamurthy, V., Desai, A.A.,Sivaganeshan, N., Datye, H.S., Kumar, R,Bhaskaran, N., Balasubramanium, M. and S.Swaminathan. 1995. Ecology of the Asian

Elephant. Final report(1987-92), BombayNatural History Society, Bombay, India.

Datye, H.S. and A.M. Bhagat. 1995. Man–elephant conflict: a case study of humandeaths caused by elephant in parts of centralIndia. In: A week with elephants (Eds J.C Daniel& H.S.Datye). Proceedings of the InternationalSeminar on the Conservation of Asian elephant,Bombay Natural History Soc, pp.340-349 andOxford University Press, New York.

Jainudeen , M.R., Katongole, C.D. and R.V. Short.1972. Plasma testosterone levels in relationto musth and sexual activity in the maleAsiatic elephant, Elephas maximus. Journalof Reproductive fertility. 29:99-103.

Johnsingh, A.J.T. and H.S. Panwar. 1992.Elephant conservation in India: Problemsand prospects. In: Mammal conservation indeveloping countries: A new approach (edP.Wegge), pp.35-56. Agriculture, University ofNorway, Norway.

Manakadan, R and A.R. Rahmani. 1998. Cropdamage in blackbuck antelope cervicapra atRollapadu Wildlife Sanctuary, AndhraPradesh, Journal of Bombay Natural HistorySociety, 3:408- 421.

Nath, C.D. and R. Sukumar. 1998. Elephant-human conflict in Kodagu, Southern India:distribution patterns, peoples participationand mitigation methods. Asian elephantconservation centre, Centre for EcologicalScience, Indian Institutes of Sciences, Bangalore,India.

Olivier, R.C.D. 1978. On the ecology of the Asianelephant Elephas maximus Linn. withparticular reference to Malaya and Sri Lanka,Unpublished Ph.D thesis, University ofCambridge , England.

Sukumar, R.1991. The management of largemammals in relation to male strategies andconflict with people. Biological Conservation,55:93-107.

Veeramani, A., Jayson, E.A. & P.S. Easa.1996.Man-wildlife conflict: cattle lifting andhuman casualties in Kerala; IndianForester,10: 897-902.

Authors’ address: Department of LivestockProduction and Management, College ofVeterinary Science & A.H., Anjora, Durg, Pin-491001, Chhattisgarh, India.

|

Dam

age

caus

ed b

y m

igra

tory

ele

phan

ts |

1

Vol. XXII: No.1 January-March 2008

1

FOREST NEWSFOREST NEWS

Vol. XXII: No. 1 Jan-Mar 2008

Forest insects as food: humans bite back

Humans have consumed insects for thousands ofyears – in some cases as emergency food, in othercases as a staple, and in still other cases asdelicacies. In modern times, the consumption ofinsects has declined in many societies, and hasoften been shunned as old-fashioned, dirty, orunhealthy. Yet, among various cultures scatteredthroughout the world, insects remain a vital andpreferred food and an essentialsource of protein, fat, minerals andvitamins. For some members of therapidly growing upper and middleclasses of urban society, insects are“nostalgia food,” reminding them ofearlier, simpler days in the ruralcountryside.

Worldwide, over 1,400 insectspecies are reportedly eaten ashuman food. Most are harvestedfrom natural forests. But, whileinsects account for the greatestamount of biodiversity in forests,they are the least studied of allfauna. Surprisingly little is known,for example, about the life cycles,population dynamics, andmanagement potential of many edible forest insects.Similarly, little is known of the impacts that over-harvesting of forest insects might have on forestvegetation, other forest fauna and the ecosystemsthemselves.

Among forest managers, there is little knowledgeor appreciation of the potential for managing andharvesting insects sustainably. There is almost noknowledge or experience in manipulating forestvegetation or harvest practices to increase,

maximize, or sustain insect populations. Indeed,as many insects cause massive damage andmortality to valuable commercial trees, virtuallyall insects are considered undesirable pests bymany forest managers. What knowledge doesexist in these respects is often held by traditionalforest dwellers and forest-dependent people.

The capturing, processing, transporting, andmarketing of edible forest insectsprovide interesting income andlivelihood opportunities for anundetermined number of peoplearound the world. Traditionally,these activities were all locallybased and largely under-recognized. Recently, however,more sophisticated and wide-reaching marketing andcommercialization of edible forestinsects have been advanced,including attractive packaging andadvertising. Some advocatesbelieve that creating a wider marketfor food insects could provide aneconomic incentive for conservinginsect habitats.

The workshop Forest Insects as Food: HumansBite Back was organized in Chiang Mai,Thailand, 19-21 February 2008, by the Foodand Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO), in collaboration with Chiang MaiUniversity.

The objectives of the workshop were to:raise awareness of the potential of edibleforest insects as a human food source;

Vol. XXII: No. 1 January-March 2008

22


3


3


document the significance of food insects topeople’s livelihoods and assess their linkagesto sustainable forest management andconservation;identify key challenges to promoting edibleforest insects in wider markets and possiblesolutions to address those challenges;develop working relationships and contacts withcolleagues from other countries on edible forestinsects;share existing knowledge on the collection/capture, processing, marketing and consumptionof edible forest insects in the Asia-Pacific regionand fill gaps where information is insufficient;anddevelop recommendations and strategies forpromoting forest insects as food on a regionalscale.

The 36 participants of the workshop includedexperts on edible insects, entomologists, foresters,promoters of insect eating and members of themedia from 13 countries, mostly from SoutheastAsia but also from Europe and America.

