AUGUST 7, 2018

DRAFT

SCOPING STUDY TO ASCERTAIN THE AWARENESS ON THE VALUE OF BIODIVERSITY IN THREE PROTECTED AREAS

UNDP,

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...... 2 2. History of Environment Education (EE) ...... 3 3. Objectives and the Scope of the Study ...... 6 3.1 Methodology ...... 8 3.1 Desktop study and review of literature ...... 9 3.2 Primary Data Collection and Coverage...... 9 3.3 Focus Group Discussion/Key Informant Interview (KII) ...... 9 3.4 Field Observation ...... 9 3.5. Data Analysis ...... 9 3.6 Limitations of the Study ...... 10 4. Summary of Findings ...... 10 4.1 Jigme Dorji National Park...... 11 4.2 Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park ...... 12 4.3 Jigme Khesar Strict Nature Reserve ...... 13 5. Demography and Social Structure ...... 14 5.1 Study area and Respondents ...... 14 5.2 Age and Education ...... 16 3.3 Understanding of Biological diversity by Respondents ...... 18 3.4 Environmental Education Program ...... 22 3.5 Conservation Activities ...... 26 3.6 Environmental problems ...... 27 6. Discussions...... 28 7. Recommendations ...... 31 8. Reference ...... 32 9. Annexure:...... 33 Annexure I: Respondent lists under three PAs – JKSNR, JDNP and JSWNP ...... 33 Annexure II: Questionnaire for Scoping Study to Assess Awareness on Biodiversity – For Household...... 35 Annexure III. Questionnaire for Protected Area Staff (Park manager or EE focal) ...... 39 Annexure IV: People Consulted ...... 42

1. Introduction

In terms of Bhutan’s efforts in environmental education and public awareness programs, it has a well-recognized history as early as the late 1980s. Both government and non-governmental agencies have been actively involved in running these initiatives through establishment of school nature clubs and School Agriculture Programs; awareness-raising through different forms of media; celebration of the national social forestry day and significant environment days on the global calendar. However, such awareness programs have been ad hoc and limited to the basic understanding on environment, forests, protected areas, waste management, conservation activities, etc.

The National Environment Protection Act 2007 mandates National Environment Commission (NEC) and its Secretariat to raise environmental education, advocacy and awareness. The past Biodiversity Action Plans of Bhutan and other national documents such as the Tiger Action Plan for the Kingdom of Bhutan 2006-2015, and National Action Plan on Biodiversity Persistence and Climate Change, 2011, reiterate the need for improving and up scaling Environmental Education in a coordinated manner. Despite the explicit directives provided by the Act and the national documents to implement environmental education and awareness programs at various levels, there is still a lacuna in the system in reaching out to the public at large. What has been lacking quintessentially is a well-planned and coordinated mechanism amongst the relevant biodiversity stakeholders to ensure that the environmental education and awareness program elevate the public understanding of the importance of biodiversity and their role in conserving it. This has resulted in lack of information on the level of public understanding of biodiversity and its values and formulation of appropriate awareness programs.

Currently, about 66 per cent of the population interacts with Protected Areas (PAs), where environmental education is part of the protected area management as mandated by environmental legislations. However, these programs are ad hoc and limited to raising awareness on environmental rules and regulations or basic understanding of the environment and environmental problems. There are also a number of on-going Environmental Education programs targeting different sections of the population beyond the protected areas. However, what has been solely lacking is an institutionalized mechanism to ensure that the public understanding of the importance of biodiversity and their role in conserving it, as well as environmental legislations, are elevated.

Thus, as a first step, it is crucial to ascertain the proportion of the population aware of biodiversity and its values, which will guide in assessing the efficacy of the existing awareness initiatives and identify gaps and target groups. In targeting 60 per cent of the population, efforts will be focused primarily on the population living within the PAs.

2. History of Environment Education (EE)

The concept of Environmental Education (EE) can be traced back as far as 1948 and the IUCN conference but the turning point of EE was the 1972 Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, ,(R.L Carter et. al., August 2010).This international conference produced a declaration containing 26 principles of which, principle 19 of the Stockholm Declaration states, “Education in environmental matters, for the younger generation as well as adults, giving due consideration to the underprivileged, is essential in order to broaden the basis for an enlightened opinion and responsible conduct by individuals, enterprises and communities in protecting and improving the environment in its full human dimension. It is also essential that mass media of communications avoid contributing to the deterioration of the environment, but, on the contrary, disseminate information of an educational nature on the need to protect and Improve the environment in order to enable man to develop in every respect”(UNESCO 1978)

Smyth, 2006 defined EE as an organized intervention geared towards teachingindividuals to adopt more ecologically sustainable lives by understanding about the functioning of natural environment, particularly, how humans and other life forms interact with the environment and its resources in the ecosystems. Environmental Education is a process that allows individuals to explore environmental issues, engage in problem solving, and take action to improve the environment; which is supposed to allow individuals develop a deeper understanding of environmental issues and have the skills to make informed and responsible decisions. According to Gruenewald, 2004, EE rests upon four fundamental principles: i. EE increases public awareness and knowledge on environmental issues, ii. EE teaches individuals critical thinking, iii. EE enhances individuals’ problem solving and decision-making skills, and iv. EE does not advocate a particular viewpoint but works on generalized viewpoints.

For Bhutan modern education started around 1961 with the start of five-year development planning. Earlier to that, Bhutan had formal monastic education and it is supposedly have begun as early as1622 at the Chari in (Dorji, 2005).

Along the same time (in the1960s) the formal conservation programs in Bhutan were instituted with the designation of the Northern and Southern Wildlife Circles and the designation of the first protected area – the Manas Wildlife Sanctuary in 1966. Important conservation and development partners, such as UN agencies were established in Bhutan in 1974, the WWF- Bhutan in 1977, HELVETAS -Swiss Inter-cooperation in early ‘70s, and SNV 1988 (Kuensel: 18 October 2015). In country Not for Profit or CBO organizations that work on environmental conservation are, Royal Society for Protection of Nature (RSPN)-established 1987, the Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation (BTFEC) in 1992, Clean Bhutan in 2014 and Bhutan Ecological Society in 2016.

Besides the above organizations, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests and Ministry of Education are also involved in imparting environmental education, environment related awareness and advocacy. The government organizations, International Non-governmental Organizations (INGOs), local Non-governmental Organizations and communities have been involved in imparting environmental education and environment related awareness and advocacy from as early as the 1970s. Some of the organizations that support some form of environmental education and awareness programs are: 1. National Environment Commission Secretariat 2. Ministry of Agriculture and Forests 3. Ministry of Education 4. Ministry of Economic Affairs 5. Royal Society for Protection of Nature 6. WWF-Bhutan 7. Bhutan Foundation 8. Bhutan Ecological Society 9. UgenWangchuck Institute of Conservation and Environmental Research 10. Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation 11. SNV-Bhutan 12. HELVETAS-Bhutan 13. Clean Bhutan, Thimphu 14. UNDP-Bhutan College of Natural Resources and Sherubtse college, RUB RTC also through their under grad program

Surfing through the websites of the above organizations, some of the key themes of environmental awareness and advocacy are as following: • Awareness and advocacy on forest fire, • Awareness and advocacy on waste management • Awareness and advocacy on Policy, Legislation, Rules and Regulation related to biodiversity conservation, • Climate change, • Sustainable Land Management and Land degradation • Saving water • Sustainable natural resources management • Saving energy • Pollution • Protected Area Management • Cultural Heritage • Human Wildlife Conflict • Conservation, nature interpretation and biological conservation • Value of protected areas for road workers, industrialists, local communities and religious institutions.

