Review Wildlife hunting and conservation in Northeast India: a need for an interdisciplinary understanding AMBIKA AIYADURAI PhD Student, Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 117570 Correspondence author - [email protected]; [email protected] Paper received 01 May 2010, revision requested 01 August 2011, accepted 01 September 2011. Abstract Northeast India is rich in biodiversity Keywords Culture, hunting, indigenous, and is also home to around 145 tribal Northeast India, socio-economic, wildmeat, communities, most practise shifting cultivation and are dependent on forests. Hunting is common and widespread in this region. Of the Introduction 50 Galliformes species native to India, 32 occur Wildlife hunting is an age-old practice and mainly or exclusively in the north-east of the humans have been hunting wild animals for country. The practice of wildlife hunting is seen many generations. Wildlife is an important as one of the significant contributors towards resource for those communities that live in and population decline and the possible extinction of around forests and is exploited for various some species. Research on wildlife hunting is at reasons, including food, additional income, a preliminary stage in providing base line data cultural practices and as a sport. Over the last on species presence and abundance. Hunting few decades the extraction of wildmeat has among tribal populations in this region is not become a serious concern globally because of just an entrepreneurial activity or a practice suggestions that hunting is leading to the that is primarily aimed at consumption but has extinction of wildlife populations (Bennett et al., a larger socio-cultural link which is missing in 2002; Robinson & Bennett, 2000). Indeed, the academic work produced from Northeast overexploitation is thought to be the reason India. In this paper, I explore three aspects of why 26% of Galliformes are listed on the IUCN wildlife hunting in Northeast India that have Red List as threatened with extinction typically been studied separately: ecological, compared with 12% of all birds (Keane et al., socio-political and cultural. I reviewed peer- 2005; McGowan, 2010). In this paper, I aim to reviewed and grey literature and found that provide a comprehensive understanding of there are few detailed studies of any aspect of hunting of a wildlife population in general and hunting in Northeast India. There are surveys do not aim to focus solely on Galliformes and reports that concentrate on the ecological because hunting is an issue that influences aspects of hunting although all but a few lack conservation more broadly; however detail. There are similarly few studies that have understanding hunting in general will benefit assessed the socio-economic background Galliformes conservation. against which hunting takes place or have attempted a cultural understanding of hunting. The link between hunting and the socio- I highlight the concern that conservation in this economic needs of local people is a major region may not be effective without a socio- reason why wildlife hunting is seen as a difficult cultural understanding of hunting. The paper issue to address. This is because of the need to makes an appeal to conservationists and balance the impact of hunting on wildlife ecologists to integrate anthropological, socio- populations with the dependency of some rural economic and ecological strands to provide a communities on wildlife for food as it is the only genuinely multidisciplinary approach to protein available in some regions (Fa et al., understanding and addressing this serious 2003). Finding a way forward that will avoid issue. species extinctions and not compromise rural communities requires a much greater understanding of ecology, anthropology and © 2011 World Pheasant Association. International Journal of Galliformes Conservation, 2, 61-73. Hunting in Northeast India 62 socio-economics than we currently have and The aim of this paper is (1) to review the nowhere is this a bigger challenge than in current understanding of wildlife hunting in Northeast India, home to 32 species of Northeast India from three perspectives: Galliformes (Sathyakumar & Sivakumar, 2007). ecological, socio-political and cultural; and (2) to make a case that conservation in this region There are numerous studies on wildlife hunting needs a new approach. across the globe highlighting the seriousness of this issue (Bennett & Robinson, 2001; Milner- India’s Northeast Gulland et al., 2003, Robinson & Bennett, India’s Northeast is a region of rich biodiversity 2004). The majority of wildmeat studies in the and of considerable ethnic diversity. It is conservation literature have been focused located between 22o N and 29.3 o N latitude and