Distribution and Abundance of Himalayan Black Bear and Brown Bear and Human‐Bear Conflict in Manaslu Conservation Area, Nepal

Home , Himalayan black bear

DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF HIMALAYAN BLACK BEAR AND BROWN BEAR AND HUMAN‐BEAR CONFLICT IN MANASLU CONSERVATION AREA, NEPAL

A Progress Report Submitted to Taronga Conservation Society, Australia

Submitted by: National Trust for Nature Conservation‐Manaslu Conservation Area Project, Nepal

Prepared by: Madhu Chetri

MAY 2013

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...... v Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... vi Executive Summary ...... vii 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Objectives of Study ...... 1 2. Study Area ...... 1 3. Methodology ...... 2 4. Results and discussion ...... 4 4.1. Distribution and abundance of Himalayan black bear and brown bear within MCA . 4 4.1.1. Forest vegetation recorded in Himalayan black bear and brown bear habitats ...... 5 4.2. Human-Bear Conflict and Economic Loss ...... 6 4.2.1. Seasonal calendar-cultivation and time of crop damage ...... 6 4.2.2. Ranking of major pest wild animals within MCA ...... 8 4.2.3. Past and present trend of crop damage and livestock killings ...... 8 4.2.4. An Assessment of crop damage through direct field measurement ...... 8 4.2.5. Livestock killing, attacks and human casualties ...... 9 4.2.6. Ranking of damages from black bear and brown bear ...... 12 4.2.7. Human-black bear and brown bear conflict in MCA ...... 13 4.3. Publication of educational materials ...... 13 4.4. Awareness camps and workshop ...... 14 4.4.1. Conservation Awareness Program ...... 14 4.4.2. Formation of Night Vigilance Group (NVG) ...... 15 4.4.3. Data Recording Training ...... 15 4.4.4 Human Bear Conflict Mitigation Measures Workshop ...... 15 5.0. Findings of Pre and Post Survey ...... 17 6.0. Conclusion and Recommendation ...... 17 7.0. References ...... 19

Annex

Annex 1: Participants of environmental awareness camp, Lho & Lhi villages, 29 August 2012 ...... 20 Annex 2: Participants of environmental awareness camp, Lho village, 1 Sept, 2012 .... 21 Annex 3: Participants of environmental awareness camp, Prok VDC, 03 September 2012 ...... 22 Annex 4: Participants of environmental awareness camp, Chhak village, 6 Sept, 2012 23 Annex 5: Night Vigilance Group, Prok (Date of formation: 04 September, 2012) ...... 23 Annex 6: Night Vigilance Group, Lhi village (Date of Formation: 10 September, 2012) 24 Annex 7: Trainee of data recording training ...... 24 Annex 8: Participants of human-bear conflict mitigation workshop, Namrung village .... 24 Annex 9: Participants of human-bear conflict mitigation workshop, Sirdibas-Philim, 27 July, 2012 ...... 25

Tables

Table 1: Distribution of Himalayan black bear and brown bear within MCA ...... 4 Table 2: Calendar of crop cultivation within MCA based on PRA ...... 6 Table 3: Calendar of crop damage by different wild animals in the study area ...... 7 Table 4: Ranking of crop raiding by various wild animals ...... 8 Table 5: Trend of livestock killings and crop damage by Himalayan black bear as per local perceptions (N=69) ...... 8 Table 6: Conversion of Ghwak to Kilogram ...... 9 Table 7: Damage of maize crop by Himalayan black bear in the study area, 2012 ...... 9 Table 8: Livestock killings and depredation by Himalayan black bear in MCA ...... 10 Table 9: Economic loss due to livestock killings by Himalayan black bear, 2009-2012 . 10 Table 10: Total economic loss from livestock killings in four years, 2009-2012 ...... 10 Table 11: Livestock killings by Himalayan brown bear in MCA, 2012 ...... 11 Table 12: Assessment of ranking due to black bear ...... 12 Table 13: Direct observation of crop loss by Himalayan black bear, 2012 ...... 13 Table 14: Questionnaire survey households, 2012 ...... 13 Table 15: Summary of implemented activities ...... 14 Table 16: Preference ranking of mitigation measures ...... 16

Figures

Figure 1: Location map of the project sites ...... 2 Figure 2: Distribution map of Himalayan black bear and brown bear and conflict areas . 5

Photos

Photo 1: Himalayan black bear and brown bear conservation awareness poster in Nepali language...... 26

iii

Photo 2: Himalayan black bear and brown conservation awareness poster in Tibetan language...... 27 Photo 3: Himalayan black bear and brown bear conservation sticker...... 28 Photo 4: Bhanjam-Lhi Village, Lho VDC with several night guarding temporary camps at corn field...... 29 Photo 5: Awareness camp at Prok village-participants watching video related to environmental awareness and wildlife conservation...... 30 Photo 6: Awareness camp at Lhi village-participants watching video show...... 30 Photo 7: Interaction with local communities with regards to human-bear conflict at Lhi, Lho VDC...... 30 Photo 8: Participants presenting group work findings during the coordination workshop at Philim, Sirdibas VDC...... 30 Photo 9: Participants of Human-Bear Conflict Mitigation Workshop, Prok village...... 31 Photo 10: Project staff interacting with local inhabitants at Lhi village regarding Human- Bear Conflict...... 31 Photo 11: Night Vigilance Group at Lhi Village...... 31 Photo 12: Project staff testing mega torch light to handover to Night Vigilance Group, Lhi Village...... 31 Photo 13: Night guarding platform at Chhak village, Prok VDC...... 32 Photo 14: Night guarding platform at Namrung village, Prok VDC...... 32 Photo 15: Remains of the maize corn left by Himalayan black bear, Namrung village. . 32 Photo 16: Trail of Himalayan black bear at maize corn field, Chhak village, Prok VDC. 32 Photo 17: A typical forest habitats (mixed Oak forest) of Himalayan black bear in MCA...... 33 Photo 18: A typical pine forest habitats of Himalayan black bear in MCA...... 33 Photo 19: A typical habitat of Himalayan brown bear in MCA...... 34 Photo 20: Signs of Himalayan brown bear-snow filled holes is the diggings site for Himalayan marmot...... 34

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the community members for sharing their valuable information, recommendation, comments and suggestions during data collection and showing their involvement and active participation in various awareness camps, and workshops. We are grateful to the Taronga Conservation Society Australia for financial support without which this project would not have been possible. Thanks to Baburam Lamichhane for helping us with the map preparation. We would also like to thank the senior management team of National Trust for Nature Conservation for encouragement and supporting us during the course of field research.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACA Annapurna Conservation Area

APU Anti Poaching Unit

CA Conservation Area

CAMC Conservation Area Management Committee

CITES Convention on Int. Trade in Endangered Sp. of Wild Fauna and Flora

DDC District Development Committee

DNPWC Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation

FMsC Forest Management sub‐Committee

GoN Government of Nepal

IUCN World Conservation Union

MCA Manaslu Conservation Area

MCAP Manaslu Conservation Area Project

MG Mother Groups

NTFP Non Timber Forest Product

NTNC National Trust for Nature Conservation

NVG Night Vigilance Group

Sqkm Square Kilometers

TAR Tibetan Autonomous Region

TMsC Tourism Management sub‐Committee

VDC Village Development Committee

Executive Summary

We assessed the status, distribution and magnitude of Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) and Himalayan Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) – Human Conflicts in Manaslu Conservation Area (MCA), Nepal from January 2012 to December 2012 through field surveys, semi‐structured questionnaire and direct field measurement of crop loss in order to identify the high conflict zones and the causes for conflicts for mitigation planning. Various environmental awareness and mitigation workshops were conducted during July to September 2012. We choose four highly affected VDCs (total households 212) for direct field measurement of crop damage. Of the total 212 households, we interviewed 69 households (32.5%) to obtain information on the status, distribution, cropping patterns, bear attacks on humans, crop raiding behavior, livestock depredation, causes for conflicts, and the current practices of local villagers in reducing conflicts. In addition, information was also collected during various awareness camp and workshop.

With support from Taronga Conservation Society, Australia, National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC), Manaslu Conservation Area Project (MCAP) has initiated research to understand the level of human bear conflicts in the Manaslu region. The project aimed to determine distribution and abundance of the species; assess past/present trend of crop/cattle damage and human casualties. Research work was followed by various awareness camps and workshops targeting the settlement of bear ranging areas.

The presence of black bear was recorded from all seven Village Development Committees (VDCs) whereas presence of brown bear was only recorded from two VDCs (Samagauan and Chhekampar) in Manaslu Conservation Area (MCA). Total area covered by Himalayan black bear habitats in MCA was 216.63 sqkm (13.03% of the total area) whereas Himalayan brown bear habitats covered only 88.56 sqkm (5.3% of the total area). Himalayan black bear was a resident to the area whereas brown bear was a seasonal visitor visiting the area only in summer season. Brown bear used to visit from the adjoining Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) of People’s Republic of China and its habitats were mostly confined to the Nepal‐TAR border adjoining to Samagaon and Chhekampar VDCs. Based on the questionnaire survey, focus group discussion and assessment made during field survey, 30‐40 black bears were assumed to be present in the region. This number reflects the density of 0.1 – 0.2 individuals per sq km within MCA. Brown bear were occasional visitors to the region. They visit during the summer in search of food and they are rarely sighted.