The workshop was successfully conducted withactive participation from the participants. Thepresentations were informative, and discussionswere engaging. The field trip provided anopportunity to observe edible insect farming andmarketing in practice. The workshop provided avaluable venue for networking and exchange ofinformation among experts on the subject.

The working groups discussed the current status,identified key bottlenecks to future developmentand formulated recommendations for promotingedible insects as food on a regional scale. Theworking groups focused on: taxonomy and ecology;harvest practices and management implications;and post-harvest processing, shipping andmarketing.

In the discussions, the participants stressed theneed for more research on taxonomy, nutritivevalue, ecology, management potential and culturalaspects of edible insects. Particularly, the need todocument and research the effects of management

regimes (through manipulation of forest vegetation,fire, etc.) in relation to edible insects was noted.The importance of promotion, marketing,awareness-raising and education to draw attentionto the nutritional and environmental benefits ofedible insects was highlighted. Value-adding andquality control were recognized as prerequisites inmarketing and promotion. The need for sharingof relevant information was also noted. Inclusionof edible insects in government strategies for ruraldevelopment and agricultural diversification wasseen as a critical element as well.

The participants also identified a list of insects(bamboo caterpillar, sago grub, grasshopper, dungbeetle, silkworm, giant water bug, Vespa wasp,green tree ant, Hymenoptera brood, cicada andcricket) considered to be the most important asfood in the Asia-Pacific region, with arecommendation that future research anddevelopment concentrate on these insects.

The conference recommendations addressedseveral bottlenecks to future development whichwere commonly identified. First is the lack ofinformation and research, and the need to integrateand document local knowledge that is disappearingin some parts of the region. Lack of mechanismsfor sharing existing information, which is often onlyavailable in local languages, was also recognized.Second is the promotional and educational aspect.Ensuring quality and safety, changing perceptionsand raising awareness are continuing challenges inthis regard. Finally, moving insect eating from afringe subject to a mainstream strategy for ruraldevelopment would require multi-faceted efforts.Enhancing the acceptance of entomophagy inpractice and as a scientific discipline will be thefirst step in promoting insects as food on a regionaland global scale.

An overarching recommendation was for FAO tostrengthen information sharing related to edibleforest insects, perhaps through a regional newsletterfor Asia and the Pacific.


44


Global forest resources assessments (FRA) havebeen carried out by FAO since 1946 and reportshave been published at periodic intervals of fiveto ten years. The latest of these reports, FRA 2005,was published in 2006.

The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010,or FRA 2010, was mandated by the eighteenthsession of COFO (March 2007). It consists of twomain components:

A country reporting process, where countriesare requested to submit country reports to FAO,following a standardized reporting format andmethodology.A complementary remote sensing assessment,aiming at obtaining better information of forestchange processes on global, regional and biomelevel.

The Global Forest Resource Assessment 2010 wasofficially launched 3-7 March 2008, at a meetingin Rome, sixty years after the publication of theresults of FAO’s first Global Forest ResourcesAssessment.

A total of 265 forest assessment specialistsattended, including representatives from 154countries and 14 key forest related organizations:the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), theEuropean Forest Institute (EFI), the EU JointResearch Centre (JRC), the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO), GermanAir Force Assistance Group (GAFAG), theInternational Tropical Timber Organization(ITTO), Jena University Germany, South DakotaState University USA, the United NationsEconomic Commission for Europe (UNECE), theUnited Nations Environment Programme – WorldConservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC),the United Nations Forum on Forest (UNFF), theUnited Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC), World Bank (WB) and WorldResources Institute (WRI).

Mr Jan Heino, Assistant Director-General, FAOForestry Department, formally opened the

Forest Resources Assessment 2010 launched

Meeting. He welcomed participants and highlightedthat forests are important for a variety of reasonsand that their sustainable management require on-going monitoring and assessment of trends thatcan measure progress in protecting, conserving andusing forest resources in a wise and sustainablemanner. He expressed his gratitude to the largenumber of forest-related organizations that havehelped shape FRA 2010 and who will either helpFAO to implement FRA 2010, providecomplementary data through their own efforts orhelp further disseminate the knowledge generatedthrough this process. He noted that this year FAOcelebrates the 60th anniversary of the publicationof the results of its first Global Forest ResourcesAssessment. He further noted that the supportoffered to FAO for FRA 2010 has beenoverwhelming. He informed the meeting that todate, 175 countries have responded to FAO’srequest to nominate a National Correspondent forFRA 2010.

Remote sensing

FRA 2010 will be the most comprehensive forestresource assessment undertaken to date and willinclude a number of new initiatives including aremote sensing survey using satellite data toproduce global and regional tree-cover maps anda more consistent and detailed assessment ofchanges in forest areas over time.

Using satellite data from 1975, 1990, 2000 and2005, forest cover will be surveyed across theplanet in about 13,500 plots, providing a samplingintensity of 1 percent of the global land surface, toobtain statistically valid information at regional andglobal levels.

This survey will generate unprecedentedinformation on deforestation, afforestation andnatural forest expansion. It is expected that thesurvey will:

provide insight into the land uses that arereplacing forests;

5


5


Global planted forests have continued to increaseover the past 15 years – from approximately 190million hectares in 1990 to approximately 271million hectares in 2005. The Asian proportion ofthe global planted forests has also continued to

increase – from 98 million hectares to 128 millionhectares respectively.

Globally, the top 10 countries (by area) accountfor 81% of all planted forests (see figure).