Most of these environmental awareness campaigns are focused toward the general public, school children and monastic body. The medium used for awareness and advocacy are mostly through Television broadcast, print media, poster presentation, stakeholder consultation, use of animation and mass media.

In terms of the environmental education through development of curriculum, the BTFEC has supported the integration of basic environmental conservation concepts for the lower primary level in 1997, environmental research and building capacity for natural resource management for Sherubtse college, environmental studies trainers training workshop, environmental education for sustainability for the monastic bodies, environmental education need assessment workshop and development of teachers manual, and development of environmental science text book for class IX and X.

Although, there are no records of the number of environmental awareness and advocacy programs implemented, it can be BOX 1: Sense of responsibility towards conserving natural resources, 2010 to 2015. assumed that there could be at lease 50- 100 such activities carried out annually by different organization on one of the above themes. However, there are no study, research or assessment Source: GNC 2015 Survey Report. of the impacts or outcome from administering environmental awareness and advocacy campaign on the perception and behavior of the communities. Nonetheless, according to the GNH 2015, it states that there is a significant difference in the proportion of people who feel “highly responsible” for conserving the natural environment amongst rural and urban localities as compared between 2015 and 2010 respondents. Among the rural population, people who feel “highly responsible” to conserving biodiversity had decreased from 82.4 percent to 78.7 percent and among the urban, the decrease is from 82.6 percent in 2010 to 82.1 percent in 2015.

3. Objectives and the Scope of the Study

The National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plan 2014 (NBSAP) has been endorsed and operationalized by the Royal Government of Bhutan as a guiding document for Biodiversity Management.

Although, the revised NBSAP was published one year after the start of 11th FYP, the revision and formulation process for NBSAP 2014 and the targets have almost been in tandem with the formulation of the 12th FYP. As the revision of NBSAP has been done through rigorous consultative process there is high likelihood that the 20 National Targets are well integrated in the 12 th FYP.

In this context, the current study which aims to ascertain the current level of awareness on the values of biodiversity and steps people can take to conserve and use sustainably, provides a baseline to develop and implement programs aimed at achieving the National Target 1: By 2018, at least 60 percent of the population is aware of values of biodiversity and step they can take to conserve and use it sustainably. However, this study is just a rapid assessment of community’s perception, knowledge and understanding of biodiversity and how these elements guide their behavior towards environment and resource management.

In addition, although ideal situation would have been to cover all the population living within the protected areas as increasing awareness on values of biodiversity is primarily targeted towards population living in close proximity or within the protected areas, covering all protected areas was impossible in this study due to limitation of time and fund. Therefore,this study has taken a non-probability sampling approach by picking sample based on availability, reach and accessibility. Thus this is a preliminary research to get a gross estimate of the impacts of the implementation of RGoB/CSOs/INGOs programs related to environmental awareness, specifically within the protected areas. The finding of this scoping study will however guide in formulation of a more comprehensive study at a later stage.

This scoping study has focused on trying to understand the existing level of awareness on the value of biodiversity in three National Parks, namely Jigme Khesar Strict Nature Reserve (JKSNR), Jigme SingyeWangchuck National Park (JSWNP) and Jigme Dorji National Park JDNP

JKSNR JSWNP

(JDNP). Environmental awareness implies not only being knowledgeable about the environment, but also being familiar with sets of values, attitudes and skills for addressing environment related problems. This scoping study has attempted to find out communities’ level of knowledge and awareness on environment, their attitudes towards the environment as well as their participation level in environmental protection and improvements. The households have been randomly selected after the three National Parks were identified.

Therefore, the objectives of the study are as stated below:

i. Ascertain the existing awareness on the value of biodiversity in these three PAs

ii. Ascertain different types of environmental education and awareness programs implemented in these three PAs iii. Identify existing capacity related to environmental education and advocacy programs.

3.1Methodology

The following approach has been undertaken for the scoping study. It basically collected secondary information on the environmental education, awareness and advocacy initiatives implemented by the Park management among the communities living around their parks. Additionally, the structured questionnaire for this scoping study were administered at randomly selected households within these parks.

3.1 Desktop study and review of literature

Secondary information was collected through review of relevant literature. This review identified and classified secondary data related to all environmental education activities initiated in the National Parks.

3.2 Primary Data Collection and Coverage

Through discussion with the TWG members, a structured form of questionnaire was developed. During the TWG meeting convened from 12 -15 June 2018, it was decided that the JDNP, JKSNR and JSWNP to be selected as the study site and the sites were selected on the basis of convenience sampling. This study is intended for understanding people’s perceptions on the value of biological diversity through household questionnaire survey. The questionnaire was administered in these three identified Protected Areas. After the identification of the villages, households/respondents were randomly selected from these Parks and questionnaire survey were administered. The number of days for this questionnaire survey has been for three days and one day was kept for discussion with Park Staff to collect information relevant to the NBSAP process. Households within the gewogs under protected areas were randomly selected for questionnaire survey. 3.3 Focus Group Discussion/Key Informant Interview (KII)

In addition to household interviews, KII were conducted to improve the information collected through survey and also understand how they access and use the resources from the Parks, co- exist with wildlife and how they reap benefits from the PA. FGDs were conducted with the Park Staff after making presentation on the whole process of the Sixth National Report and the objectives of the study to collect additional information related to the 20 National Targets. 3.4 Field Observation

To get adequate and relevant information about the perception and attitude of local communities, observation on what people are doing on their daily activities for their livelihoods, an overview of their living environment, and interactions of local communities with the park has been observed.

3.5. Data Analysis

The data generated from the field was analyzed using MS Excel spreadsheet 2016. Descriptive statistics was applied to calculate the frequency, percentage, minimum value, maximum value, mean, standard deviation and standard error of different numerical and categorical data. 3.6 Limitations of the Study

The present study is just a scoping assessment and was conducted on a rapid basis so:

1. The study is restricted to three parks only, due to fund and time constraints.

2. No primary data collected through the survey are perfectly free from biases and inaccuracies as the answers are based on theopinions and the experience of the respondents.

3. There may be a drop error i.e., the respondents who were willing as well as able to respond may not be contacted.

5. There may be go error i.e., the respondents who were unwilling as well unableto respond may be included in the study.

4. Summary of Findings

The biodiversity concept is undoubtedly important for ecologists, natural resource managers and decision-makersconcerned with nature/biodiversity conservation. But what does the communities think aboutbiodiversity, its changes and its management?