Four VDCs namely Sirdibas, Chumchet, Bihi, Prok and Lho were highly affected by black bear both in terms of crop damage and livestock killings. In MCA, both bears are considered as the problem animals. However, Himalayan black bear were considered to be one of the most problematic animals and the trends of damages and livestock killings are increasing as compared to last two decades. Livestock killing problem by brown bear was recorded only in Samdo pasture areas of Samagaun VDC. Depredation of horse calves were reported by villagers. But as the species is the summer visitor to the region, damages caused by brown bear was comparatively low when compared to black bear.

In Prok and Lho VDCs, four highly effected settlements (Prok, Chhak, Namrung and Lihi) were selected to assess crop damage, livestock killings and human casualties by black bear. These settlements have altogether 212 households (HHs). Out of 212 households, 131 households (61.8%) (Prok‐43 HHs, Chhak‐ 29 HHs, Namrung‐19 HHs and Lihi‐40 HHs) cultivated maize in 2012. Research finding shows that out of

vii

131 households who grow corn during 2012, 60 HHs (46%) (Prok‐12, Chhak‐13, Namrung‐13 and Lihi‐22) faced crop raiding problems due to black bear. These households has a total loss of 3,818 Kg maize which is equivalent to Nepalese rupees (NRs.) 1909,000 (US$ 2,235) in 2012. Lihi, Prok, Namrung and Chhak were highly affected settlements respectively in terms of loss quantity.

Forty three households of the study sites lost 55 numbers of livestock from 2009‐2012. Total loss from livestock killing by black bear from 2009‐2012 is equivalent to NRs. 2030,000 (US$ 23,882). In 2012 alone, 23 animals were killed by black bear which is equivalent to NRs. 860,000 (US$ 10,118). Ten households of Samagaun VDC lost 12 horse calves in 2012 killed by brown bear. The loss caused by brown bear depredation is equivalent to NRs, 600,000 (US$ 7,059). Six human casualties by black bear were recorded since 2005 to 2012 within MCA. Data reveals that cattle depredation; crop raiding specially maize and human casualties are the key major problems due to black bear. There were no records of crop raiding and human casualties from brown bear, but cattle depredation was recorded where livestock and brown bear habitats overlap during the summer season.

In order to raise awareness among the local communities, the project had developed 1000 stickers and 3000 posters in local language which were distributed widely in MCA. Several awareness camps and workshop were conducted. Altogether, 232 (M‐153, F‐79) people were mobilized during several environmental awareness camps, workshop and field research. In order to protect the crop raiding by black bear in the most prone areas, two Night Vigilance Groups (NVG) including seven and nine members respectively in each group were formed. Community consultation workshops have identified the preferable mitigation measures. Barbed wire fencing is the highly preferred mitigation measures identified by the community.

viii

1. Introduction

Two species of bear are found in Manaslu Conservation Area (MCA) namely, the Himalayan Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus) and the Brown Bear (Ursus arctos). Both bears are considered as pest animals by the local communities. Crop‐raiding and livestock killings by bear is a major cause of concern and communities sometimes retaliate through traps and snares and even through loaded guns. Retaliatory killing and poaching particularly of the black bear for gall bladder are major setbacks for the conservation of the species in MCA.

Despite their presence within Manaslu region, a research targeting to these species is still not carried out. Their interaction with human, level of conflict, mitigation measures etc. are not known from the region. The first step in conserving these species is to establish database on economic loss and to find out how to minimize conflicts. Only then sustainable conservation of the species can be ensured in the region. With the support from Taronga Conservation Society Australia, this project is designed to collect data on the distribution and abundance of two species of bear, evaluate the economic loss and explore suitable mitigations measures to reduce human‐bear conflict in MCA. 1.1. Objectives of Study

With an aim to collect baseline information of bear species found in MCA, this study was carried out with the financial support of Taronga Conservation Society Australia with following objectives. 1. Collect data on the distribution and abundance of Himalayan black bear and brown bear 2. Evaluate the economic loss caused by bear within MCA 3. Conduct awareness camps and workshop among the stakeholders 4. Explore possible mitigation measures in consultation with local communities

2. Study Area Manaslu Conservation Area is situated between latitudes 28°21’ and 28°45’, and longitude 84°29’ and 85°11’ in central Nepal in the district of Gorkha (Figure 1). It covers seven Village Development Committees (VDCs). It encompasses Dhading district in the east, Bhimthang in the west, Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) of the Peoples Republic of China in the north and Kerauja, Uhia, Laprak, Barpak VDC of Gorkha district in the south. It covers an area of 1,663 sq. km and is recognized as a “biodiversity hot spot” because of its position in the Mansri Himalayan range of the eastern Himalaya (Conservation International 2009). MCA provides habitats for more than 40 mammal species, 201 bird species, 25 butterfly and 3 reptiles. It harbors 11 types of forest vegetation having approximately 2000 species of plants. It has 5 climatic zones (sub‐tropical, temperate, sub alpine, alpine and nival) within a narrow width of Manaslu region. Elevation ranges from 1239 m to 8,163 m (the Mt. Manaslu, eight highest peaks). The vast topographical variations provides habitat for many endangered flora and fauna.

Traditionally, MCA is divided into three valleys. The eastern part consisting of two VDCs viz. Chumchet and Chhekampar are known as Tsum Valley (NTNC, 2013). The middle part consisting of four VDCs viz. Bihi, Prok, Lho and Samagaun VDCs are known as Nubri Valley. The southern part i.e. Sirdibas and small portions of Prok and Bihi VDCs are known as Kutang Valley. Each valley has distinct dialect, customs and traditions.

The climate is monsoonal with wet seasons (June‐September) and dry seasons (October‐May) and an average rainfall of 1,900 millimeters (74 inches) per year (DNPWC, 2010).

Figure 1: Location map of the project sites

3. Methodology Research activity was initiated since the inception of project proposal approved by Taronga Field Conservation Grant. Required information was gathered to conduct detail activities of project. During March‐December 2012 field activities targeting research on Himalayan black bear and Himalayan brown bear was conducted.

Literature review and consultation with local level stakeholders Before the initiation of the field work, high problem areas was identified base on record maintained at Manaslu Conservation Area Project (MCAP) office. These records were further verified during the coordination meeting organized by the project involving all the 7 CAMCs (Conservation Area Management Committees), Anti Poaching Units (APUs), Mother Groups (MGs) and various other stakeholders. Based on the analysis, four highly affected villages' of Prok (Prok, Chhak) and Lho (Namrung, Lihi) VDCs were selected for assessing human‐black bear conflict. These four villages have 212 Households (HHs). In 2012, out of 212 HHs, only 131 HHs has grown maize. Four data recorders/enumerators were selected from these villages for regular updating the data on livestock loss and human casualties and for informing the crop loss. Recorders were trained and orientated to collect data and keep records systematically. As a piloting, Night Vigilance Group (NVG) was formed in Prok and

Lihi villages to protect the maize crops from Himalayan black bear raiding. These NVGs were also supported with mega torches for effective guarding.

Social survey tools In order to assess distribution and abundance of black bear and brown bear, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), focus group discussion, key interview, mapping exercise were done in five settlements (Philim, Prok, Chhak, Namrung, Lihi villages) were carried out. Seasonal calendar of each crop, damages caused by various wild animals, listing of problem animals, livestock and crop loss ranking, habitat mapping of bear, possible effective mitigation measures and their preference ranking was discussed and recorded applying Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools.

Participatory mapping Intensive mapping exercise was done in five settlements using topographic map (1:25,000). Map produced were also verified with the key leaders and herders of other VDCs who have knowledge on distribution and habitats of bears. These maps were scanned and later transform into ArcGIS and bear distribution map was produced. Following steps were followed during mapping exercise: i) knowledgeable people were asked to tell the name of bear distribution area, ii) they were asked to show the area in map iii) they were ask to sketch the area in a map and iv) finally the accessible areas of bear distribution are verified by collecting ground truth data. In order to estimate the abundance of black bear, questionnaire survey was conducted in 69 HHs (32.5% of the total 212 HHs). Density of black bear was calculated based on bear distribution area.

Participatory cost analysis Data recorders and NVGs regularly informed the project staff regarding the damaged caused by Himalayan black bear and field measurement was done regularly visiting those affected areas during the research period. Loss of crops by Himalayan black bear was assessed by visiting individual households and farm directly. The maize farms of 131 households (Prok‐43, Chhak‐29, Namrung‐19 and Lihi‐40) were visited to evaluate the loss of crop (maize) damage. Quantity of crop loss was calculated visiting each affected sites by a team of data recorder, community leader and project staff. Number of maize plant damaged by Himalayan black bear was counted. Similar number of maize plants from the vicinity was harvested and measured the yield using local weight measurement i.e. bhari (bhari‐a local unit of weight measurement i.e. bamboo basket normally capable of carrying a load by a person). After drying maize corn, seeds were extracted and sun dried. One bhari wet maize is equivalent to 20 ghwak (1 ghwak seeds of maize=1.15 kg) dried seeds of maize. Total quantity of loss from all the sites were calculated as per the local monetary rates.

Random questionnaire survey was also conducted in 69 households (32.5% of the total 212 HHs) of the four study sites. Cattle depredation by Himalayan black bear was calculated by Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and focus group discussion. Depredation data obtained from Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and focus group discussion and questionnaire survey were also tallied and verified with the monthly records systematically maintained at field office. The local rates of livestock are derived from focus group discussion during the workshops.