Towards responsible management of planted forests

improve understanding of the globalcontribution of forests to greenhouse gasemissions and reductions; andestablish a common framework andmethodology to enable developing countries toimprove their monitoring of current and futuredeforestation rates.

In addition, the 2010 assessment will expandknowledge of the biological diversity of forests

and will include a special study on trees outsideforests, a survey of the area of forest undersustainable forest management, and data on forestlaws, policies and institutions.

Follow-up meetings with countries will beorganized on a regional basis over the next 12months to provide capacity building and furtheropportunities for clarifications and to conduct areview of countries’ data.


66


The planted forests area in China is more thandouble the size of the next country (India).

Seventy-three percent of planted forests aremanaged primarily for production of industrialroundwood for wood and fibre products, whilst27 percent are managed for primarily protectivepurposes (protection of soil and water, etc.).

Fifty-one percent of the 205 million hectares ofplanted forests grown for production are in theAsia-Pacific region. Seventy-three percent of the66 million hectares of planted forests grown forprotection are in the Asia-Pacific region, mainly torehabilitate degraded lands, combat desertificationand for soil and water protection.

China’s reported the purpose of planted forests asheavily weighted for production; for India it wasboth production and protection; and for Japanpredominantly protection.

Implementation of the voluntary guidelines forresponsible management of planted forests

A four-day multi-stakeholder workshop “Towardsresponsible management of planted forest” wasconducted in Chiang Mai, Thailand, 21 to 24January 2008. The workshop was the second phaseof the preparation for implementation of theVoluntary Guidelines for Responsible Managementof Planted Forests. Thirty-one individualsparticipated, including representatives ofgovernment, NGO and private sector stakeholdergroups from China, Lao PDR, Thailand, andVietnam, and officers and staff from FAO and theAsia Pacific Association of Forest ResearchInstitutes (APAFRI).

The purpose of the workshop was to:orient and sensitize stakeholders to the principlesand applications of the voluntary guidelines asa planning, management and monitoring tool inpolicy, legal and technical work;

discuss the institutional, economic, social andcultural, environmental and landscapedimensions and how to balance the trade-offsbetween the different contexts;analyze problems requiring attention;identify priority areas that needed to beaddressed;prepare log frames for 3-year programs/projectsto detail impacts, outcomes, outputs, activities,stakeholders, indicators and assumptions; andreview follow-up actions and funding to developa programme or project to strengthen plantedforests development.

The workshop generated three main outputs foreach participating country:

synthesis of planted forest development andSWOT analysis;action framework; andlogical framework.

The meeting successfully reviewed the VoluntaryGuidelines in the context of planted forestdevelopment in the four countries, and participantsfrom each country developed logframe proposalsfor future action to address priority problems.

The outputs from the workshop are to be used tosubmit programs or projects to forest authorities,donors and development banks for considerationto contribute towards responsible management ofplanted forests in each country. This will requirefollow up by both country participants and FAO.

The workshop was the first of several plannedworkshops to be convened for groupings ofcountries in this and other regions. The pilot effortdemonstrated the effectiveness of the workshopapproach and will serve to continuously improvefuture planned workshops.

7


7


FAO assisting Bhutan to develop new forest policy

Bhutan has very strong policies and laws to con-serve natural resources and to protect the envi-ronment. While these have been good for protect-ing the environment, they have sometimes nottaken full advantage of enlightened policies to pro-mote sustainable development and sound utiliza-tion of natural resources. There is a growing needfor a more balanced approach in Bhutan that isbased on a broader and more holistic approach tosustainable development and poverty alleviation.While the recent economic growth is strong (7percent annual average), due mainly to the rapidexpansion of hydro-power and the sale of elec-tricity to India, the benefits are not fully shared.While the middle class is becoming wealthier, atleast one-third of the population lives in poverty.

The Government of Bhutan is fully aware of theopposing pressures to protect the environmentwhile promoting sustainable development. For in-stance, the Forest and Nature Conservation Actof 1995 has little consistency with the NationalForest Policy established in 1974. Considering themany changes since 1974, the Secretary of theMinistry of Agriculture invited FAO to assist informulating a new forest policy that will defineand clarify the purpose of the forests of Bhutan,and provide guidance for revising the Forest andNature Conservation Act of 1995. The new forestpolicy will have a major impact on food securityand biodiversity, and will provide a framework forstrategies aimed at striking a balance between con-servation and sustainable use in areas such as com-munity forestry, watershed management, wood andnon-wood forest products, and livestock manage-ment.

In March 2008, FAO fielded a two-person mis-sion in March 2008 to assist with the develop-ment of the new forest policy. The mission devel-oped a framework for formulating the new forestpolicy. It proposed a participatory and multi-stake-holder approach, and suggested the draft policyshould be based on the following principles andbest practices:

The ultimate purpose of the policy is to ben-efit Bhutanese society while conservingBhutan’s forest resources.Policy objectives should reflect national visionand goals.The policy should be holistic – balancing so-cial, economic and environmental concerns –and multi-sectoral, recognizing that the forestsector does not operate in isolation.Policy formulation and implementation shouldinvolve stakeholder and political participation– a consultative process involving all sectors(public, private, NGOs) and all levels (national,district, communities).The policy should be realistic, achievable, andpractical.

Through a consultative process, the mission iden-tified key issues that need to be addressed by thenew forest policy. This approach not only strivesat reaching consensus among key stakeholdersabout the best way to address each of the keyissues, it also achieves ownership of the final prod-uct. The following were identified as some of thekey issues that have to be considered during theformulation of the forest policy:

sustainable management of forest resourcesand watersheds;planning;information and knowledge;participation;conservation of the environment;economic benefits;afforestation and land restoration;development of private sector business envi-ronment; andinstitutional development.