A rapid community interviews were conducted, in three Protected Areas, and collected information on the communities’ perceptions and attitudes: What do people understand by the term “biodiversity”? What do they perceive as important issues with regard to biodiversity management? What do they value about biodiversity, and what are their attitudes towards biodiversity changes?

The report presents findings from scoping studies conducted in the JDNP,JSWNP and JKSNR. This scoping study has been designed to get a preliminary understanding about how communities perceived biodiversity and its value but at the same time as an explorative stage to administer a large-scale study to assess in-depth the communities attitude, perception and knowledge on biodiversity and its values.

This report is of relevance for anyone interested in engaging people on nature related topics. In addition, it provides insights into the perception of biodiversity issues bymembers of the general public, which might be particularly interesting for natural resource managers, ecologists anddecision-makers.

4.1 Jigme Dorji National Park

JDNP is one of the oldest protected areas in Bhutan with almost 1500 households of various ethnic background. The park has altitudinal range from 1500 to 700 meters housing several endangered plants and animals. JDNP is well known for its medicinal plants, hot springs, water with medicinal properties and breathtaking scenery.

The Park has its head office in Damji, Gasa and six park range offices that covers 15 Gewogs within five Dzongkhags. The main value of this park is the habitat for flagship species such as snow leopard, tiger, taking, raven and pheasants. In terms of the plant species, it has incense and medicinal plants, orchids and several flowering plants, some of which are endemic to Bhutan.

JDNP also support some of the important ecosystem services, such as the snowcapped mountains and glacial lakes. These ecosystems are key to Bhutan’s source of drinking water and also the hydro-power generation. The Mt. Jomolhari is located in the northwestern part of the park and is considered the abode of the goddess Jomo.

JDNP’s two key management objectives are: i) Protect the flagship species and conserve their habitat ii) Bring key natural resources in the park under a sustainable management framework

The Park has identified the following key management priorities: • “Increase capacity of staff by identifying training priorities and raising funds for training. Rationalize transfer policy to ensure capacity stays within protected areas. • Update equipment and encourage the government to maintain consistent policy on equipment procurement. • Increase effectiveness of anti-poaching strategies through the adoption of SMART patrolling and the development of local intelligence networks. • Further develop, implement and monitor effectiveness of HWC mitigation strategies. • Develop better guidance for management zones identified in the management plan. • Increase awareness locally and regionally of the importance of sustainable natural resource management and collection and develop local best practice management of legal resource take. • Develop more effective monitoring and management of legal resource use in the park and impacts of large-scale construction projects. • Develop strategies to reduce impact of grazing. • Further develop ecotourism opportunities and strategies, in particular through building better relation with the tourism sector and managing tourism impacts. • Expedite PES scheme between the local community and Thimphu City for water”. (MoAFs 2016)

For the questionnaire survey in JDNP, Khamoed gewog was selected and from this gewog, 24 respondents were interviewed. 4.2 Jigme SingyeWangchuck National Park

Jigme SingyeWangchuck National Park (JSWNP), which is centrally located borders RMNP and is linked through biological corridors to JDNP and PhrumshinglaNational Park. The park covers a range of biomes from sub-tropical to alpine and includes some of the largest and least disturbed areas of the Eastern Himalayas.

The white-bellied heron is believed to have been seen in the area and the park is a winter roost for black-necked cranes. The park has recorded 38 mammal species, 270 birds, 440 plants, 139 butterfly and 16 fish species and is of particular importance for tigers. JSWNP includes many important cultural sites including Trongsa Dzong, the largest dzong (fortress) in Bhutan, and a popular tourist destination. There are over 500 households in the protected area spread around the park. The Monpas and Oleps are some of the most isolated and economically underprivileged communities within the park. The Head Office is located in Tshangkha, Trongsa below the national highway. Within the park area there are four administrative rangers, two Deputy Park rangers and six Geogs within four Dzongkhags. Key management priorities identified are:

• “Improve anti-poaching efforts focused mainly on musk deer, sambar, tiger and other conservation key species through SMART patrolling. • Ensure full implementation of community-based compensation insurance scheme, better assess crop and livestock damage and prioritize HWC mitigationmeasures including more electric fencing, and address issues related to fishing. • Identify critical habitat including associated ecological processes through research and survey. • Carry out capacity building for rangers in different disciplines (e.g. ecological processes, freshwater ecosystems, climate change) and specific training (e.g. GIS, wildlife management, land use planning, hydrology). • Develop and implement a corridor management plan. • Introduce an adaptive management approach to planning. • Procure basic field equipment. • Strengthen cooperation among neighboring officials through regular contact and dialogue. • Further engage communities in the decision-making process regarding resource use and management. • Review possible introduction of biogas technology”. (MoAFs 2016)

For the questionnaire survey in JSWNR, two gewogs were selected - Langthel andTangsibji. From these gewogs, 29 respondents were interviewed.

4.3 Jigme Khesar Strict Nature Reserve

One of the only strict nature reserve in Bhutan, Jigme Khesar Strict Nature Reserve (JKSNR), is the only protected area without permanent human settlements, except for few migratory yak herding communities who have traditional grazing rights in the reserve. Its pristine temperate and alpine ecosystems are home to a recorded 29 mammals, 161 birds, 64 butterflies, seven species of fish and 427species of plants.

The Reserve was operationalized only in 2010. The management plan was prepared based on four rapid assessments of biodiversity (plants, mammals and birds) and on the socio-economic status of the resident communities borderingthe administrative jurisdiction of the JKSNR. Key management priorities identified are:

• “Develop effective protection systems, e.g. develop SMART patrolling, an intelligence and networking system, participatory involvement of communities in protection of the reserve; and development of proper data base for protection activities. • Focus conservation on keystone species and their recovery, e.g. develop a species management plan for snow leopard and conduct revalidation surveysand studies on plants and animals for which information is lacking. • Develop a conservation plan for alpine wetland. • Monitor forest habitat conservation during patrolling. • Conduct a comprehensive study on grazing and habitat management to help support cultural survival. • Carry out boundary demarcation and zonation of the reserve (funding inprocess with BTFEC). • Secure funds to implement prioritized activities as per the management plan, including ensuring community awarenessraising etc. • Support staff training and capacity building in required fields. • Develop tourism facilitiesand cooperation with tourismauthorities. • Investigate options to increase connectivity with other areas ofnatural habitat”. (MoAFs 2016).

Under JKSNR, 24 respondents were selected from Bjee, Katsho, Esue and Sama gewogs and questionnaire survey was administered.

5. Demography and Social Structure

It is very important and essential to know the demographic profile of households as it forms the fundamental basis in ascertaining how people behave, think and act (Kumar, et al. 2002). The following sections provide the demographic profile of the households of the study areas.

5.1 Study area and Respondents

The questionnaires were administered among 77 respondents within three protected areas. 24 households were randomly and proportionally selected from Bjee, Katsho, Esue and Sama gewog under JKSNR, Haa, 24 households from Khamoed gewog under JDNP, Gasa and 29 households from Langthel and Tangsibji gewog under JSWNP, Trongsa. Figure 2 shows the number of respondents from each protected area. The study tried to involve equal representation of male and female respondents to get perspectives from both the sexes. A total percentage of female and male respondents were 46.75% (n=36) of the respondents were female and 53.25% (n=41) were men which shows a little higher proportion of male respondents during survey.