Community mobilization and sensitization Awareness camps were conducted in the targeted settlements. A joint workshop was organized among the representatives of Conservation Area Management Committee (CAMC), Anti Poaching Unit (APU), Mother Groups (MG) and data recorders at Namrung and Philim villages.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Distribution and abundance of Himalayan black bear and brown bear within MCA

The abundance of Himalayan black bear was assessed on the basis of questionnaire survey, interviews, and reports of sighting by the villagers. Of the total respondents (69 people), 87% believed that the population is increasing, 9% stated that the population has remained same, and 4% stated that the number is declining. Of the total respondent, only 90% (62 people) tentatively assigned number of black bears that thrives in the region whereas 10% (7 respondents) did not answer. Analysis of the 90% respondent reveals that there may be 30‐40 Himalayan black bear within MCA. This number reflects the total number of Himalayan black bear within their know distribution range in MCA. Based on the available habitats and local respondents data analysis; the density of Himalayan black bear is in the range of 0.1‐0.2/sqkm within MCA. Based on the interactions and discussion with local people and field observation, it was found that 16 villages were highly affected from damaged caused by Himalayan black bear (Table 1). However, people failed to say the minimum number of Himalayan brown bear that thrive in this region. They only reported few sighting incidences and digging signs of marmot burrows from the pasture of Samagaon and Chhekmapar VDCs. Himalayan brown bear are very rare in the region and mostly visit during the summer season in search of food specially marmots (preferred food of brown bear). During this study, several fresh digging signs of Himalayan brown bear were recorded from the pastures of Chhetang, Gyala, Lajung pasture of Samdo and Chheke and Bhajyo pastures of Chhekampar VDC (Table 1). These pastures are adjacent to the TAR of Peoples Republic of China.

Table 1: Distribution of Himalayan black bear and brown bear within MCA

Affected Distribution and habitat of Himalayan 1Distribution and habitat SN VDC name villages black bear of Himalayan brown bear Yayu, Talawang, Tejya, Sakala, Sharada, ‐ 1 Sirdibas ‐ Pugyu, Chhi, Nyak Lokpa, Sipchet, ‐ 2 Chumchet Sarti, Lokpa, Gumlung, Sipchet, Dhumje, Rinjam Gumbalungtang, Syarpu Hinge, Chheke, 3 Chhekampar ‐ Mathang, Kyangbachhe, Thangdhoma, Dhladanchaur, Yamdo, Pablung, Lingjyo, Nagompa Bhajyo, Thumbu kharka Silam, Syarang, Krak, Syarang, Ungal, Fudar, 4 Bihi Krak, Rip, Pujyu Dubtawang, Brobuk,Thangduk, Pojyu ‐ Tarang, Machi, Ripchuk, Jhong, Thalo, Tomkhola, Ghoichet, Tumbuwang, Prok, Chhak, 5 Prok Serakhu, Bhiwak, Dho, Kwak, Syarang, Kwak, Namrung Lungawak, Mandalgang, Harsyang, Dhakchyat, Chhyolasa, Namla ‐ Pal, Ferrang, Ongmang, Kolbak, Nangsang, Feche, Lukumfya, Ongmang, 6 Lho Lihi, Shyo, Lho Kahm, Gunga, Homda, Remja, Lifolong, Nasyang, Syorka ‐

1 Seasonal visiting area 4

Affected Distribution and habitat of Himalayan 1Distribution and habitat SN VDC name villages black bear of Himalayan brown bear Chhethang, Yayuthang, 7 Samagaun ‐ Numla Ngosithang, Gyala, Lajung

Participatory mapping techniques were also used to assess the spatial distribution and habitat of bears in MCA. The information obtained from participatory mapping was fed into ArcGIS and digital maps were produced using the ArcGIS software (Figure 2). No overlap in distribution pattern and habitats was noted between Himalayan black bear and brown bear in MCA. Himalayan black bear were confined to forest habitats where as brown bear were distributed above the tree line. Total area covered by Himalayan black bear habitats in MCA was 216.63 sqkm (13.03% of the total area) whereas Himalayan brown bear habitats covered only 88.56 sqkm (5.3% of the total area).

Figure 2: Distribution map of Himalayan black bear and brown bear and conflict areas

4.1.1. Forest vegetation recorded in Himalayan black bear and brown bear habitats The vegetation within MCA includes middle Mountain to alpine scrub. The habitats of Himalayan black bears were mostly confined to the middle part of MCA. Mixed Oak forest is the highly preferred habitat (2500‐3000m). The species associated in this type of broadleaved forest includes Quercus lanata, Q. leucotrichophora, Q. lamellosa, Q. semicarpifolia, Juglans regia etc. The understory vegetations associated with mixed Oak forest are Asparagus filicinus, Berberis aristata, Daphne papyraceae, Gaultheria fragrantissima, Myrica esculanata, Rubia munjith, Zanthoxylum armatum, Cotoneaster frigidus etc. Middle part of MCA also have patches of bamboo forest consisting of species viz. Drepanostachyum khasianum, Himalayacalamus hookerianus, Drepanostachyum falcatum and some 5 unidentified bamboo species which are highly favored by black bear. During May‐June, the new shoots of bamboo are highly palatable to bears. Cornus capitata, Elaegnus parviflora, Juglans regia, Prunus cornuta (peach), Prinsepia utilis, Solena heterophylla, Pyrus pashia, Holboellia coriacea etc. are some of the wild fruits associated with the habitat of Himalayan black bear and are highly preferred by bears. In the upper part of the mixed Oak forest, coniferous species dominates the bear habitats. Species such as Pinus wallichiana, Picea smithiana, Tsuga dumosa, Larix griffithiana, Larix himalaica, Abies spectabilis are the dominant species. The understory dominating species associated with coniferous forests consists of Asparagus filicinus, Berberis aristata, Daphne bhoula, Dioscorea deltoids, Rhododendron spp., and Betula spp.

The Himalayan brown bear prefers bare open valleys, pasture and high altitude area above 4,000 m. The vegetation around brown bear habitats consists of Betula utilis with shrubberies of Rhododendron lepidotum, Rhododendron anthopogan, Juniperus recurva, Salix deltoniana etc. Potentilla biflora, Primula spp., Aconitum spp., Cordyceps sinensis, Dactylorhiza hatagirea, Fritillaria cirrhosa, Nardostachya garndiflora, Rheum australe etc. are some of the Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP) found in the habitat of brown bear. Other dry alpine scrub such as Caragan gerardiana, Euphedra gerardiana, Hippophoe thibetana, Sophora moorcroftiana, Berberis spp., Artemisia spp., Anaphalis spp. and other grass spp. are found in the habitat of brown bear.

4.2. Human-Bear Conflict and Economic Loss

4.2.1. Seasonal calendar-cultivation and time of crop damage

Naked barley (Hordeum sp.), wheat (Triticum aestivum), soybean (Glycine max), latte (Amaranths caudatus), maize (Zea mays), buckwheat (Hordeum vulgare), potato (Solanum tuberosum) and kidneybean (Phaseolus vulgaris) are the major crops grown in MCA. February‐March (Falgun) and March‐April (Chaitra) are the major months of sowing seeds of different varieties of crops such as maize, potato, latte, soybean and kidney bean. People start sowing naked barley and wheat during February‐ March (Falgun). Buck wheat (Fapar) during February‐March (Falgun) and June‐July (Ashadh) (Table 2).

Table 2: Calendar of crop cultivation within MCA based on PRA

July Oct June Apr Dec

Sept ‐ Aug ‐ Jan ‐ May Mar Nov ‐ ‐ Feb ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Oct May Sept Mar Apr June July Aug SN Crop Name Jan Feb Nov Dec 1 Naked Barley W H S 2 Wheat W H S 3 Maize S W H 4 Potato S W H 5 Buckwheat S W H 6 Latte S W H 7 Soyabean S W H 8 Kidney bean S W H Note: S=Sowing, W=Weeding, H=Harvesting; Crop raiding period

In the study area, along with maize crop, majority of the farmers follow mixed cropping. They grow kidney bean, soyabean and latte in the same farm land. However, in some areas latte and potato are grown separately. It was interesting to note that in Namrung village, although potato is harvested in June‐July, some farmers keep the potato in their farmland to store naturally and they harvest again in October‐November. There is also a practice of sowing another species of naked barley which is smaller in size locally known as “leje” in the naturally stored potato farm. During June‐July, aboveground dried leaves of potato plant are removed and leje are shown. The leje matures during October‐November and the farmers harvest both (potato and leje) crops from the field.

Crop raiding and damage caused by different animals according to months are given in Table 3. Himalayan black bear, Assamese monkey (Macaca assamensis), Himalayan gray langur (Semnopithecus schistaceus), Himalayan goral (Naemorhedus goral), Himalayan tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus) are considered as the major pest animals. Crop raiding due to Himalayan black bear and assamese monkey during the summer was remarkable in the middle part of MCA. Himalayan black bear was considered as the most problematic animals. Of the various crop cultivated in MCA, mainly three crops viz. maize, buckwheat and latte are raided by Himalayan black bear. Maize is the staple food of the local people within MCA and is frequently raided by black bear. Because of its nocturnal habits, maize field are raided during the night. Villagers mentioned that it is very difficult to safeguard the crops from black bear raiding. They are very aggressive and difficult to approach to drive them away from field.