The March mission is considered to be the firststep in the consultative process. The list of issueswill be augmented or modified as additional stake-holders are consulted, in particular those at thedistrict and community level. A second mission isplanned when the draft policy will be preparedthrough a similar consultative process. The draftwill be submitted to public hearings for feedback


88


from various stakeholders before final approval bythe Government. The implementation of the newforest policy will only be effective if it is commu-nicated to all relevant stakeholders, sufficient re-sources are provided for implementation, and itseffectiveness is regularly monitored. Effective

Strengthening leasehold foresty in Nepal

In 1990, the Government of Nepal and theInternational Fund for Agricultural Development(IFAD) signed a Loan Agreement for the HillsLeasehold Forestry and Forage DevelopmentProject (HLFFDP), providing support up toDecember 2003. This innovative program receivedadditional technical assistance from FAO from1992 to 2001. The objectives of the HLFFDP wereto raise the incomes of families in the hills of Nepalwho were below the poverty line, and contributeto improving the ecological conditions. To achievethese objectives, degraded forest has been leasedfor 40 years (renewable) to groups of poorhouseholds as a resource base for their exclusiveuse.

The provision of secured access to degraded forestland, combined with training and other inputs,increases the availability of animal fodder.Increased fodder makes it easier to convert fromfree grazing of animals to stall-feeding. This reducesthe pressure on the forest and vegetation, whichleads to improved environmental conditions. Stall-feeding also increases the availability of manure,which in turn helps to maintain or improve soilfertility, leading to increased food production andfood security. Overall, household food security hassteadily increased in project areas.

The leasehold program, while very promising, hasyet to be replicated throughout the country. Severalfactors need to be addressed for this to happen.They include:

Technical capacity needs to be strengthened atthe district level to effectively implement theleasehold forestry program.

Leasehold forestry must be adapted to a widerrange of agro-ecological conditions.The program needs to be implemented moreconsistently across projects and districts.Simple indicators are needed to identify thepoverty situation of rural households andcommunities.The contribution of forest and trees in reducingpoverty needs to be clarified and enhanced.

In view of this, the Government of Nepal recentlylaunched a project with support from FAO’sTechnical Cooperation Programme (TCP). Thespecific objectives of the project include:

building-up implementation capacity andreference points in the 22 leasehold forestryprogram districts;identifying promising multipurpose grasses,legumes and tree species for the rehabilitationof degraded forest land in the dry agro-ecologicalzones;finalizing the operational guidelines that are linkedto the poverty indicators for leasehold forestry,and developing the national standards (bestpractices) for leasehold forestry to be usedacross districts and projects; andimproving the institutional framework for agreater contribution of forests and trees toreduce poverty.

The project was launched in February 2008, andwill be implemented by Nepal’s Department ofForestry. The work is envisaged to support theongoing IFAD project on Leasehold Forestry.Additional synergies between the two projects arebeing considered.

implementation may also require amendments tovarious Acts and the implementation regulations.The new forest policy is expected to provide thefoundation for Bhutan to sustainably manage andutilize its forest resources for the benefit of all itscitizens.

9


9


Partnership for forest restoration research in Indochina

With increasing human impacts on forests in Asiaand the Pacific, the area of degraded forests andforest land in the region has expanded rapidly inrecent years. While much of these forest areaswill be permanently converted to other land uses,large areas are potentially available to revert backto healthy forests. In some cases, naturalregeneration will suffice. But, in many other areas,active human intervention is needed to rehabilitateor restore forests through reforestation, assistednatural regeneration, enrichment planting and otherapproaches.

A regional workshop on “The Future of ForestRestoration Research in Indochina,” was held 12-14 March 2008, in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Theworkshop was organized by the Forest RestorationResearch Unit of Chiang Mai University, incollaboration with FAO/RAP and several otherpartners. Fifty-two participants took part in theworkshop, including representatives fromCambodia, China, Lao PDR, Thailand, and a largenumber of regional and international organizations.

The Forest Restoration Research Unit (FORRU)of Chiang Mai University has been working onforest restoration issues for more than 15 years.As part of its continuing program of support,FORRU joined with FAO and other partners toexchange experiences and develop proposals forfuture forest restoration activities in the region,with a particular focus on Indochina.

The objectives of the workshop were to:

present and discuss country plans to establishforest restoration research units in Cambodia,China and Laos;

explore potential funding mechanisms andimplementation approaches for forestrestoration in Indochina;

provide a forum for the exchange of ideas onforest restoration research in Indochina; and

launch the publication “How to Plant a Forest”(in five languages) and “Research for theRestoration of Tropical Forest Ecosystems.”

The workshop included the following elements:presentation and discussion focused on recentexperiences with forest restoration in Asia;presentation of proposals for future forestrestoration activities in Cambodia, China, andLao PDR;review of forest policies and research in theregion;discussion of opportunities for funding andother support for forest restoration in theregion; andfield visits to some of FORRU’s research sitesnear Chiang Mai.

The workshop provided a useful opportunity toexchange information and experiences in forestrestoration, but it was evident that much needs tobe done to effectively scale up the activities thatdemonstrate promise. Most ongoing activities aresmall-scale in nature rather than operational scale.