Looking at the parks individually, there were 8 (33%) female and 16 (67%) in JKSNR, 18 (75%) female and 6 (25%) male in JDNP and 19 (66%) male and 10 (34%) female in JSWNP.

19 20 18 16 15

10 47% 10 8 53% 6

5 Number of households of Number 0 JKSNR JDNP JSWNP Female Male Female Male Respondent from PAs

Figure 1: Respondent by gender in three PAs

Table 1 represents the household category of the study areas where, 51% (n=39) were noted to be male-headed household and female-headed household constituted 49% (n=38). There is only 1% difference, with male-headed households.

Table 1: Household category within survey areas

JKSNR JDNP JSWNP Overall % HH category No. of HHs % No. of HHs % No. of HHs % No. of HHs % Female- headed 10 42 19 79 9 31 38 49

Male-headed 14 58 5 21 20 69 39 51

From the three PA, the JSWNP had the only 31% of female headed household, JKSNR had 42 % and JDNP had 79% female headed household. Similarly, JSWNP had 69% male headed household, JDNP had 21% male headed household and JKSNR had 58%. However, it may be important to note that respondent numbers among these three PAs differ by few respondents.

In terms of the number of total family members of the interviewed respondents, JKSNR constituted 32 percent male adults,19 percent male child, 28 percent female adults and 21 percent female child. For JDNP, constituted 31 percent male adults,16 percent male child, 47 percent female adults and 10 percent female and for JSWNP, constituted 40 percent male adults15 percent male child, 34 percent female adults and 11 percent female.

Table 2: Number of Family Members from each respondent

JKSNR JDNP JSWNP Overall % HH category No. % No. % No. % No. %

Male Adult 46 32 46 31 81 40 173 35

Male Child 27 19 23 16 30 15 80 16

Female Adult 40 28 69 47 69 34 178 36

Female Child 30 21 15 10 22 11 67 14

Family size ranges between 1 to 17 members per household with mean being 5.92 (mean ± SD = 5.92 ± 3.32) in JKSNR, whereas in JDNP family size ranged between 2 to 13 with mean member living in a household was 6.13 (mean ± SD = 6.13 ± 2.96) and in JSWNP 3 to 12 members in a household with mean member living was 6.93 (mean ± SD = 6.93 ± 2.59).

5.2 Age and Education

The age of the respondents was classified into three categories; “Youth” (18-24 years), “working” (25-35 years) and “elderly” (36 years and above). In the sampled households, 60% of the total respondents are within the elderly age category of above 36 years old and remaining 34% from working age and 6% from young age respectively from three PAs (Table 2).

Table 3: Age category of the respondents

Age JKSNR JDNP JSWNP Overall % No. of HHs % No. of HHs % No. of HHs % No. of HHs % 18-24 years 1 4 2 8 2 7 5 6 25-35 years 8 33 9 38 9 31 26 34 Above 36 years 15 63 13 54 18 62 46 60

In the questionnaire survey, different categories of respondents were interviewed, andit included farmers, salaried workers, businessmen and monk. So, the majority of the respondents were farmers 77% (n=59), followed by salaried workers 10% (n=8), businessmen and monks with 6% each (n=5).

From the survey the maximum respondents 55% (n=42)had no formal education, 22 percent had primary level education, 16 percent had secondary level education, 4 percent were college educated and 1 percent attended non-formal education. (Table 3).

Table 4: Education level of respondents JKSNR JDNP JSWNP Overall % Education No. of HHs % No. of HHs % No. of HHs % No. of HHs % No Education 7 29 15 63 20 69 42 55 Primary 10 42 4 17 3 10 17 22 Secondary 4 17 3 13 5 17 12 16 College 3 13 2 8 0 0 3 4 Others (NFE) 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1

In the context of education level amongthree protected areas; there were relatively higher numbers of respondents in JKSNR (72%) who had some level of education compare to JDNP (38%) and JSWNP (31%) (Figure 3). The level of education of people could play a crucial role in making decision on how environment awareness and education material are developed to improve the knowledge, skills and attitude of the communities in finding solutions to environmental problems. 80 71 69 70 63 60 50 40 38 29 31 30 20 10 0 JKSNR JDNP JSWNP Literate No formal Education

Figure 2: Education level of respondents

When asked about their residence in the particular area, most respondents 86% (n=66) from PAs have lived in the area for over 20 years. When comparing within three PAs about respondent living in the location over 20 years, maximum of the respondent revealed JKSNR 75% (n=18), JDNP 100% (n=24) and JSWNP with 83% (n=24).

Table 5: Respondents residence according the time-frame

Years Lived JKSNR JDNP JSWNP Overall % in PA No. of HHs % No. of HHs % No. of HHs % No. of HHs % >20 18 75 22 92 24 83 64 83 16 -20 0 0 02 08 0 0 02 03 11-15 04 17 0 0 0 0 04 05 < 5 02 08 0 0 3 10 05 07

3.3Understanding of Biological diversity by Respondents

Bhutan is touted as a country with still intact and rich biodiversity and being able to maintain this current state of our natural heritage is attributed, among others, the reverence Bhutanese communities accord to nature. Nonetheless, with fast paced economic growth and affluence, the danger of short-term economic exploitation of natural resources is an eminent threat. How communities perceive biodiversity and the value they attach is important for policy makers, natural resource managers and conservationist.

Although, Biodiversity is considered fairly a new terminology, E.O Wilson defines biodiversity as, “the genetic based variation of living organisms at all levels, from the variety of genes in populations of single species, through species on up to the array of natural ecosystems” (G.T Erfort, 1996). The respondents in the PAs were asked about their understanding of the biological diversity.Majority, which is 87% of the respondent reported that to them biodiversity meant, wild animals and plants that surrounded them (Figure 6) and only 13% mentioned that they had no idea what biodiversity was. Looking at the Parks individually 88% of the respondents in JKSNR said biodiversity to them was plants and wild animals and 13% said they didn’t know. In JDNP 100% were aware of what biodiversity was and in JSWNP only 76% mention what they perceived biodiversity was and 24% of the respondents were not aware of what biodiversity was.

100 100 88 13%

80 76 % 60

40

24 Respondent 20 13 0 0 87% JKSNR JDNP JSWNP Yes Don’t know Yes Don’t know

Figure 3: Respondent view on biological diversity

Based on what was perceived as biodiversity, the respondents were asked to list out what biodiversity was to them. The Table 6represents the list of floral and faunal species that the communities mentioned.