Table 3: Calendar of crop damage by different wild animals in the study area

Months

July Oct Apr Dec Sept

‐ Aug ‐ Jan ‐ Mar May Nov ‐ ‐ Feb ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Jan Feb Mar Apr May June June July Aug Sept Oct SN Wild animals Nov Dec

1 H. goral NB,W NB,W NB,W M M M NB,W NB,W

2 H. tahr NB,W NB,W NB,W NB,W NB,W

M, P, M, P, M, S,

3 A. monkey NB,W NB,W NB,W P P KB KB KB KB NB,W NB,W

4 H. black bear B M, B M, B M, B B, L M, P, M, P, S, 5 H.g. langur P P KB KB M,KB KB Note: B=Buckwheat, KB=Kidney bean, L=Latte, M=Maize, NB=Naked barley, P=Potato, S=Soyabean, W=Wheat

4.2.2. Ranking of major pest wild animals within MCA Himalayan black bear, Himalayan gray langur, assamese monkey, Himalayan goral and Jackal were identified as pest wild animals within middle part of MCA. Himalayan tahr also sometimes raid crops specially the new shoots of wheat and buckwheat. Among the identified pest wild animals, Himalayan black bear was identified as the highest ranking pest animals as per the ranking exercise done by the local community (Table 4). Other problem animals as per the ranking are‐Himalayan gray langur, assamese monkey and Himalayan goral respectively.

Table 4: Ranking of crop raiding by various wild animals

H.black H. gray Assamese Animals bear langur monkey Ghoral Jackal Himalayan H. black black bear bear H. black bear H. black bear H. black bear Himalayan gray H. gray langur H. gray langur langur H. gray langur Assamese monkey A. monkey A. monkey Goral Goral Jackal Pest ranking 4 3 2 1 0

4.2.3. Past and present trend of crop damage and livestock killings Trend of crop damage and livestock killings by Himalayan black bear was assessed through questionnaire survey. Of the total respondents, 90% claimed that the rate of crop damage and livestock killings by Himalayan black bear has been increasing compared to past 10‐20 years (Table 5). Before 20 years, 74% respondents claimed that the loss from black bear is low in comparison to current year. In recent years, some of the farming lands located near the forest is abandoned due to increase in crop raiding problems by black bear and other wild animals.

Table 5: Trend of livestock killings and crop damage by Himalayan black bear as per local perceptions (N=69)

SN Trend Before 20 Years Before 10 Years Current Year 1 Low 74% 9% 7% 2 Medium 10% 90% 3% 3 High 4% 1% 90% 4 Don’t know 12% 0% 0% Total 100% 100% 100%

4.2.4. An Assessment of crop damage through direct field measurement The project has also assessed the loss of crop due to Himalayan black bear through direct field measurements. Highly affected settlements were chosen to evaluate the loss of maize crops. Four settlements namely Lihi‐Bhanjam, Namrung‐Talabari, Chhak and Prok were the focus of the study. In each settlement, sites of crop damage by Himalayan black bear were inspected through systematic field measurements. For direct field measurement, a team consisting of local community leader, data

8 recorder and project staffs assessed the loss directly visiting each damaged sites. The loss of crop was recorded in bhari, a local unit of measurements. Each bhari was later converted to ghwak, another local unit of measurement basically used to weigh grains within MCA. Maize corn of one bhari is measured as 20 ghwak in average. Three ghwak is equal to 1 pathi and 1 ghwak is equal to following quantity of kilogram (Table 6). Table 6: Conversion of Ghwak to Kilogram Crop Name Maize Potato Karu Wheat Bean Soybean Ghwak to Kg 1.15 1 1.17 1.17 1.23 1.09

Table 7: Damage of maize crop by Himalayan black bear in the study area, 2012 Total Loss Loss Village Name Cultivated quantity quantity SN (Study site) Address Name of field Area (ha) (Bhari) (Bhari/ha) 1 Namrung Prok‐8&9 Namrung‐Talabari 9.4 38 4.04 2 Lihi Lho‐1&2 Bhanjam 6.7 52.5 7.84 3 Chhak Prok‐8&9 Chhak 13.5 33 2.44 4 Prok Prok‐1,2&3 Prok 37.5 42.5 1.13 Total 67.1 166 2.5 Total loss in kg (166x20x1.15)= 3,818

Total quantity of maize crop damaged within the survey area through Himalayan black bear was found to be 166 bhari which is equivalent to 3,818 kilograms (Table 7). The cost of per kilogram of maize is Nepalese rupees (NRs.) 50 at local market. Total economic loss of maize crop during 2012 from Himalayan black bear within survey site is NRs 190,900 (USD 2,235) annually.

Based on the data collected from the field, the density of loss/ha was found high in Lihi and Namrung villages. These settlements and the farm lands are at the middle of the dense forest. The forests associated with these settlements are highly suitable black bear habitats. Local communities opined that black bear can hide easily in the vicinity after chasing during the night and return again to raid the crops if night guard remains silent. In comparison to Namrung village, Lihi village was more affected both in quantity (bhari) and density (loss/ha). Similarly, the density of loss/ha in Chhak village was more than Prok village but the damage quantity is more at Prok (42.5 bhari) than Chhak (33 bhari).

4.2.5. Livestock killing, attacks and human casualties

4.2.5.1. Livestock killings by Himalayan black bear Manaslu Conservation Area Project has been closely monitoring the loss of cattle depredation through Himalayan black bear since 2009. There was a high livestock killing due to attack of Himalayan black bear. Data revealed that 43 households have lost 55 different livestock due to attack by Himalayan black bear during 2009 to 2012 (Table 8). In 2009, the percentage of livestock loss was 29% with sharp decline in 2010 (13%) and 2011 (16%) and increased rapidly in 2012 (42%). Villagers mentioned most of the attack was from huge solitary black bear. Data reveals that the economic loss caused due to livestock killings has adversely affected the rural economy.

Table 8: Livestock killings and depredation by Himalayan black bear in MCA Location of killings Percentage Year and depredation Cow Bull Chauri Yak Jhopa Horse Total (%) Prok, Namrung 4 0 2 0 0 1 7 29 2009 Lho, Hinang 6 1 1 1 0 0 9 2010 Lho, Hinang 0 0 4 2 1 0 7 13 2011 Lho, Hinang 0 0 3 2 2 2 9 16 2012 Lhi, Shyo, Lho 0 0 2 5 16 0 23 42 Total 10 1 12 10 19 3 55 100.00 Note: Four Jhopas injured (May 2010=1, May 2012=3); Chauri=Female Yak, Jhopa=male‐born from crossed between Chauri and Bull; jhopas are very popular in the area as they are used to plough fields and to carry loads.

Total estimated loss is equivalent to NRs 20,25,000‐27,55, 000 (USD 23,824‐32,412) (Table 9). In addition to this loss, 4 Jhopas were attacked by Himalayan black bear and injured during the period of 2009‐ 2012. Table 10 shows annual average economic loss in four years from livestock killing by Himalayan black bear. The average monetary loss has increased from 20‐43%.

Table 9: Economic loss due to livestock killings by Himalayan black bear, 2009-2012 No of Local sales rate Amount Amount (USD) SN Livestock type Cattle (NRs) (NRs)’000 1 Cow 10 15,000‐20,000 150‐200 1765‐2353 2 Bull 1 15,000‐25,000 15‐25 176‐294 3 Chauri 12 40,000‐50,000 480‐600 5647‐7059 4 Yak 10 60,000‐90,000 600‐900 7059‐10588 5 Jhopa 19 30,000‐40,000 570‐760 6706‐8941 6 Horse 3 70,000‐90,000 210‐270 2471‐3176 Total 55 20,25‐27,55 23,824‐32,412 Note: Cost of cattle is calculated according to the rate of 2012 (1 USD is equivalent to NRs. 85)

Table 10: Total economic loss from livestock killings in four years, 2009-2012 Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 Amount Amount Amount Amount Livestock in Amount in in Amount in in Amount in in Amount in type NRs'000 USD NRs'000 USD NRs'000 USD NRs'000 USD Cow 150‐200 1765‐2353 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Bull 15‐25 176‐294 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Chauri 120‐150 1412‐1765 160‐200 1882‐2353 120‐150 1412‐1765 80‐100 941‐1176 Yak 60‐90 706‐1059 120‐180 1412‐2118 120‐180 1412‐2118 300‐450 3529‐5294 Jhopa ‐ ‐ 30‐40 353‐471 60‐80 7.6‐941 480‐640 5647‐7529 Horse 70‐90 824‐1059 ‐ ‐ 140‐180 1647‐2118 ‐ ‐ Total 415‐555 4882‐6529 310‐420 3647‐4941 440‐590 5176‐6941 860‐1190 10118‐14000 Average annual loss 20% 15% 22% 43%

10 in Percent

4.2.5.2. Livestock killings by Himalayan brown bear There were also records of livestock killings by Himalayan brown bear. Himalayan brown bear mostly attack the calf of horse and yak. As goat and sheep are very low in the area, and complaint regarding their losses is totally absent. In 2012, 10 households of Samagaun and Samdo village lost 12 horse calves (Table 11). Herders opined that the entire killing of horse calf was by brown bear at Samdo pasture. However, it was also suspected that some losses might occur due to depredation from Snow leopard and gray wolf there were several fresh signs (pugmark, scrape, scats of snow leopard; scat of gray wolf) in the pasture of Samdo where villagers reported to be major depredation sites.