Sustainable development of non-timber forest products

Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are emergingrapidly in the global marketplace. At a time whenmarkets for the environmental services of forestsare being increasing promoted, many countries andorganizations see a great deal of potential for these

forest products and services in the process ofsustainable development and poverty alleviation.

The International Conference on the SustainableDevelopment of Non-Timber Forest Products and


1010


Services was held 26-28 September 2007 inBejing, China. It was hosted by the ChineseAcademy of Forestry and organized by theInternational Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO)in collaboration with the International Network forBamboo and Rattan (INBAR), the InternationalCentre for Bamboo and Rattan, and FAO. Theconference drew 120 participants from 42countries.

Some of the key issues discussed at the conferencewere as follows:

The wide diversity of definitions of NFTPsand environmental services hinders thedevelopment of the sector.Forests provide many services, including carbonsequestration, hydrological services,biodiversity conservation, soil erosion control,climate buffering, etc. Payments for theseservices can help reduce both poverty anddeforestation.NTFPs are very important for manycommunities, particularly the rural poor. Thetrade in some high-value NTFPs alsocontributes to national economies. However,the benefits are not always distributed equitablyand markets are often informal, disorganizedand open to exploitation.More value-adding at the local level couldprovide forest-based communities withsignificant benefits from NTFPs.The sustainable use of NTFPs andenvironmental services are key elements ofsustainable forest management.A lack of clear resource tenure, access andrights inhibits the development of community-based forest enterprises.

It was recommended that governments andinternational organizations should:

fully recognize the huge existing and potentialrole of NTFPs and forest environmentalservices in sustaining and adding wealth topeople living in and around forests;improve the terminology and definitions ofNTFPs and environmental services to ensurea consistent approach to their management andtrade;where necessary, institute and supportparticipatory processes to develop and improvelegal and policy frameworks that support the

production and trade of NTFPs and services,including by addressing land tenure, resourceaccess and user rights;ensure that laws and policies allow and assistindigenous and local communities, includingwomen, to develop successful forest-basedenterprises;review the need for new and/or improvedfinancial mechanisms to promote community-based enterprises based on NTFPs withincommon biogeographic areas;develop cooperative agreements for thesustainable management of NTFPs withincommon biogeographic areas;develop guidelines for the sustainable and sociallyequitable use of NTFPs and environmentalservices in the context of sustainable forestmanagement (SFM);support the development of national andinternational standards and certification systemsfor different groups of NTFPs andenvironmental services;boost research and development into NTFPsand payments for environmental services;strengthen international networks on NTFPs toimprove the quality, availability and exchangeof technical, marketing and managementinformation; andsupport the development of:

capacities for monitoring and assessingenvironmental services and payments forthem as a way of adding value to tropicalforests and reducing;effective procedures for the valuation ofenvironmental services;better instruments for financingenvironmental services, especially fromthe private sector; andintegration in national development/sectoral planning and legal frameworks.

For more information, please contact:ITTO Secretariat, Forest Industry DivisionInternational Organizations Center, 5th FloorPacifico-Yokohama 1-1-1, Minato-MiraiNishi-ku, Yokohama, 220-0012, JapanFax: +81 45 223 1111; E-mail: [email protected]

(Extracted from Non-Wood News No.16 January2008)

11


11


Australian-Swiss region-led initiative on regional input insupport of the United Nations Forum on Forests

In recent discussions within the United NationsForum on Forests (UNFF), countries have calledfor greater interaction between UNFF and the workbeing carried out by forest-related organizationsand processes that operate at regional levels.Regional forest-related mechanisms, institutionsand instruments, organizations and processes havebeen encouraged to address issues and agendaitems planned for each upcoming UNFF session,and to provide input on these issues to the UNFFsessions. At the same time, there is growingappreciation of the important roles that regionalorganizations and processes play in catalyzing andsupporting on-the-ground implementation ofsustainable forest management (SFM), and asubsequent desire to ensure increased support forthe work at the regional level.

To help clarify and advance the interaction betweenregional mechanisms and UNFF, Australia andSwitzerland, working with other partners, includingFAO, organized a region-led initiative (RLI), 28-30 January 2008, in Geneva, Switzerland. Forty-nine participants from 34 organizations andcountries attended the RLI. Attendance at the RLIwas on the basis of invitations to forest-relatedregional and sub-regional organizations, UnitedNations Forum on Forests (UNFF)8 Bureaumembers, Collaborative Partnership on Forests(CPF) members and selected country experts.

The objectives of the RLI were as follows:

Raise awareness at the regional and sub-regional levels of the International Arrangementon Forests (IAF) and the role and work of theUNFF, especially its mandate to strengtheninteraction between the UNFF and regionaland sub-regional mechanisms, institutions andinstruments, organizations and processes;Inform on the topics identified in the UNFFMulti-Year Programme of Work (MYPOW)with a view to sharing regional and sub-regionalperspectives on these topics with the UNFF;

Examine opportunities for, and constraints to,integrating the planned UNFF agenda itemsinto meetings of the regional or sub-regionalprocesses;Identify practical mechanisms and timelinesfor ensuring that the outputs from regional andsub-regional organization meetings aresubmitted to the Forum secretariat andintegrated into the UNFF sessions, asappropriate and likewise enhancing outputsfrom the global level to the regional level; andEncourage inputs from forest-related regionaland sub-regional mechanisms, institutions andinstruments, organizations and processes toUNFF, by: 1) sending written focusedcontributions; and/or 2) participating in thesessions of the UNFF.