Table 6: Floral and Faunal species Species JKSNR JDNP JSWNP Species JKSNR JDNP JSWNP Wild √ pig √ √ √ Alnus -- √ Wild dog √ √ √ Betula -- √ Bear √ √ √ Champ -- √ Tiger √ √ √ Walnut √ √ Musk √ deer √ √ √ Quercus √ √ Samber √ deer √ √ √ Fir √ -- Barking deer √ √ √ Hemlock -- --

Takin -- √ Spruce √ -- Leopard √ √ Blue pine √ √ √ Monkey √ √ √ Larix √ -- Red √ panda √ √ Rhodo √ √ Snow √ leopard √ -- NWFPs √ √ Serow √ -- Herbs -- √

Gaur √ --

Red fox √ -- Blue sheep √ --

It was noted that the above listed biodiversity was considered important by the respondents, that is, 91% (n=70) said it was important, 5% said not important and 4% said no idea what it means to them (Figure 5). However, when compared within three PAs, the respondents from JSWNP highlighted 100% (n=29) important, JDNP 96% (n=23) and JKSNR with 75% (n=18).

35 5% 4% 29 30 25 23 20 18 15 10 5 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 JKSNR JDNP JSWNP 91% Yes No Don’t know Yes No Don’t know

Figure 4: Important of biodiversity within PAs

6% 2% Source of livelihood

9% Maintain ecosystem

Releases fresh air/O2 41% 13% Economic-Tourism/hydropower

Wealth of our nation

Indicators of forest health 13%

Carbon sequestration 16%

Figure 5: Importance of biodiversity

Worldwide the biodiversity is considered as it is important because, it is crucial to human survival, one of the most important ecosystem services takes place in forests around the world. And as a basic example; trees absorb carbon dioxide and provide us with oxygen/fresh air. However, our results show that communities had mixed perceptions on importance of biodiversity. Generally, 91% reported biodiversity to be important (fig.5),and when ask what biodiversity is important for, 41% (timber, firewood, water, medicine) said it is important for livelihood, 16% said for maintenance of ecosystem services, 13% said to release fresh air, 13% said for economic development (through tourism/hydropower), 9% considered as wealth of our nation, few (6%) indicate it is the indicator of our forest health and 2% said it helps in carbon sequestration (Figure 6). Though majority of the communities accord positive outlook in their perceptions about rich biodiversity in our country, around nine percent attribute loss of crops and livestock due to wildlife depredation. Aspointed out by Raisetal. (2015) livestock losses and crop damages are major factors responsible for negative attitudes towards our conservation.

There is no doubt that enhancing awareness on biodiversity among all sections of society is important for managing our natural resources and there is different medium through which such awareness are being created. So, as to know how our communities become awareof the importance and attach valueon biodiversity, questions were asked about the mode/channel of information communicated to them. The data revealed that the majority (32%) of the respondents get their information related to biodiversity through television and 30% of the respondents from forestry officials, 20 percent through radio and least through print (9%) and social media 9% (Figure 7).

9%

9% Print media 30%

Social media

Television

Radio 32%

20% Others: Forestry officials

Figure 6:Environmental Education and Awareness on biodiversity Information Source

3.4 Environmental Education Program How can environmental education and awareness initiatives address behavioral change of communities to better appreciate and value biodiversity? Their attitudes, knowledge and perceptions on biological diversity and natural resources can form the fundamental linkage between biodiversity conservation aspirations and economic development aspirations. Ebua et al. (2011) states that sensitizing and educating communities through environmental education and awareness program helps in promoting conservation activities.

Therefore, the following date demonstrated different environmental education and awareness (EE) program initiated by the PAS for the communities residing within its boundary and how they perceive such awareness programs. Majority of the respondents 85% (n=65) reported they have attended EE program organized by Park officials, only 14 percent have not attended any awareness programs and 1 percent is not sure (Figure 8). 100 88 90 83 83 1% 80 14% 70 60 Yes 50 40 No 30 21 24 20 17 20 17 Not sure 8 4 4 5 10 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 JKSNR % JDNP % JSWNP % 85% Yes No Not sure

Figure 7: Environmental Education and Awareness program attended by respondent in %

The PAs formulate their environmental education and awareness in different format, namely, meeting, presentation/talks, demonstration, discussions, and study tour or field visits of best practices. In figure 9 for all the PAs, it indicates different approaches of EE program attended by the communities. It was reported that most of the environmental education program were attended through meetings (46%), presentation/talk 29%,demonstration 11%, discussion 10% and through study tour/training (4%).

4% 10% Meetings 46% 60 11% Presentation/Talk

50 Demonstration 50 45 43 Discussions 40 Others (Training/Tour) 32 32 29% 30 21 18 20 Respondent % Respondent 11 13 9 9 10 8 3 5 0 0 JKSNR JDNP JSWNP Meetings Presentation/Talk Demonstration Discussions Others (Training/Tour)

Figure 8: Dissemination of EE and Awareness program through different approaches

The respondents were asked what types of EE programs they have attended and following are the different types of EE topics covered.

Table 7: Types of EE and Awareness Themes covered EE and Awareness Theme JKSNR JDNP JSWNP Forest fire √ √ √ Forestry Rules and Regulations √ √ √ Waste management principles √ √ √ CF management/Social Forestry √ √ √ Bhutan For Life √ √ X Takin habitat management X √ X Wildlife management √ √ √ Climate change √ √ X Watershed management √ X √ Snow leopard conservation √ X X

Figure 10 represent type of EE program attended by respondents in three PAs. Twenty percent of the respondent reported that they have attended community forestry/social forestry program followed by forest fire management 16%, waste management 15%, watershed and wildlife management 13% and forestry rules and regulations12%.

2% 3% 2% 4% 20% CF/Social Forestry Forest fire 12% Waste manegement Watershed management Wildlife management Forestry Rules 16% 13% Snow leopard conservation Takin habitat management Bhutan For Life Climate change 13% 15%

Figure 9:DifferentThemes of Environmental Education and Awareness program attended

Environmental Education and awareness program rating was also conducted through questionnaire survey and respondent were asked to rate the program that has been imparted by forestry officials with the score of 1=20%, 2=40%, 3=60%, 4=80% and 5=100%, where 5 was the easiest to understand about the topic covered.

Figure 11 shows the level of understanding of respondents in three PAs in the context of Environmental Education and awareness program. 28 respondents rated five (on 1 to 5 rating) as the easiest to understand mode, 12 respondents felt presentation was the best mode of learning, seven respondents said it was demonstration and four stated the best mode for learning was through discussion. So overall, 64 respondents felt that meeting was the best form and the easiest way of understanding EE and awareness programs. 62 respondents felt presentation was the best form of learning and easy to understand. 46 of the respondents preferred demonstration and only 14 of them felt discussion was the best form of learning.

35 31 30 28 27

25 23

20 16 15 12 12 9 10 7 6 4 5 3 2 3 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 Five four Three Two One Meeting Presentation Demonstration Discussion

Figure 10: Environmental Education and Awareness program that was the easiest to understand

Different types of Environmental Education and Awareness topics were initiated by three PAs to create awareness to the communities under different gewogs. However, majority of the respondents 56% (n=43) reported it is not sufficient and needs more awareness training and exposure tour within country and outside country on conservation program. 100 79 80 58 58 60 44% 42 42 40 56% 21

20 Respondent % Respondent 0 JKSNR JDNP JSWNP Yes No Yes No

Figure 11:Levels of EE and Awareness topics (Sufficient/Insufficient)

3.5 Conservation Activities After administering different Environmental Education and awareness programs to the communities it would be interesting to see some of the changes that as affected the communities. To assess the change brought about by EE and awareness program, information was collected and recorded on the activities which are undertaken by the communities. The data revealed that the majority, that is 26% of the communities initiated the cleaning or waste management activities in their community.