largely on the quantification of offtake and 89.7 o E and 97.8 o E longitude. The region hunting effort (Jerozolimski & Peres, 2003; Rist occupies an area of 2,55,500 km2 and et al., 2008). These ecological data are further comprises eight states, viz. Arunachal Pradesh, developed as sustainability models to predict Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, the impact that recorded levels of hunting may Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura (Fig. 1). It have on population levels (Wilkie et al., 1998; occupies 7.7 % of India’s total geographical Swart et al., 2004). area and supports 50 % of the flora (ca. 8000 species) of which 32 % (ca. 2526 species) are Wildmeat researchers have used different endemic (Anonymous, 2006; Yumnum, 2008). approaches to understand the problem such as market surveys to quantify the trade, market The region is an ethno-botanical transition zone accessibility and consumer profile (Juste et al., between India, China, Tibet, Burma and 1995). Recent studies compared different Bangladesh (Ali & Das, 2003) and is home to 45 methods that researchers adopted to examine species of Galliformes (Sathyakumar & hunting and these studies evaluated their Sivakumar, 2007) (Table 1). The fauna and advantages and disadvantages (Gavin et al., flora are used by the local people for a wide 2010). variety of socio-economic and medicinal purposes (Solanki & Chutia, 2004; Kato & Gopi, There are relatively few studies from Asia when 2009; Dollo et al., 2010). The human compared with Africa (Corlett, 2007; Alvard, population is mainly rural and practise swidden 2000) and micro-level information on hunting farming (clearing a field by slashing and by indigenous people is even more scarce burning, planting it for a number of seasons (Griffin & Griffin, 2000; Rao et al., 2005). In and then abandoning it for a lengthy fallow India, the emphasis of hunting studies has been period) which is markedly different from the on international trade of wildlife (tiger skins, more intensive farming that is characteristic of ivory and leopard parts) which has been the most of rural India. Dependence on forests for focus until recently, and data on local and firewood, bamboo and other forest produce is indigenous hunting in India is very sparse high. (Madhusudan & Karanth, 2002, Kumara & Singh, 2004; Kaul et al., 2004). Northeast India has witnessed only a few studies (Datta, 2002; Hilaludin et al., 2005; Aiyadurai et al., 2010) and so there is a lack, not only of detailed knowledge of species hunted and offtake, but also of socio-economic importance of hunting to local livelihoods. In Northeast India, hunting by tribal populations is not just of economic concern but has wider cultural importance as well (Elwin, 1959; Aiyadurai, 2007b) and this is important for understanding the reasons why hunting is so widely practised. This paper is a first assessment of what we currently know about the ecological, cultural FIG. 1 The Northeast region is highlighted black and socio-political aspects of hunting in in the insert and the eight states that make up Northeast India where hunting is widespread Northeast India are shown. amongst the largely tribal population. © 2011 World Pheasant Association. International Journal of Galliformes Conservation, 2, 61 -73. 63 Aiyadurai TABLE 1 List of Galliformes in Northeast India, their population and status on the Indian Wildlife Protection Act (IWPA), 1972 (as amended up to 1993). Common name Scientific name Population Hunting IUCN IWPA Snow partridge Lerwa lerwa Fairly common Least Concern IV Tibetan snowcock Tetraogallus tibetanus Uncommon Least Concern I Tetraogallus Himalayan snowcock Fairly common Least Concern IV himalayensis Buff- throated Tetraophasis Rare Least Concern IV partridge szechenyii Black francolin Francolinus francolinus Common Least Concern IV Francolinus Chinese francolin Rare Least Concern IV pintadeanus Swamp francolin Francolinus gularis Fairly common Vulnerable IV Tibetan partridge Perdix hodgsoniae Fairly common Least Concern IV Common quail Coturnix coturnix Fairly common Least Concern IV Japanese cuail Coturnix japonica Fair Near Threatened IV Blue quail Coturnix chinensis Uncommon Least Concern IV Coturnix Rain quail Common Least Concern IV coromandelica Jungle bush-quail Perdicula asiatica Fairly common Least Concern IV Manipur bush-quail Perdicula manipurensis Rare Vulnerable IV Hill partridge Arborophila torqueola Fairly common Least Concern IV Rufous- throated Arborophila rufogularis Fairly common Least Concern IV partridge White-cheeked Arborophila atrogularis Fairly common Near Threatened IV partridge Chestnut-breasted Arborophila mandellii Uncommon Vulnerable IV partridge Mountain bamboo- Bambusicola fytchii Uncommon Least Concern