Key priorities and challenges of the regionaland sub-regional organizations

While there was common agreement on the keypriorities facing forests of the world, the timing ofaddressing those priorities and the ways in whichthose priorities could be addressed were stronglydependent on the needs and capabilities of eachregion or sub-region. The following points wereraised as areas of priority for all regional and sub-regional organizations that reflected issues thatwere also of priority at the global and nationallevel:

implementation of SFM;capacity building and information exchange;mobilization of all types of financing;forests and climate change;biofuels/ bioenergy;biodiversity conservation and protection;water and forests;combating illegal and unsustainable logging;establishing partnerships among allstakeholders – strengthening multi sectoriallinkages and engagement;


1212


local communities use/access rights to theforests;forest products trade and market reforms;forest policy and institutional reform;protected area management;forests and health;forest degradation;deforestation; andforests and poverty eradication.

Interaction between the regional and sub-regional organizations and the UNFF

The RLI concluded that UNFF could supportregional and sub-regional organizations andprocesses by:

supporting increased information exchangeamong regional and sub-regional organizationsthrough the UNFF website and maintainingan “events roadmap” of planned activities;developing a listing of regional and sub-regionalorganizations and their mandates and priorities;linking regional organizations with potentialdonors (especially within the CollaborativePartnership on Forests) to support newinitiatives and activities at the regional level;dedicate one or two days of each future UNFFsession to regional and sub-regional dimensionsand ensure that the perspectives of regionalorganizations and processes are fullyhighlighted; and

organize and support additional events suchas the RLI to enhance the knowledge andawareness of organizations regarding the workof the UNFF.

In turn, it was suggested that regional and sub-regional organizations and processes could morefully support the agenda of UNFF by:

disseminating the results and decisions takenby UNFF at the regional and sub-regionallevels;providing reports to UNFF giving regional andsub-regional perspectives on current forestryissues, especially those related to the upcomingagenda topics to be considered in UNFFsessions;implementing activities related to theInternational Year of Forests;promoting action towards sustainable forestmanagement at the ground level in membercountries;providing information to the UNFF Secretariaton upcoming meetings and activities;organizing workshops, seminars, and sideevents in conjunction with UNFF sessions toshare information, seek advice, and exploreideas for advancing progress towardsustainable forest management; andproviding regular feedback to UNFF on policydevelopment, lessons learned, and regionalpriorities to help keep the work of UNFFfocused and relevant.

RAP forestry staff movement

Kikang Bae, a national of the Republic ofKorea, began a six month internship with theForestry Group in the FAO Regional Office forAsia and the Pacific, in March 2008. Ms. Baehas a B.Sc. from Seoul National Universitywhere she majored in forest environment andis currently working toward a M.Sc. degree. Shewill assist in the implementation of the programof the FAO Forestry Department in relation to

forest rehabilitation and reforestation in the Asia-Pacific region.

Chanthakarn Junnatasna, a Thai national, hasbeen recruited as a short-term consultant for theGap analysis of existing knowledge and datasources as compared to the needs of coastalmanagers for information project (GCP/RAS/234/UCN).

13


13


New RAP forestry publications

REACHING CONSENSUSMulti-stakeholder processes in forestry: experi-ences from the Asia-Pacific regionBy D.A. Gilmour, P.B. Durst and K. ShonoRAP Publication 2007/31

By nature, forestry is multi-disciplinary and highlycomplex. In addition to timber needed to sustainforest industries, forests provide a wide range ofgoods and services that ultimately ensurethe well-being of societies.

Consider-ing the broad range

of people and sectors impactedby forests, decision-making in forestry

can no longer be the exclusive domain of govern-ments and the privileged groups of people. For for-est management to be successful in today’s world,mechanisms must be established to ensure effec-tive participation of diverse stakeholders in deci-sion-making processes in order to balance the per-spectives and priorities of all affected and interestedindividuals and groups.

Over the past two decades, a large number of multi-stakeholder processes have been established in Asiaand the Pacific to strengthen forest managementdecision-making. The experiences have been mixed.This publication is intended to further increase theknowledge and understanding of multi-stakeholderprocesses that are truly effective in delivering thediverse benefits of forests to society in a balanceand equitable manner.

TREES AND SHRUBS OF THE MALDIVESBy V. SelvamRAP Publication 2007/12

The forests and trees of the Maldives are usedby the islanders primarily as a source of timber,but also for medicinal and culinary purposesamong others. For their effective conservationand sustainable management, it is essential forrelevant information on the identity, ecology anduse of each species to be catalogued and dis-seminated. The “Forestry programme for earlyrehabilitation in Asian tsunami-affected coun-tries,” supported by the Government of Finlandand coordinated by the FAO Regional Office forAsia and the Pacific, took the initiative to publishfor the advancement of forestry and conserva-tion in the Maldives.

This work is thefirst of its

kind in theMaldives and con-

tains information on 100 spe-cies, including broadleaves, mangroves,

pandanus, palms and casuarinas. Recognition ofthe values of trees and forests and the environ-ment is climbing the global agenda, and throughthis publication it is hoped that awareness will beraised among Maldivians and others interested instudying the wide range of trees and shrubspresent in this group of islands.


1414


THE ROLE OF COASTAL FORESTS IN THEMITIGATION OF TSUNAMI IMPACTSBy Keith Forbes and Jeremy BroadheadRAP Publication 2007/1

The role of coastal forests in the mitigation of tsu-nami impacts became a hotly debated topic in theaftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. In-formation from a range of sources suggested thatmangroves and other coastal forests mitigated theeffects of the tsunami, which led to tree plantingprogrammes and calls to establish coastal bufferzones in a number of tsunami-affected countries.