Sighting of Himalayan Brown Bear by Mrs. Dhorje Buti Lama, local resident of MCA

During the first week of June 2012, Mrs. Dhorje Buti Lama, a resident of Samagaon‐6, Samagaon VDC (recently residing at Samgaon gompa) had an encounter with brown bear near Chhethang kharka. Her relative who is residing in Chhethang kharka and herding livestock had to go to Kathmandu for treatment, so she took responsibility of herding livestock for few days. She was alone and walking in the pasture monitoring livestock. Suddenly a brown bear with two cubs appeared in front of her. She was very frightened and started shouting very loudly. Luckily the bear took its own way and did not attack her. She mentioned that she had a narrow escape from bear attack. Till date human casualties due to attack of brown bear is not recorded from the region and from other parts of the country as well.

Table 11: Livestock killings by Himalayan brown bear in MCA, 2012 Location (Area SN Name of owner Name of cattle No of loss name) Horse calf (M) 1 Ngile Kharka 1 Sanu Dhorje Lama, Samdo Horse calf (M) 1 Ngile Kharka Horse calf (M) 1 Chhongar Kharka 2 Pasang Ngima Lama, Samdo Horse calf (F) 1 Chhongar Kharka 3 Tashi Lama, Samdo Horse calf (F) 1 Lajung 4 Chhembel Lama, Samdo Horse calf (F) 1 Ngile Kharka 5 Pasang Dhiki Lama, Samdo Horse calf (F) 1 Sonam Kharka 6 Dhiki Lama, Samdo Horse calf (M) 1 Lajung‐Ngila 7 Gyalzen Lama, Samagaon ‐2 Horse calf (M) 1 Mayul 8 Chhimik Lama, Samagaon‐2 Horse calf (M) 1 Gyala 9 Norabo Lama, Samagaon‐5 Horse calf (F) 1 Gyala 10 Traders from Tibet Horse calf (M) 1 Gyala Total lost 12

Local people have claimed the depredation was due to attack of Himalayan brown bear. There is presence of snow leopard and gray wolf in the same habitat therefore the loss of some horse calf is also probably from snow leopard and gray wolf. This needs further confirmation and systematic inspection of

11 each kills. Local sales rate of horse calf <1yr old costs ranges from NRs. 35,000 to NRs. 50,000 depending on sex. Based on this, the total loss from depredation is estimated to be NRs. 420,000‐ 600,000. This is equivalent to USD 4941‐7059.

4.2.5.3. Human Casualties by Himalayan black bear Most of the human casualties recorded are during August and October. During these months villagers have to frequently cross the forested area to transport food items to higher altitude pasture where they use to remain in temporary shed for herding livestock. From 2005 onwards, six cases were noted in various locations. 1. In October 2011, Mr. Sunar Gurung, Sirdibas‐7, Dewal village was attacked at Yayu forest of Sirdibas VDC. He went to the forest to fetch fire wood. A black bear having two cubs attacked him and dragged him up to 100m. The bear slipped down near the bank of stream and dropped him. His forehead was injured severely. 2. In August 2011, Mr. Samduk Lama, Lho‐4, Shyo village was attacked at Gomnang forest area of Lho VDC. He was severely injured by the attack. He was rescued by helicopter for treatment in Kathmandu, the capital city. 3. In August 2009, Mr. Topke Lama, Lho‐2 was attacked at Dhunjum‐Hianang forest area of Lho VDC. He was transporting logistic materials for his temporary cattle shed located at highland pastures for herding livestock. On his way, he was suddenly attacked by the black bear and injured severely. 4. In August 2008, Mr. Chhiring Chheten Lama, Lho‐3, Shyo was attacked by black bear at Gomnang forest area of Lho VDC. 5. In September 2005, Mr. Pema Lama, Lho‐7, was attacked by black bear at his own maize cultivated field at Lho village. He was captured by black bear and dragged for few meters. He was severely injured. 6. In August 2005, Mr. Ghyurme Lama, Prok‐7, Chhak, was attacked near the maize cultivated field at Chhak village. He was chasing the black bear from the farming land to protect the maize crop but the bear attacked him severely.

4.2.6. Ranking of damages from black bear and brown bear

People of MCA region have considered the Himalayan black bear as a pest animal. Crop damage and livestock killings by the bear as well as human casualties were also recorded. Himalayan black bear have been killing livestock each year since 2009 therefore there is huge conflict between the conservation authority and the local community in Nubri region of MCA. Based on the experience of local community the ranking of impacts of bear are categorized (Table 12).

Table 12: Assessment of ranking due to black bear Impact CD LK HA DT Crop Damage (CD) LK CD CD Livestock Killing LK LK Human Attack (HA) HA Diseases Transfer (DT) Impact Ranking 2 3 1 0

4.2.7. Human-black bear and brown bear conflict in MCA The presence of Himalayan black bear was recorded in majority of the available forest habitats within MCA (see Figure 2). The forest areas of Sirdibas, Chumchet, Bihi, Prok and Lho were good habitat of black bear. Lower part of Samagaon and Chhekampar VDCs has the habitat of black bear whereas upper parts of these two VDCs have the habitat for brown bear. Bihi, Prok and Lho VDCs were the most affected VDCs by black bear. Some settlements of Chumchet and Sirdibas were also affected by black bear. Samdo area of Samagaun is the most affected site by brown bear. Occasional visit of brown bear was found in the pasture of Chhekampar also.

Four settlement of MCA (Lihi‐Bhanjam, Namrung‐Talabari, Chhak and Prok) were selected based on consultation and discussion with local communities to evaluate the conflict with black bear. Two techniques ‐ direct measurement of damaged crop (maize) and assessment of crop loss by questionnaire survey were applied to measure the conflict.

Within four survey sites, altogether there are 212 households. Among them only 131 households cultivated maize crops in 2012 (Table 13). Of the 212 households, 69 households (Table 14) were selected randomly for questionnaire survey (32.5%). All the surveyed households complained crop loss from Himalayan black bear. It reveals that they also incorporated the loss made by black bear in the previous year. Field survey in 2012 reveals that only 60 households have actually lost maize crops from black bear. Table 13: Direct observation of crop loss by Himalayan black bear, 2012 No of Maize farming Affected SN Villages households households Households 1 Lihi‐Bhanjam 51 40 22 2 Namrung‐Talabari 32 19 13 3 Chhak 51 29 13 4 Prok 78 43 12 Total 212 131 60

Table 14: Questionnaire survey households, 2012 SN Villages Total HHs Sample HHs for survey HHs Coverage (%) 1 Lihi‐Bhanjam 51 16 31.4 2 Namrung‐Talabari 32 13 25.6 3 Chhak 51 20 40.6 4 Prok 78 20 39.2 Total 212 69 32.5

4.3. Publication of educational materials In order to raise awareness among the local communities, posters and stickers in local language were published and distributed widely. Altogether 3000 pieces of posters (both in Tibetan language and Nepali language) and 1000 stickers were developed. Posters highlighted the general description of Himalayan black bear and brown bear. The poster highlights status (both global and national), distribution, physical description, habitats, food, body weight, gestation and lifespan of bears. The

13 poster also highlights three main threats: habitat loss, poaching and human‐wildlife conflict. Further it also describes seven mitigation measures on how to minimize human‐bear conflict. These were: fencing, guarding, farming an alternative crops unpalatable to bear, not to release livestock in the forest without herders, not to go in the forest alone, protect habitat of bear, do not exploit foods of bear. The posters and sticker developed is given in photo 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

4.4. Awareness camps and workshop

During the project implementation period, several workshop and awareness programs were launched in order to address and minimize human‐bear conflict in MCA. Awareness programs and workshop were designed focusing on targeted settlements together with research activities. Altogether, 232 people (male=153, female‐79) actively participated in various awareness camps and workshop (Table 15). Awareness camps were mostly targeted to raise awareness among the local communities and discourage hunting of wildlife. In addition, several workshops were organized to estimate abundance of bear, identify habitats, conflict areas, and mitigation measures.

Table 15: Summary of implemented activities Participants S.N. Activities Location Date Male Female Total 1 Coordination Workshop Philim 27 July, 2012 27 0 27 Lihi 29 Aug, 2012 15 6 21 Lho 31 Aug, 2012 38 1 39 Environmental awareness 2 Prok 3 Sept, 2012 21 23 44 camps Chhak 6 Sept, 2012 13 15 28 Total 87 45 132 Prok 4 Sept, 2012 14 13 27 Formation of Night 3 Lihi 10 Sept, 2012 10 4 14 Vigilance Group (NVG) Total 24 17 41 4 Data Recording Training Namrung 1 Sept, 2012 3 1 4 Human‐Bear Conflict 5 Mitigation Workshop Namrung 9 Sept, 2012 12 16 28 Grand Total 153 79 232

4.4.1. Conservation Awareness Program Awareness is the essential component of community which leads communities in the mainstream of conservation and development. Due to low literacy rate and remoteness of the area, frequencies of awareness camp need to increase in future. Available data indicates that there is only 32% are literate (able to read and write) within MCA (Chetri, 2010). In this context bear conservation is a challenging task for the conservation authority as the black bear are rated as one of the major pest animal in the region.