Cleaning/waste mgt. program 7% 2% 7% 26% Plantation Construction of electric fencing 8% Group formation Restrict felling in catchment area 9% Sharing information 16% Habitat management 11% Participate in forest fire fighting 14% GCC scheme (crop/livestock)

Figure 12: Conservation activities initiated by communities

Similarly, 16% of the respondents stated that they initiated plantation activities, 14% constructed electric fencing, 11% joined or help formation of conservation or resource management groups, 9% were engaged in ensuring that there were no tree felling in the watershed areas and 7% were participated in habitat management and forest fire fighting team.

3.6 Environmental problems The most common threats to biodiversity/environmental includes habitat loss/degradation, over exploitation, spread of invasive species or diseases, climate change and pollution. However, the communities under three PAs reported 09 different environmental problems in their respective communities.

In JKSNR, it was reported that majority of the environmental problem was from the climate change, which is 36%, mainly from the increase in temperature, erratic snowfall and rainfall. This was followed by crop and livestock depredation by wild animals (13%) and waste management related issues with 11% of the respondents.

While in JDNP, major issues were from natural calamities like landslide, erosion, flash flood, earth quake (53%), effect of climate change (20%), crop/livestock depredation 18% and 10% with pests and diseases.

Unlike JKSNR and JDNP, 46 percent of the respondents in JSWNP stated that they have major problems with crop/livestock depredation and water shortage problem were faced by 42% of them (Figure 14). However, overall in all the three study sites, the environmental problems faced by the communities were mostly crop/livestock depredation by wild animals (25%), followed by effect of climate change and natural calamities (20%), water problem 17%, forest fire 5% and the least was 4% each,and related to waste management, pests/diseases and the stray dog problems. 60

50

40

30

20 Respondent % Respondent

10

0 JKSNR JDNP JSWNP Climate Change Natural calamitic Pests & Diseases Crop/Livestock depredation Water problem Illegal felling & NWFPs collection Waste management issues Stray dog problem Forest Fire

Figure 13: Environmental problems in community

To address the above environmental problems in their community, people have initiated different programs or activities in their villages with the support from PAs. Like the action taken for the crop/livestock depredation cases as electric/solar fencing and guarding their crops. Initiation of plantation or Afforestation and land management program, participation of communities during the forest fire fighting, proper disposal of wastes, awareness within communities and sterilization program for the stray dogs initiated by livestock officials

6. Discussions

There is strong evidence globally that environmental education and awareness to be important tool in managing our natural resources. EE and awareness programs aretargeted at developing communities that is aware of and concerned about, the environment and its associated issues, and which has the knowledge, skills, attitudes, motivation and commitment to work as individual and jointly inaddressingproblems or prevention of new ones (UNESCO, 1975).

For Bhutan, from the rapid scoping assessment of level of understanding of the communities on biological diversity, it is clear that some amount of knowledge on these aspects but definitely there is lot of room for increasing the level of knowledge and awareness. From the survey area, 86 percent of the respondents have lived in that particular parks for 20 year or more. When asked if they know what biodiversity was to them, 87 percent of the respondents stated that they were aware of what biodiversity was to them. They mentioned more than 29 different plant and animal species.

Also, there is clear indication that communities do accord value to the biological diversity. When ask if they valued biodiversity? 91% of the respondents said that the biodiversity that they have listed in table 6 to be valuable for them for various purpose. Out of the 91% of the respondent who said biodiversity is important, 41% of community reported that for them biodiversity is important for timber, firewood, water and medicine, which they considered as a source of livelihood. 29 percent1 said that biodiversity is important for maintaining ecosystem services, nine percent considered biodiversity as a wealth of the nation, six percent said that have rich biodiversity is indicator of health forest ecosystems and two percent said that biodiversity help carbon-dioxide sequestration.

From this scoping study, it was found that 85 percent of the respondents attend some form of environmental education and awareness program. However, the 15 percent of respondent who have not attended any environment education and awareness program could probably be getting biodiversity related information from other sources (e.g Television, Radio and print media). Source of such environmental education and awareness program are, 30 percent get through forestry officials (meeting, presentation, demonstration, discussion and study tour/training), 32 percent receive biodiversity related information from television, 20 percent through radio, nine percent through radio and nine percent through social media.

In terms of the theme of the environmental awareness programs, there are around 10 different themes (see figure 10). According to “Terminal Report of the 11th FYP, MoAFs has conducted environmental education and biodiversity conservation awareness in all 205 gewogs covering almost 17,000 participants from diverse background. Similarly, when discussion was held with the Park staff, they stated that they convened formal 5 to 10 awareness programs on above themes and participants number range from 100 to 1000 per year. However, the awareness programs are not professionally designed and also it is totally dependent on the availability of budget. All the three park EE focal officials mentioned that environmental education and awareness program as an important component but they are not able to implement due to lack

1 29 percent includes 13 percent who said it is important to release fresh air, which is also an ecosystem services. of fund and also the quality of such awareness programs are not professionally formulated as they have limited capacity. They mentioned that as an environmental education and awareness field is too broad and environmental problems are multi-faceted and complex. In addition, the variety of audience or target group makes it difficult in relaying environmental messages in the most appropriate methodologies and instruments.

Nonetheless, when communities were asked about the sufficiency of environmental education and awareness topics; 56 percent of the respondents reported that it is not sufficient and only 44 percent were happy with what was initiated. The 56 percent who reported additional topics needs to be covered in environmental education and awareness programs, the suggested the following: a) Study tour and training to see best practices, specifically Community Forestry b) Key Environmental Issues – climate change c) Disaster management d) About natural resource management. There are some positive impacts that has occurred from environmental education and awareness programs. For instance, as mentioned in figure 13, several initiatives have been undertaken by communities, specifically activities like clean-up campaigns, waste management programs, plantation and restricting felling in important watershed areas, conservation/community forestry group formation and initiating crop/livestock insurance schemes. This scoping study had three main objectives: iv. Ascertain the existing awareness on the value of biodiversity in these three PAs v. Ascertain different types of environmental education and awareness programs implemented in these three PAs vi. Identify existing capacity related to environmental education and advocacy programs.

From this scoping study, we can deduce that communities are aware of the biodiversity and its value as almost 91 percent of the responded defined what biodiversity was to them. They also attached value to the biodiversity they have described for various purpose (figure 4 and 5).

Answering the objective number two, just with the three PAs, there are more than 10 different environmental themes and are attended by majority of the respondents (see table 7).

The third objective to identify existing capacity related to environmental education and advocacy program. This question was directed to the park management and the EE focal person and their response was that there is urgent need to build capacity in developing, designing and imparting EE programs. All three parks mentioned that they lacked institutional and individual capacity in imparting EE programs in the park.