The effectiveness of trees and forests in shieldingcoastlines from tsunamis was later called into ques-tion and the surrounding debate revealed the im-precise nature of the existing knowledge and theassociated danger of potentially harmful policiesbeing formulated.

The diversity of opinion revealed the urgent needfor interdisciplinary work to bridge the gap be-tween science and policy and provide informationon whether and how to plant or manage coastaltrees and forests for protective purposes. The worksummarized in this publication was therefore un-dertaken to specifically address the physical as-pects of tsunami mitigation by forests, which formthe core of the debate. It is hoped that the infor-mation provided will be used in conjunction witheconomic, social and environmental considerationsto improve the management of coastal trees andforests.

Asia-Pacific Forestry Chips and Clips

PAPER-RECYCLING TYCOON BECOMESTHE RICHEST WOMAN IN CHINAThe founder of Nine Dragons Paper, which buysscrap paper from the U.S. for use in China, hasbecome the first woman to top the list of China’srichest people. Nine Dragon’s shares have almosttripled in value since they were listed on the HongKong stock exchange.– BBC News –

CHINA BUILDS WORLD’S FIRST BAMBOOROAD BRIDGEThe world’s first bamboo road bridge, measuring3.4 meters wide and nine meters long, looks like aconcrete bridge from the top and sides, but its ninebamboo girders can be seen from beneath and it iscovered with bamboo boards. The bridge can carry

a maximum load of 90 tons with a service life of20 to 30 years.– China Daily –

FLYING SQUAD CENTER IS A SUCCESSWWF reports that the introduction of an ElephantFlying Squad to Riau Province in central Sumatrain 2004 has been successful in reducing human-elephant conflicts. Extensive logging and forestconversion cause elephants to invade farms andplantations in search of food. The Flying Squad,made up of eight men and four elephants, drivesback wild elephants to protect crops.– WWF Forest Conversion News –

PALM OIL NOT GREEN FOR ASIAThe European Union’s (EU) demand for suppos-edly environment-friendly fuels such as palm oil

15


15


is coming at a high social and environmental costin Asia, warned a report released by the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP). Since1999, the EU’s demand for palm oil, primarilyfrom Malaysia and Indonesia, has more thandoubled. The expansion of palm oil plantationshas been associated with widespread deforesta-tion and violations of the human rights of indig-enous people.– Inter Press Service News Agency –

WORLD’S LARGEST MANGROVE FORESTRAVAGED BY BANGLADESH CYCLONEBangladesh’s vast Sunderbans mangrove forestbore the brunt of a deadly cyclone that smashedinto the country, likely killing wildlife. Sunderbansis the world’s largest mangrove forest, coveringsome 5,800 square kilometers. It is home to anestimated 500 Bengal tigers, an endangered spe-cies with an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 individualsleft worldwide.– Agence France-Presse –

JAPAN, CHINA, ASEAN NATIONS PLEDGEFOREST COVER INCREASEJapan, China and 13 other nations in the Asia-Pacific region pledged to expand forest cover by15 million hectares by 2020 and reduce energyusage per unit of gross domestic production byone-quarter. The East Asia Summit adopted the“Singapore Declaration on Climate Change, En-ergy and the Environment” following a pledge bythe ASEAN nations to expand forest cover by 10million hectares over the same time frame.– Bloomberg –

SARAWAK TO DOUBLE TIMBER PRODUC-TIONThe Malaysian state of Sarawak aims to doubleits timber production to 25 million cubic meters ayear by establishing one million hectares of plantedforests over the next 13 years. In past years, theplanted forest programme has concentrated onplanting Acacia mangium, but of late, with theadvancement of research and development, indig-enous species have generated significant interestamong the licensees.– Star Online –

ENVIRONMENTALISTS FAIL TO STOP TAS-MANIAN PULP MILLThe Australian government has given the go-aheadfor construction of a $2 billion pulp mill on theisland state of Tasmania that environmentalistshave been fighting for months. The pulp mill willconsume four million tons of wood per year forpulping and burn 500,000 tons of wood to gener-ate power every year. Environmentalists claim thatTasmania’s old growth forests will be logged tofeed the mill, with the accompanying destructionof biodiversity and release of greenhouse gasses.– Environment News Service –

TWO NEW MAMMALS FOUND IN REMOTENEW GUINEAA miniscule possum and an enormous rat wererecorded by scientists as probable new species ona recent expedition to a remote and virtually un-known area of Indonesia in the pristine wildernessof western New Guinea’s Foja Mountains.– Environment News Service –

GREEN CORRIDOR HOLDS NEW SPECIESEleven new species of animals and plants werediscovered in a remote area in Thua Thien HueProvince in central Vietnam, a region known asthe Green Corridor. The newly discovered spe-cies include two butterflies, a snake, five orchids,and three other plants. The Green Corridor is oneof the last remaining lowland wet evergreen for-ests in Vietnam.– Viet Nam News –

MONGOLIAN PROJECT TO HOLD BACKDESERTIFICATIONWorking in partnership with Korea, Japan andChina, Mongolia will plant trees in 3,000 hectaresof the Mongolian desert to stave off the expand-ing desert. According to the Northeast Asia ForestNetwork, more than 6 million hectares of land sub-ject to desertification each year, affecting some1.2 billion people.– Mongolia Web News –


1616


18-20 April 2008. Hanoi, Vietnam. Pacific Sub-regional Workshop for FRA 2010. Contact: M. Kashio,Forest Resources Officer, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 39 Phra Atit Road, Bangkok10200, Thailand; Tel.(662) 697-4141; Fax: (662) 697-4445; E-mail: [email protected]