The main objectives of the awareness program were to i) generate awareness against wildlife poaching, ii) generate awareness on national and CITES legal provision against poaching and iii) raise awareness on importance of bear conservation and mitigation measures to reduce human bear conflict. To meet the above objectives, a one day awareness camp was conducted from 26 August to 06 September 2012 in

14 each four settlements namely Prok, Chhak, Lihi and Lho. Altogether 132 people (male‐87, female‐45) actively participated in awareness camp. In each camps discussion session was also held among the participants on mitigation measures on how to reduce human bear conflict. The name list of participants is given in Annex 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

4.4.2. Formation of Night Vigilance Group (NVG) Guarding farm land during the night to protect maize crop is a difficult task. It is also dangerous. Communities have been practicing to chase the bear since centuries by guarding during the night time by constructing rooftop in trees and machans (watch towers), lighting fires, shouting and beating drums in some areas. This is an effective method to chase the bear. However, there is always a risk to guard the crop field during the night lonely. Therefore, this study tried to form a group for night time guarding hypothesizing that the chances of human casualties would be minimal if they are in group rather than guarding alone. As a pilot initiation, two night vigilance groups (NVGs) were formed in Prok and Lihi villages during 4th and 9th September 2012 to protect the maize crop. These two villages are located in close vicinity of the dense forest and are highly preferred sites of Himalayan black bear. Altogether 27 people (M‐14, F‐13) in Prok and 14 people (M‐10, F‐4) in Lihi gathered during the night vigilance group formation. A seven member committee in Prok village and nine member committee in Lhi village were formed. Both night vigilance groups were supported by mega torches to assist them for effective guarding and patrolling during the night. The NVGs patrol the maize field regularly. It was realized that only group formation is not sufficient to protect crops. They need motivation and additional material support (e.g. mega torch light, bear spray, protective platform for guarding etc.) in future for effective guarding. Also it was found that the farm land were scattered and majority of the settlements lacks young people to guard during the night. The NVGS will be supported in the coming years and the effectiveness will be monitored and evaluated. The name lists of NVGs are given in Annex 5, and 6 respectively.

4.4.3. Data Recording Training In order to keep data in a uniform manner, one day data recording training was provided to selected member of the community at Namrung village on 02 September 2012. Four data recorders from four settlements were selected through community meeting. A data format was developed and the selected participants were taught how to complete the data form. List of participants trained in data recording training is given in Annex 7. These trained data recorders filled up the format and gathered information related to crop depredation and loss from the affected areas.

4.4.4 Human Bear Conflict Mitigation Measures Workshop On 9 September, 2012 a one day workshop among the participants of Lho and Prok VDC was organized at Namrung village. Representatives from CAMC Prok‐6, APU Prok‐1, CAMC Lho‐1 APU Lho‐1, Sub‐ committee of Prok (TMsC, FMsC, MG and social workers)‐ 12, Sub‐committee of Lho (MG) – 6 and police personnel from Namrung – 1 participated in the workshop. Altogether 28 participants (14 male, 14 female) attended the program. The main objectives of the workshop were: i) to identify the seasonal calendar of crop damage ii) identify black bear habitats and iii) explore mitigation measures. The name list of the participants is given in Annex 8.

4.4.4.1 Mitigation measures for human-black bear and brown bear conflicts Workshop was focused on the mitigation measures against crop damage due to black bear. People had identified seven types of mitigation measures to minimize the crop loss by black bear. Barbed wire was considered as the most preferred mitigation measure followed by electric fencing and sound and

15 firecrackers (Table 16). Least preference was given to night guarding. People were not interested to protect their crops through guarding. They complained that whole day they remain busy looking after other household activities, caring livestock and farm land. By the time they reach home they get very tired and it’s impossible to guard their crops whole night and protect them from bears.

Table 16: Preference ranking of mitigation measures Mitigation Sound, measures BWF EF firecrackers Lighting Guarding Firing AC Barbed wire fencing (BWF) BW BW BW BW BW BW Electric fencing (EF) EF EF EF EF EF Sound, firecrackers S,F S,F S,F S,F (S,F) Lighting Lighting Lighting Lighting Guarding Guarding Guarding Burning fire Firing Alternative crop (AC) Preference 6 5 4 3 0 1 2

Data revealed that the problem from brown bear was low as compared to black bear in the study area. The complain regarding the livestock killing by brown bear needs further verification as the area also holds other predators e.g. snow leopard and gray wolf. However, livestock should be attended carefully in order to avoid conflict especially during the summer where there is a high chance of interaction with Himalayan brown bear.

4.4.4.2. Co-ordination Workshop Co‐ordination workshop was organized at project office, Sirdibas, Philim on 27 July 2012 among the representatives of CAMC, APU, ISC, political leaders, police personnel and social workers. The main objectives of the workshop were: i) to sensitize among the various stakeholders and conservation agencies about the GoN legal provision as well as of CITES, ii) to raise awareness among the stakeholders, iii) to strengthen coordination among the enforcement agencies and iv) to map the habitats of brown bear and black bear in MCA. Main focus of the program is to share and make them understand on the legal provision of CITES and national rules and regulations with regards to protection of species. During the workshop participants were also actively involved to identify the habitat of black bear and brown bear within MCA. Altogether 27 participants (CAMC‐7, APU‐7, ISC‐2, Political leader ‐1, Police personnel – 7, Social worker – 3) attended the workshop. The name list of workshop participants is given in Annex 9.

5.0. Findings of Pre and Post Survey

MCA is a region highly dominated by Buddhist religion. Therefore, most of the people are wildlife friendly. Killing bear is sin in their religion. Some people in the area also believed that the loss due to wild animals occurs when God gets angry. And the losses were considered as an offering to God to make happy. Traditionally there is a strict ban on hunting both in Nubri and Tsum valley. In the past, there is no record of livestock killing from bears. Crop (maize) damage by black bear is common in this region. There is a high demand from the local communities that the project should intervene with concrete activities (e.g. fencing, solar electric fence etc.) that can control crop loss. Peoples’ mentality is against the conservation of black bear as the rate of livestock killings and attacks are increasing. Traditionally people are self‐mobilized to save wild animals but they aren’t interested to conserve problem animals like Himalayan black bear. Livestock killing by Himalayan black bear was started since 2009 from Prok and Lho VDC. These trends doubled in four years causing retaliatory feeling against black bear. People also claimed that killing of livestock was from a solitary bear. This bear has changed its normal behavior, it starts killing livestock as soon as it return from hibernation. Last year Conservation Area Management Committee (CAMC) of Lho recommended to MCAP to kill the pest bear. This incident reflects the perception of community against black bear.

Most of the farmers in the study area possess scattered farm lands where they cultivate various crops according to seasons. Therefore, for a single farmer it was not possible to be present everywhere to guard the farmland. In practice, among the various cultivate crop fields, farmers choose the best and productive field for guarding by constructing machan (a raised platform in the crop field). During the survey, we recorded 17 machans in Bhanjam of Lihi village which has only 6.7 hectare of corn field (Photo 4). Farmers used to construct machan and guard crop fields in scattered manner to avoid the risk of crop raiding by black bear. They also mentioned that it was not practical to remain in a group during guarding as one cannot confirm from which side and location black bear will enter the crop field. Further they also relate the story of bear revisiting the crop field several times from different areas in a single night. The formation of NVGs has encouraged the local communities to mobilize in groups in scaring the bear from crop fields. However, the support made by the project to NVGs is very minimal. These groups need further support in terms of both materials (e.g. mega torch light, bear spray etc.) and motivation. Observation reveals that the NVGs could play a lead role in convincing and mobilizing the local communities for crop protection and black bear conservation.

6.0. Conclusion and Recommendation

In the MCA, human and livestock populations are increasing and as a result, there are increasing pressures on natural resources. Reports of black bear attacking humans and killing livestock and subsequent public backlash are frequent in the Himalayan region (Sathyakumar, 1999a, b). Economic losses in the form of livestock killings and crop damage have badly affected the people living in these areas. The human‐wildlife conflicts arising due to these damages cannot be contained fully because wild animals frequently invade and damage human settlements and cultivated areas located on the fringes of forest areas (Chauhan, 2003). In the project area, at present there is no provision or mechanism for compensation for crop damage nor are there livestock insurance schemes. This needs to be tested and piloted in high conflict areas. In addition, the demand for barb wire fencing and solar electric fence was very high, these need to be piloted and tested in some of the highly affected crop raiding sites. This will

17 help to motivate local communities and help conserve wildlife. Perceptions and attitude of local communities with regards to bear conservation and assessment of crop damage in post survey period will be evaluated again in coming seasons of 2013. A comparison will bring concrete outcomes of this project.

Following recommendations come out from this study.

1. Mitigation measures should be applied immediately. Barbed wire fencing and electric fencing should be implemented as pilot testing for its effectiveness. 2. Training, workshop and awareness camps need to be intensified to generate positive attitude toward bear conservation. 3. Conservation education materials such as pamphlets, posters, documentary film in local language need to be developed. 4. Additional material support to Night Vigilance Groups and monitoring of its effectiveness need to be evaluated in future. 5. Night guarding camps are not safe as they are very low from the ground level and visibility is very poor. Partial funding support to construct permanent raised camps will help the farmers to safe from bear casualties and to safe guard crops effectively. 6. Further research on Himalayan black bear and brown bear should be conducted focusing on seasonal movements, home range and food preferences.