7. Recommendations

All the agencies mentioned above impart some form of environmental education and awareness programs and this has been going on for two to five decades. However, not a single agency has conducted any sort of assessment or impact study of their environmental education and awareness program. It is recommended that National Biodiversity Committee in collaboration with the relevant agency initiate a nation-wide assessment of to ascertain the impact environmental education and awareness has brought about.

Although, National Environmental Protection Act, 2007 empowers National Environmental Commission to “promote environmental education and awareness, promote environmental education, advocacy and awareness”, there is really no structured implementation approach. Developing clear policy framework to design, develop, implement and monitor environmental education and awareness program would be important.

All three Environmental Education and Awareness focal person of the study area mentioned the importance of such programs, they strongly recommended some formal training in developing and designing EE materials and training in how to communicate such information based on target group.

There is no denying that community do have some degree on knowledge and understanding about biodiversity but it is only limited to what they interact with and use. They are not aware of the interconnectedness of biodiversity and about consequences of biodiversity loss and almost. The link between healthy ecosystem and community well-being is very important. As per this scoping study the value they attached to biodiversity was only from economic perspective (41%) and such outlook could have negative impact. So, designing and developing appropriate awareness material would enhance awareness, knowledge, and attitude to better appreciate biodiversity and help the PA in managing the natural resources.

There are several project interventions (WWF-Bhutan and BTFEC) that have been geared towards developing environmental education curriculum from the primary level to high school level. It would be useful study to do an assessment of how this has impacted youth and school going children in the context of biodiversity conservation and value these children attach to environment. This study could probably inform in the development of Environmental Education Master Plan.

Although, most Parks’ management plans have Environmental Education and Awareness program as an activity, implementation of this activity is given low priority due to lack of budget. The Park Management should mainstream and have a proper plan for implementing this activity by allocating sufficient budget.

8. Reference

1. R.L., Carter and et.al., August 2010, The History and Philosophy of Environmental Education,

2. Smyth, J.C. (2006). "Environment and education: a view of a changing scene," Environmental Education Research 12(3,4): 247-264.

3. Dorji, J. (2005). Quality of Education, Thimphu, KMT publisher.

4. MoAFs 2016, Bhutan State of the Park 2016, Department of Forest and Park Services, Ministry of Agriculture and forests, Royal Government of Bhutan.

5. GNH 2015, A Compass Towards a Just and Harmonious Sciety, GNH Survey Report, Centre for Bhutan Studies & GNH Research.

6. Ebua, V., Agwafo, E., and Fonkwo, N. (2011). Attitudes and perceptions as threats to wildlife conservation in the Bakossi area, South West Cameroon.

7. Kumar, U., Nageswara, G., Rao, M., and Slater, R. (2002). Diversification and Livelihood Options: A Study of Two Villages in Andhra Pradesh, . Working Paper:178.

8. Rais, Z., Noor, A., Habib, B., and Veeraswami, G. (2015). Attitudes of Local People Towards Wildlife Conservation: A Case Study from the Kashmir Valley.

9. G.T Erfort 1996, Public Awareness and Perceptions of Biodiversity, Department of Biological Science, University of Illinois at Chicago.

10. UNESCO (1975) The International Workshop on Environmental Education, Belgrade, Final Report, IEEP, Paris, ED-76/WS/95.

11. MoAF 2018, SanamDrupdey, Terminal Report of the 11th FYP, Thimphu.

9. Annexure:

Annexure I: Respondent lists under three PAs – JKSNR, JDNP and JSWNP Sl/No. Respondent Park Village Gewog Dzongkhag 1 ChunduTshering JKSNR Chempa Bjee Haa 2 TsheringGyem JKSNR Chempa Bjee Haa 3 RinchenLham JKSNR Chempa Bjee Haa 4 TashiTobgay JKSNR Chempa Bjee Haa 5 Pasang JKSNR Talung Bjee Haa 6 Sonam Wangchuck JKSNR Ingo Katsho Haa 7 LhabDorji JKSNR Naktso Katsho Haa 8 Sangay Om JKSNR Bali Katsho Haa 9 PemDorji JKSNR Bali Katsho Haa 10 Tshering om JKSNR Bali Katsho Haa 11 TsheringYangzo JKSNR Wangtsa Katsho Haa 12 NimaTshering JKSNR Tshapel Eusu Haa 13 LhapDorji JKSNR Eusu Eusu Haa 14 Nim Dem JKSNR Betsho Eusu Haa 15 NimaTshering JKSNR Girina Eusu Haa 16 Phub Tshering JKSNR Batsho Eusu Haa 17 DawaTshering JKSNR Tshapel Eusu Haa 18 Pema Dorji JKSNR Tshelungkha Eusu Haa 19 MinduLhamo JKSNR Tshapel Eusu Haa 20 NorbuTshering JKSNR Shari Samar Haa 21 Dorji JKSNR Balamna Samar Haa 22 Kaka JKSNR Balamna Samar Haa 23 DechenZangmo JKSNR Shari Samar Haa 24 Kencho JKSNR Shari Samar Haa 25 GyemLham JDNP Damji Khamoed Gasa 26 Pem JDNP Zomina Khamoed Gasa 27 Karma JDNP Tsanakha Khamoed Gasa 28 Zeko Dem JDNP Zomina Khamoed Gasa 29 TsheringChoki JDNP Zomina Khamoed Gasa 30 GyemboGyeltshen JDNP Zomina Khamoed Gasa 31 UgyenDorji JDNP Potogang Khamoed Gasa 32 KenchoWangmo JDNP Yenena Khamoed Gasa 33 PassangWangmo JDNP Zomina Khamoed Gasa 34 Pem JDNP Damji Khamoed Gasa 35 Pem JDNP Lamtsaba Khamoed Gasa 36 SangayZam JDNP Chasangza Khamoed Gasa 37 Wangchuck JDNP Kabena Khamoed Gasa 38 Dorji Om JDNP Jabera Khamoed Gasa 39 KenchoZam JDNP Damji Khamoed Gasa 40 DamchoDorji JDNP Kgailo Khamoed Gasa 41 Sonam Lhamo JDNP Geyza Khamoed Gasa 42 Sangay Dem JDNP Bjishok Khamoed Gasa 43 Choden JDNP Damji Khamoed Gasa 44 Kinley Penjor JDNP Damji Khamoed Gasa 45 Kinley JDNP Damji Khamoed Gasa 46 Passang JDNP Damji Khamoed Gasa 47 KenchoLham JDNP Jabera Khamoed Gasa 48 Cheche Pemo JDNP Selekha Khamoed Gasa 49 Chencho JSWNP Jangbe Langthel Trongsa 50 SangayLethro JSWNP Jangbe Langthel Trongsa 51 Trachung JSWNP Jangbe Langthel Trongsa 52 Jigme JSWNP Jangbe Langthel Trongsa 53 Napem JSWNP Jangbe Langthel Trongsa 54 Pema Dema JSWNP Jangbe Langthel Trongsa 55 Dorji JSWNP Jangbe Langthel Trongsa 56 Namgay Dem JSWNP Jangbe Langthel Trongsa 57 ChimiRinzin JSWNP Jangbe Langthel Trongsa 58 Karchung JSWNP Jangbe Langthel Trongsa 59 Phurpala JSWNP Jangbe Langthel Trongsa 60 Nakari JSWNP Jangbe Langthel Trongsa 61 Sonam JSWNP Jangbe Langthel Trongsa 62 Dawa JSWNP Jangbe Langthel Trongsa 63 Lethro JSWNP Jangbe Langthel Trongsa 64 Phub Dorji JSWNP Jangbe Langthel Trongsa 65 Norbu Wangchuk JSWNP Kella Tangsibji Trongsa 66 RinchenDawa JSWNP Kella Tangsibji Trongsa 67 WangchenGyelpo JSWNP Kella Tangsibji Trongsa 68 Sonam Dema JSWNP Kella Tangsibji Trongsa 69 Pentang Mo JSWNP Kella Tangsibji Trongsa 70 TashiYangzom JSWNP (Maling)Kella Tangsibji Trongsa 71 Tashi Dema JSWNP (Maling)Kella Tangsibji Trongsa 72 Karma Yangdeb JSWNP (Maling)Kella Tangsibji Trongsa 73 Tobgay JSWNP Kella Tangsibji Trongsa 74 Tandin JSWNP Kella Tangsibji Trongsa 75 Dorji Mo JSWNP Kella Tangsibji Trongsa 76 TsheringDekar JSWNP (Threb)Kella Tangsibji Trongsa 77 Tashi JSWNP Langbro Tangsibji Trongsa