20-23 April 2008. Hanoi, Vietnam. Asia-Pacific Forest Invasive Species Network (APFISN): Risk-based targeted surveillance for forest invasive species. Contact: K. Sankaran, APFISN Coordinator, E-mail: [email protected]

20 April 2008. Hanoi, Vietnam. National Forest Programme Facility Workshop. Contact: S. Appanah,National Forest Programme Advisor (Asia-Pacific), FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 39 PhraAtit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand; Tel.(662) 697-4136; Fax: (662) 697-4445; E-mail:[email protected]

21-26 April 2008. Hanoi, Vietnam. First Asia-Pacific Forestry Week and the 22nd Session of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission. Contact: P. Durst, Senior Forestry Officer, FAO Regional Office for Asiaand the Pacific, 39 Phra Atit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand; Tel.(662) 697-4139; Fax: (662) 697-4445;E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] or visit the website http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/44755/en/

1-3 May 2008. Chiang Mai, Thailand. The First TPR/RPAC Meeting for the project “Enhancingsustainable forest harvesting in Asia.” Contact: P. Durst, Senior Forestry Officer, FAO Regional Officefor Asia and the Pacific, 39 Phra Atit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand; Tel.(662) 697-4139; Fax: (662)697-4445; E-mail: [email protected]

19-23 May 2008. Islamabad, Pakistan. 29th FAO Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific. Contact:B.K. Nandi, Secretary APRC, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 39 Phra Atit Road, Bangkok10200, Thailand; Tel.(662) 697-4143; Fax: (662) 697-4445; E-mail: [email protected]

14-18 October 2008. Beijing, China. 23rd Session of the International Poplar Commission. Contact:Jim Carle, Senior Forestry Officer, FOMR, FAO Forestry Department, Via della Terme di Caracalla,00100, Rome, Italy; E-mail: [email protected]

March 2009. Rome, Italy. Committee on Forestry (COFO) - 19th Session. Contact: Douglas Kneeland,Chief FOEL and Secretary COFO, FAO Forestry Department, Via della Terme di Caracalla, 00100,Rome, Italy; E-mail: [email protected]

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

FAO ASIA-PACIFIC FORESTRY CALENDAR

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

APFC - The unwelcome guests: Proceedings of theAsia-Pacific Forest Invasive Species Conference(RAP Publication 2005/18)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)Waves of hope – report of the regional coordinationworkshop on rehabilitation of tsunami-affectedforest ecosystems: strategies and new directions(RAP Publication 2005/07)Forests and floods – drowning in fiction or thrivingon facts? (RAP Publication 2005/03)In search of excellence: exemplary forest managementin Asia and the Pacific (RAP Publication 2005/02)What does it take? The role of incentives in forestplantation development in Asia and the Pacific.Executive summary (RAP Publication 2004/28)What does it take? The role of incentives in forestplantation development in Asia and the Pacific (RAPPublication 2004/27)Forests for poverty reduction: opportunities forClean Development Mechanism, environmentalservices and biodiversity (RAP Publication 2004/22)Forests for poverty reduction: can community forestrymake money? (RAP Publication: 2004/04)Advancing assisted natural regeneration (ANR) inAsia and the Pacific (RAP Publication 2003/19) - 2nd

editionBringing back the forests: policies and practicesfor degraded lands and forests (RAP Publication2003/14) out of printCommunity forestry – current innovations andexperiences (CD-ROM included)Community-based fire management: case studiesfrom China, The Gambia, Honduras, India, the LaoPeople’s Democratic Republic and Turkey (RAPPublication: 2003/08)Practical guidelines for the assessment, monitoringand reporting on national level criteria andindicators for sustainable forest management in dryforests in Asia (RAP Publication: 2003/05)

Giants on our hands: proceedings of theinternational workshop on the domesticated Asianelephant (RAP Publication: 2002/30)Communities in flames: proceedings of aninternational conference on community involvementin fire management (RAP Publication: 2002/25)Applying reduced impact logging to advancesustainable forest management (RAP Publication:2002/14)Monograph on benzoin (Balsamic resin from Styraxspecies) (RAP Publication: 2001/21)Proceedings of the International Conference onTimber Plantation Development, 7-9 November 2000,Manila, PhilippinesTrash or treasure? Logging and mill residues in Asia-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 effectiveness oflogging bans in natural forests in Asia-Pacific:executive summary (RAP Publication: 2001/10)Forest out of bounds: impacts and effectiveness oflogging bans in natural forests in Asia-Pacific (RAPPublication: 2001/08)Regional strategy for implementing the Code ofPractice for forest harvesting in Asia-Pacific (July 2000)Development of national-level criteria and indicatorsfor the sustainable management of dry forests of Asia:background papers (RAP Publication: 2000/08)Development of national-level criteria and indicatorsfor the sustainable management of dry forests of Asia:workshop report (RAP Publication: 2000/07)Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission: the first fifty years(RAP Publication: 2000/02)Decentralization and devolution of forest managementin Asia and the Pacific (RAP Publication: 2000/01)Asia-Pacific Forestry Towards 2010 - report of theAsia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook StudyTrees commonly cultivated in Southeast Asia: anillustrated field guide - 2nd edition (RAP Publication:1999/13)Code of Practice for forest harvesting in Asia-Pacific(RAP Publication: 1999/12)

Documents

Tigerpaper Vol XXXV No 1 January-March 2008