7.0. References Chauhan, N.P.S. 2003. Human casualties and livestock depredation by black and brown bears in the Indian Himalaya, 1989‐98. Ursus 14: 84‐87.

Chetri, M. 2010. Socio‐economic database of Manaslu Conservation Area. National Trust for Nature Conservation‐Manaslu Conservation Area Project (unpublished).

DNPWC, 2010. Protected areas of Nepal. http://www.dnpwc.gov.np/protected‐areas/conservation‐ areas/15‐manaslu‐conservation‐area (accessed April 02, 2013).

NTNC, 2013. National Trust for Nature Conservation‐Manaslu Conservation Area Project Five Years Management Plan (unpublished).

Sathyakumar, S. 1999a. Status and management of the Himalayan brown bear in India. Pages 125‐128 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero, and B. Peyton, editors. Bears: Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Bear Specialist Group IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Sathyakumar, S. 1999b. Status and management of the Asiatic black bear in India. Pages 202‐207 in C. Servheen, S. Herrero, and B. Peyton, editors. Bears: status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Bear Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Annex 1: Participants of environmental awareness camp, Lho & Lhi villages, 29 August 2012

SN Name Address Gender 1 Pemba Tshiring Lama Lho VDC # 2, Lihi M 2 Chhimi Dhorje Lama Lho VDC # 2, Lihi M 3 Karma Lama Lho VDC # 2, Lihi M 4 Dhorje Lama Lho VDC # 2, Lihi M 5 Tshiring Dhundup Lama Lho VDC # 1, Lihi M 6 Lhakpa Dhoima Lama Lho VDC # 2, Lihi F 7 Chhewang Bhuti Lama Lho VDC # 1, Lihi F 8 Karma Lama Lho VDC # 2, Lihi M 9 Mingmar Lama Lho VDC # 2, Lihi M 10 Pema Dhoima Lama Lho VDC # 2, Lihi F 11 Chhewang Lhamu Lama Lho VDC # 2, Lihi F 12 Chhekyal Lama Lho VDC # 1, Lihi M 13 Chhewang Lama Lho VDC # 2, Lihi M 14 Tshiring Lama Lho VDC # 8, Lho M 15 Sanja Lama Ichok VDC, Sindhupalchowk M 16 Ghyurme Lama Lho VDC # 2, Lihi M 17 Sinun Lama Lho VDC # 1, Lihi M 18 Tshiring Lama Lho VDC # 2, Lihi M 19 Tashi Lama Lho VDC # 2, Lihi F 20 Namgyal Lama Lho VDC # 1, Lihi M 21 Pema Dhoima Lama Lho VDC # 1, Lihi F

Annex 2: Participants of environmental awareness camp, Lho village, 1 Sept, 2012

SN Name Address Gender 1 Dhawa Nhorbu Lama Lho VDC # 7, Lho M 2 Jigme Lama Lho VDC # 5, Lho M 3 Tenjing Dhoima Lama Lho VDC # 6, Lho M 4 Chhewang Rinjing Lama Lho VDC # 8, Lho M 5 Hise Lama Lho VDC # 9, Lho M 6 Pemba Tshiring Lama Lho VDC # 1, Lihi M 7 Tshiring Lama Lho VDC # 4, Shyo M 8 Tshiring Chhembel Lama Lho VDC # 3, Shyo M 9 Sunin Lama Lho VDC # 1, Lihi M 10 Chhimi Lama Lho VDC # 9, Lho M 11 Karma Lama Lho VDC # 6, Lho M 12 Dhawa Sangmo Lama Lho VDC # 7, Lho F 13 Tapke Lama Lho VDC # 7, Lho M 14 Chhewang Ghyurme Lama Lho VDC # 9, Lho M 15 Dhawa Ghyaljen Lama Lho VDC # 7, Lho M 16 Nhurbu Lama Lho VDC # 6, Lho M 17 Nhurpu Lama Lho VDC # 5, Lho M 18 Nhurbu Lama Lho VDC # 9, Lho M 19 Nhurbu Ghyaljen Lama Lho VDC # 8, Lho M 20 Chhewang Lama Lho VDC # 7, Lho M 21 Chhimi Lama Lho VDC # 5, Lho M 22 Chhewang Ghyamjo Lama Lho VDC # 5, Lho M 23 Rhitar Chhewang Lama Lho VDC # 8, Lho M 24 Sonam Tshiring Lama Lho VDC # 7, Lho M 25 Chhewang Lama Lho VDC # 8, Lho M 26 Phurbu Lama Lho VDC # 7, Lho M 27 Kaljen Lama Lho VDC # 8, Lho M 28 Sonam Wangdi Lama Lho VDC # 6, Lho M 29 Sinen Lama Lho VDC # 6, Lho M 30 Sonam Topke Lama Lho VDC # 6, Lho M 31 Tshiring Funjo Lama Lho VDC # 7, Lho M 32 Lhakpa Rhitar Lama Lho VDC # 6, Lho M 33 Nhima Dhundup Lama Lho VDC # 4, Shyo M 34 Ghyacho Lama Lho VDC # 6, Lho M 35 Tshiring Namgyal Lama Lho VDC # 6, Lho M 36 Chhewang Ghyaljen Lama Lho VDC # 9, Lho M 37 Tenjing Lama Lho VDC # 9, Lho M 38 Dhorje Tshiring Lama Lho VDC # 8, Lho M 39 Tshiring Funjo Lama Lho VDC # 7, Lho M

Annex 3: Participants of environmental awareness camp, Prok VDC, 03 September 2012

SN Name Address Gender 1 Dhorje Thakuri Prok VDC # 3, Prok M 2 Jiwan Gurung Prok VDC # 3, Prok M 3 Nyima Sangmo Lama Prok VDC # 1, Prok F 4 Mitra Lal Paudyal School Teacher M 5 Nhorbu Samdo Lama Prok VDC # 1, Prok M 6 Yangjen Lama Prok VDC # 3, Prok F 7 Tshiring Wangdi Lama Prok VDC # 3, Prok M 8 Kasna Lama Prok VDC # 3, Prok F 9 Chhimi Dhorje Lama Prok VDC # 3, Prok M 10 Pema Sangmo Lama Prok VDC # 3, Prok F 11 Nhitup Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok M 12 Karma Lama Prok VDC # 3, Prok M 13 Sang Dhorje Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok M 14 Chhewang Rikjing Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok M 15 Tshiring Dhawa Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok M 16 Nyawang Bhuti Lama Prok VDC # 3, Prok F 17 Tashi Sangmo Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok F 18 Bhume Achi Lama Prok VDC # 3, Prok F 19 Dhichin Dhoima Lama Prok VDC # 1, Prok F 20 Nyima Dhoima Lama Prok VDC # 1, Prok F 21 Lhakpa Bhuti Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok F 22 Kunsang Dhoima Lama Prok VDC # 3, Prok F 23 Lhakpa Chhenjong Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok F 24 Karma Dhundup Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok M 25 Angjuk Lama Prok VDC # 3, Prok M 26 Sange Angjuk Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok M 27 Pasang Thele Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok F 28 Nyila Sangmo Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok F 29 Karma Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok M 30 Hisi Dhorje Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok M 31 Chhimi Lama Prok VDC # 1, Prok M 32 Tshiring Namgyal Lama Prok VDC # 1, Prok M 33 Tenjing Lama Prok VDC # 3, Prok M 34 Lhakpa Dhondup Lama Prok VDC # 3, Prok M 35 Dhawa Mendok Lama Prok VDC # 3, Prok F 36 Mingmar Dholma Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok F 37 Dijing Sangmo Lama Prok VDC # 1, Prok F 38 Hosar Bhuti Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok F 39 Lhame Bhuti Lama Prok VDC # 3, Prok F 40 Pema Sangmo Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok F 41 Ghyamjo Lama Prok VDC # 3, Prok M 42 Dipa Pathak Nurse Phase Nepal F

SN Name Address Gender 43 Pasang Dholma Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok F 44 Dhawa Bhuti Lama Prok VDC # 3, Prok F

Annex 4: Participants of environmental awareness camp, Chhak village, 6 Sept, 2012

SN Name Address Gender 1 Lhakpa Tshiring Lama Prok VDC # 6, Chhak M 2 Ghyurme Lama Prok VDC # 7, Chhak M 3 Kunsang Dhorje Lama Prok VDC # 6, Chhak M 4 Pema Tshiring Lama Prok VDC # 7, Chhak M 5 Phurbu Ghyaljen Lama Prok VDC # 7, Chhak M 6 Lhakpa Tshiring Lama Prok VDC # 7, Chhak M 7 Lhakpa Dhiki Lama Prok VDC # 7, Chhak F 8 Chhewang Bhuti Lama Prok VDC # 7, Chhak F 9 Gharap Sunun Lama Prok VDC # 7, Chhak M 10 Pasang Dhoima Lama Prok VDC # 7, Chhak F 11 Chhangwa Dhorje Lama Prok VDC # 7, Chhak M 12 Chhewang Dholma Lama Prok VDC # 7, Chhak F 13 Nyawang Dhiki Lama Prok VDC # 7, Chhak F 14 Pema Bhuti Lama Prok VDC # 6, Chhak F 15 Phurbu Lama Prok VDC # 6, Chhak F 16 Pema Dhoima Lama Prok VDC # 6, Chhak F 17 Tashi Dhiki Lama Prok VDC # 6, Chhak F 18 Chhimik Rikjing Lama Prok VDC # 6, Chhak M 19 Nyila Sangmo Lama Prok VDC # 6, Chhak F 20 Mendo Sangmo Lama Prok VDC # 6, Chhak F 21 Tshiring Wangdi Lama Prok VDC # 6, Chhak M 22 Lhakpa Nhorbu Lama Prok VDC # 6, Chhak M 23 Sange Dholma Lama Prok VDC # 6, Chhak F 24 Tashi Mendo Lama Prok VDC # 7, Chhak F 25 Tshiring Chhoki Lama Prok VDC # 6, Chhak F 26 Lhakpa Lama Prok VDC # 6, Chhak M 27 Mendok Dholma Lama Prok VDC # 7, Chhak F 28 Hari Shankar Paudyal School Teacher M