Annexure II:Questionnaire for Scoping Study to Assess Awareness on Biodiversity – For Household.

I. Household information

Date:______,

1. Respondent’s Name (optional): ______

2. National Park: ______Village______Gewog …………………. Dzongkhag……………………

3. Instructions: Tick the appropriate option

3.1 Gender 3.2 Age 3.3 Occupation 3.4 Level of Education

1. Farmer 1. None 1. 18 -24 2. Salaried worker 1. Female 2. Primary 2. 25- 35 3. Business 3. Secondary 3. 36 and (specify) 2. Male 4. College 4. Others above 5. University ______

3.6 Time Lived in 3.5 Type of 3.7 How many the current household members in H/H location

1. Less than 5 1. Male ____ years

2. 5- 10 years Adult:___Children___ 1. Female- 3. 11- 15 headed years 4. 16- 20 2. Female______2. Male-headed years (Adult:_____Children__ 5. Over 20 __ years

4. From your understanding, what is Biological Diversity? (List all). If the respondents say, I don’t know then jump to Q9)

5. Do you think the Biodiversity you have listed above are important? (tick one)

5.1 Yes

5.2 No,

5.3 Don’t Know

6. If the answer to Q5 is Yes, why is it important? (List all answers)

7. If the answer to Q5 is No, why is it not important? (List all answers)

8. Where do you get your information related to biodiversity? 8.1 Print Media 8.2 Social media 8.3 TV/ 8.4 Radio 8.5 Others______

9. Have you participated in any Environmental Education Program?

9.1 YES

9.2 NO

9.3 Not sure

10. If YES, what kind of Environmental Education Program have you attended? (Tick relevant ones)

10.1 Demonstration (“Peton”)

10.2 Presentation or talks

10.3 Meetings

10.4 Discussions

10.5 Others______(list them if, more than one)

11. What were the topics covered in the Environmental Education Programs? (List as many)

12. Can you rate the Environmental Education Programs you have listed in Q11 from 1 to 5, where 5 was the easiest to understand (ask out of 100%). Sl.No Environmental Education Program listed by 20 40 60 80 100 respondent in Q11 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

13. Based on the above EE programs, have communities carried out any activities that contributes to conservation of Environment? (list the activities)

14. Do you feel the topics covered in the EE programs are sufficient?

14.1 YES,

14.2 NO

15. If NO, Why?

16. In your opinion, what are some of the environmental problems your community is facing? (list all)

17. What are some of the actions that you have taken to address these environmental problems?

18. Do you have anything to add or any comments in relation to Biodiversity Conservation?

Annexure III. Questionnaire for Protected Area Staff (Park manager or EE focal)

Date:______,

I. Respondent’s Name: ______

III. National Park: ______IV. Dzongkhag______

1. How many environmental Education Awareness programs have been initiated in your Park in last five years?

2. In the Table below can you list out the Environmental Education Awareness Program Initiated?

Sl. Type of EE Topic of Frequency/ Target Estimate Source of No Program EE No. of EE Participants Number of Funding Programs program (community, Participants conducted School per year Children or Tourist)

1 Meeting /workshop

2 Use of Media/Publication

3 Awareness through celebration of International day related to Biodiversity (eg. world wildlife day, Tigers Day, etc)

4 Awareness Campaign (e.g. Cleaning campaign, Forest Fire)

5 Environment related Festival

6 EE programs imparted through Visitor Information Centres

7 Others

3. Have you seen any change as a result of the Environmental Education Programs? State few examples?

4. Does your Management Plan have Environmental Education program incorporated?

4.1 YES, 4.2 NO

5. If NO, what is the reason for not having? (List all)

6. In your opinion do you feel the need for an Environmental Education Plan for the Park?

6.1 YES, 6.2 NO

7. If YES, provide details on the existing capacities to develop and implement EE programs. If No, provide details on the required capacities.

8. What are the Issues and Challenges for promotion of Environmental Education program within the PA?

9. Do you partner with other organizations while developing Environmental Education materials?

14.1 YES, 14.2 NO

10. If YES, can you list the names of the partner organization?

11. Do you partner or collaborate with any other organization while implementing Environmental Education Programs in the field?

11.1 YES, 11.2 NO

12. IF Yes, please list out the name of the collaborating organization?

13. In your opinion, how effective are the Environmental Education Programs? (tick one) 13.1 Effective, 13.2 Very Effective, 13.3 Not effective

14. Can you state reason(s) for the following:

Reason for why it is Effective? Reason for why it is Not effective?

15. Are there any Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) supported programs?

12.1 YES 12.2 NO

16. IF YES, can you please give the name of the Corporation and type of Biodiversity related CSR supported by them. (e.g, supporting plantation)

17. Do you have anything to add or any feedback or comments?

Annexure IV: People Consulted Sl.No Name Organization

1 DechenDorji WWF-Bhutan, Thimphu

2. UgyenLhendup BTFEC, Thimphu

3. Kinga Wangdi RSPN, Thimphu

4. Dr. Pema Wangda WMD, MoAFs, Thimphu

5. Karma Wangchuk NRCR&LF, Haa

6. Changlu NRCR&LF, Haa 7 Jamtsho JSWNP, Trongsa

8 Sonam Dorji JSWNP, Trongsa

9 Sonam Wangchuk JSWNP, Trongsa

10 SangayNorbu JDNP, Gasa

11 TshewangDorji JDNP, Gasa

12 Karma Lhendup JDNP, Gasa

13 Bal Krishna Koirala JDNP, Gasa

14 Sonam Chophel JDNP, Gasa

15 Sangay Tenzin JDNP, Gasa

16 Kinley Tshering JDNP, Gasa

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