Annex 5: Night Vigilance Group, Prok (Date of formation: 04 September, 2012)

SN Name Address Designation Gender 1 Hise Thakuri Prok VDC # 3, Prok Chairperson M 2 Chhimi Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok Secretary M 3 Chhiring Namgel Lama Prok VDC # 1, Prok Member M 4 Chhiring Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok Member M 5 Chhiring Chhepel Thakuri Prok VDC # 3, Prok Member M 6 Chhimik Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok Member M 7 Karma Lama Prok VDC # 2, Prok Member M

Annex 6: Night Vigilance Group, Lhi village (Date of Formation: 10 September, 2012)

SN Name Address Designation Gender 1 Pemba Tshiring Lama Lho VDC # 2, Lhi Chairperson M 2 Sunin Lama Lho VDC # 1, Lhi Secretary M 3 Karma Namgyal Lama Lho VDC # 1, Lhi Member M 4 Lhakpa Lama Lho VDC # 1, Lhi Member M 5 Khamsung Lama Lho VDC # 1, Lhi Member M 6 Namgyal Lama Lho VDC # 1, Lhi Member M 7 Mingmar Dhorje Lama Lho VDC # 2, Lhi Member M 8 Dhiki Lama Lho VDC # 2, Lhi Member F 9 Dhorje Lama Lho VDC # 2, Lhi Member M

Annex 7: Trainee of data recording training

SN Name Address Gender 1 Luna Gurung Bihi VDC # 4, Bihi, Current at Namrung F 2 Pemba Tshiring Lama Lho VDC # 2, Bihi M 3 Hisse Thakuri Prok VDC # 3, Prok M 4 Lhakpa Tshiring Lama Prok VDC # 6, Chhak M

Annex 8: Participants of human-bear conflict mitigation workshop, Namrung village SN Name Designation Address Gender 1 Lhakpa Tshiring Lama Secretary , CAMC Prok Prok VDC # 7, Chhak M 2 Temba Thakuri Member, CAMC Prok Prok VDC # 3, Prok M 3 Dhorje Thakuri Member, CAMC Prok Prok VDC # 3, Prok M 4 Tshiring Yungdung Thakali Member, CAMC Prok Prok VDC # 8, Namrung M 5 Nhima Samtuk Lama Member, CAMC Prok Prok VDC # 2, Prok M 6 Pemba Lama Member, CAMC Lho Lho VDC # 2, Lhi M 7 Sunin Lama Member, APU Lho Lho VDC # 1, Lhi M 8 Dhorje Thakuri Ward Chairperson Prok VDC # 9, Namrung M 9 Phurbu Thile Lama Social Worker Prok VDC # 8, Namrung M 10 Dhawa Tashi Lama Member, APU Prok Prok VDC # 8, Namrung M 11 Chhang Dhorje Lama Social Worker Prok VDC # 8, Namrung M 12 Tashi Dhiki Lama Chairperson, MG Prok VDC # 7, Chhak F 13 Nyila Sangmo Lama Treasurer, Mother Group Prok VDC # 7, Chhak F 14 Pasang Lama (Rana) Secretary, Mother Group Prok VDC # 9, Namrung F 15 Gyurme Lama Ward Chairperson Prok VDC # 7, Chhak M 16 Lhakpa Bhuti Lama Member, CAMC Prok Prok VDC # 2, Prok F 17 Dipak KC In charge Namrung Police Station M 18 Pemba Chheten Lama Member, Mother Group Prok VDC # 9, Namrung F 19 Dhawa Dhorje Lama Chairperson, TMsC/FMsC Prok VDC # 8, Namrung M 20 Lami Bhuti Thakuri Member, Mother Group Prok VDC # 3, Prok F 21 Pema Lama Member, Mother Group Prok VDC # 2, Prok F 24

SN Name Designation Address Gender 22 Pasang Lama Member, Mother Group Prok VDC # 2, Prok F 23 Pema Dhoma Lama Chairperson, MG Lho VDC # 2, Lhi F 24 Karsang Lama Member, Mother Group Lho VDC # 1, Lhi F 25 Dhawa Dolma Lama Member, Mother Group Lho VDC # 2, Lhi F 26 Lhakpa Dhiki Lama Member, Mother Group Lho VDC # 1, Lhi F 27 Chhewang Bhuti Lama Member, Mother Group Lho VDC # 1, Lhi F 28 Sonam Lama Member, Mother Group Lho VDC # 1, Lhi F

Annex 9: Participants of human-bear conflict mitigation workshop, Sirdibas-Philim, 27 July, 2012

SN Name and Address Designation Address Gender 1 Gaurab Panthi In‐Charge ISC ISC, Sirdibas M 2 Gun Bahadur Karki Chairman CAMC Sirdibas‐1 M 3 Bishnu Gurung Secretary CAMC Sirdibas‐9 M 4 Dhorje Gurung Secretary APU Sirdibas‐9 M 5 Norbu Gurung Social worker Sirdibas‐7 M 6 Gopal Lama Chairman CAMC Chumchet‐5 M 7 Lopsang Lama Member CAMC Chumchet‐1 M 8 Kaljen Chhewang Lama Chairman APU Bihi‐4 M 9 Lopsang Lama Secretary APU Bihi‐5 M 10 Chhiring Dhorje Lama Chairman CAMC Prok‐7 M 11 Lhakpa Chhiring Lama Secretary CAMC Prok‐6 M 12 Pema Dhundup Lama Secretary APU Prok‐7 M 13 Lhakpa Lama Social worker Prok‐7 M 14 Dhawa Norbu Lama CAMC Chairman Lho‐8 M 15 Chhewang Rikjin Lama Chairman APU Lho‐7 M 16 Tashi Dhundup Lama Secretary APU Lho‐2 M 17 Dipendra Gurung V Secretary FMsC Sirdibas‐9 M 18 Gherap Chhewang Lama Member APU Prok‐3 M 19 Sumchhiring Gurung NC representative Sirdibas‐7 M 20 Buddhi Prasad Ashikari Vat. JTA, Sirdibas ISC Philim M 21 Shanta Bahadur Chaudhary SI, Sirdibas Police Sirdibas M 22 Shanta Bahadur Basnet ASI, Chhekam Police Chhekam M 23 Chhabi Lal Darai Jawan, Chhekam Police Chhekam M 24 Deepak Bahadur KC Hawaldar, Namrung Police Namrung M 25 Kabindra Ashikari Jawan, Namrung Police Namrung M 26 Khadga Narayan Chaudhary Hawaldar, Samagaon Police Samagaon M 27 Sunbir Nepali Jawan, Samagaon Police Samagaon M

Photo 1: Himalayan black bear and brown bear conservation awareness poster in Nepali language.

Photo 2: Himalayan black bear and brown conservation awareness poster in Tibetan language.

Photo 3: Himalayan black bear and brown bear conservation sticker.

Photo 4: Bhanjam‐Lhi Village, Lho VDC with several night guarding temporary camps at corn field.

Photo 5: Awareness camp at Prok village‐ Photo 6: Awareness camp at Lhi village‐ participants watching video related to participants watching video show. environmental awareness and wildlife conservation.

Photo 7: Interaction with local communities Photo 8: Participants presenting group work with regards to human‐bear conflict at Lhi, Lho findings during the coordination workshop at VDC. Philim, Sirdibas VDC.

Photo 9: Participants of Human‐Bear Conflict Photo 10: Project staff interacting with local Mitigation Workshop, Prok village. inhabitants at Lhi village regarding Human‐ Bear Conflict.

Photo 12: Project staff testing mega torch Photo 11: Night Vigilance Group at Lhi Village. light to handover to Night Vigilance Group, Lhi

Village.

Photo 13: Night guarding platform at Chhak Photo 14: Night guarding platform at Namrung village, Prok VDC. village, Prok VDC.

Photo 15: Remains of the maize corn left by Photo 16: Trail of Himalayan black bear at

Himalayan black bear, Namrung village. maize corn field, Chhak village, Prok VDC.

Photo 17: A typical forest habitats (mixed Oak forest) of Himalayan black bear in MCA.

Photo 18: A typical pine forest habitats of Himalayan black bear in MCA.

Photo 19: A typical habitat of Himalayan brown bear in MCA.

Photo 20: Signs of Himalayan brown bear‐snow filled holes is the diggings site for Himalayan marmot.