Impact Assessment of Big Game Trophy Hunting in MACP Areas

Impact Assessment of Community Based Trophy Hunting in MACP areas of NWFP and Northern Areas

Dr. Ahsanullah Mir May 2006

MOUNTAIN AREAS CONSERVANCY PROJECT (MACP) List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AKRSP - Aga Khan Rural Support Program CITES - Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species CMP – Conservation Management Plan CSG - IUCN Caprinae Specialist Group CTHP - Community-based Trophy Hunting Program DC - Deputy Commissioner DCC - District Conservation Committee DFO - Divisional Forest Officer GEF - Global Environmental Facility GoP - Government of Pakistan GR - Game Reserve IUCN - The World Conservation Union KNP - Khunjerab National Park MACP - Mountain Areas Conservancy Project MoE - Ministry of Environment NAFD- Northern Areas Forest Department NA - Northern Areas (of Pakistan) NCCW - National Council for Conservation of Wildlife NGO - Non-Governmental Organizations NP - National Park NWFP - North West Frontier Province (of Pakistan) NWFPWD - North West Frontier Province Wildlife Department PA - Protected Area PRIF - Pre-Investment Feasibility (GEF pilot project phase) SCI - Safari Club International SKB - Skoyo-Karabathang-Basingo (villages) SKIDO - Shahi Khyber Imamabad Development Organization SVK - Shagharthang Valley & Kachura ToR - Terms of Reference UNDP - United Nations Development Programme VCC - Village Conservation Committee VCF - Village Conservation Fund VO - Village Organization VWG - Village Wildlife Guide WD - Wildlife Department WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature

Contents Chapter one Introduction of MACP 4

Chapter Two Trophy Hunting 5

Trophy Hunting in Chitral 6

Conservation and Trophy hunting of Ibex 6

Conservation and Trophy hunting of Markhor 6

Key Issues around Trophy hunting in Chitral 8

Trophy Hunting in Northern Areas 12

Conservation and Trophy hunting of Ibex 12

Conservation and Trophy hunting of Markhor 19

Conservation and Trophy hunting of Blue Sheep 22

Chapter Three Trophy Hunting and Livelihood 24

Chapter Four Trophy Hunting and Market Supply Chain 25

Chapter Five Wildlife Surveys 26

Chapter Six Summary and Conclusions 27

Lessons learned 29

1. Introduction of MACP

Mountain Areas Conservancy Project (1999-2006) is the extension of famous Biodiversity Project (1995-99), which in its PRIF phase started the innovative idea of developing biodiversity to a level where its sustainable harvest can directly benefit communities. So its name, “Conservation of Biodiversity through local community Development” was proposed. This initiative was funded by UNDP/GEF and implemented by IUCN in Northern Areas (NA) and Wildlife Department of NWFP government in Chitral. The PRIF phase proved to be a very successful model and GEF enhanced its funding by scaling up the magnitude and coverage of the project. The IUCN was given the responsibility to implement the project in collaboration of five partners including MoE, WDNWFP, NAFWD, AKRSP, and HWF. While IUCN had the overall responsibility of implementing the project the WWF was responsible to implement the Environmental Education and Communication component of the project, the Output 2.

The total project area has been divided into 8 Conservancies (of which the Tirichmir is effectively no longer a part): Three of these, Skardu, Astore and Gojal, are in the Northern Areas (NA) and another five, Garam Chashma (Tirichmir West), Tirich Tirichmir East, Chitral, Kalam and Dir Kohistan are located in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) (Map attached).

The main objective of this study is to carry out assessment of the effectiveness of the trophy hunting program in order to generate knowledge on the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife for benefits of both, biodiversity and people.

This study was conducted after visiting only MACP community Conservation Areas excluding other conservation areas managed by other institutions like WWF in Karumbar Ghizer and Bar valleys of NA, Hushe valley by the Hushe community itself, Dir Kohistan area and part of Qashqar Conservancy where NWFP Wildlife department is supporting the conservation efforts.

The valleys visited are annexed to this report as Annexure 1. These include Bunji, Rondu valley of Skardu District, which has SKB, Basho and Kachura valleys. While in Chitral, Arkari valley, Golain valley and Koghozi was visited and interviewed the community conservation committee members. Meetings with DFO Wildlife Chitral and Gilgit were also held. In Gojal Conservancy meetings with VCC Khyber, KVO, SNT were also held. Outfitter, Asif Khan was also interviewed to know his views regarding supply and demand of trophies and to explore future potential. In addition, MACP teams in Chitral, Gilgit, Hunza and Skardu were also interviewed.

2. Trophy Hunting

Trophy is described as “a prize that is given to the winner of a competition”1 or as something that you keep in order to show other people that you have done some thing difficult; a trophy hunting is an example of the latter; traditionally, adventurers would kill an exotic or dangerous animal and keep its head, horn, skull and skin for display and to take a pride.

Trophy hunting is a form of sport hunting which has been practiced perhaps as long as human history may date back to. The animals selected as trophies have large horns (36” or more). Resultantly, most trophies are invariably males, while the animals most frequently considered as trophy species are the ungulates. The hunters seek the largest animal in a geographic area.2

Dr. David Shackleton describes3 “Trophy males are invariably in their prime breeding years. Where natural predators exist, the probability of finding “over-mature” males is exceedingly low, for once a male reaches the end of his prime, his condition deteriorates rapidly and he succumbs either to predators or inclement weather. It is important that almost all ungulate species considered in trophy hunting show marked sexual dimorphism (males and females differ significantly in external morphology) and are polygynous (1 male mates with several females, while a female mates usually with only 1 male). As a consequence of polygyny, removing some males from a population does not necessarily affect the reproductive capacity (growth rate) of the population. This also means that even small populations can be subjected to trophy hunting, often without jeopardizing the population. The critical aspect regardless of population size, is to ensure that sufficient mature males are left in a population for normal reproduction rates to be achieved and without jeopardizing the long-term survival of the population”.

When Trophy hunting was initiated it was welcomed at various levels in NWFP and Northern Areas, specifically communities who were putting efforts in conserving their wild animal populations for years. Initially the departments (WDNWFP and NAFWD) were issuing permits to few communities who had proven their conservation efforts by means of population census and formation of VMPs. With the passage of time, issues like bad hunt, money refund, lack of hunters, fail to show up, bad weather and competition of getting permits from some communities than others surfaced. To avoid these issues to emerge, there was no valid and comprehensive written procedure(s) present.

The Forest and Wildlife Department NA called a meeting of key partners and stakeholders to deal with this emerging situation. There were a series of meetings and consultations took place before a draft Trophy Hunting Procedure was realized. Representation from IUCN, WWF, AKRSP, NADP, fellow conservationists in other NGO’s and both serving and retired government wildlife personnel sat down to ink the ideas came during these discussions. These procedures are first in the country and are comprehensive enough to accommodate the whole range of experiences not only from Pakistan but also from elsewhere in the world. Several side consultations were held to finalize these procedures, which are currently waiting for the approval of Northern Areas Forest and Wildlife department.

1 Collins English Dictionary 2 Frisina, M.R.,Campbell, D. and Lajia Cairen. 2000. Enhancing conservation of Caprinae using geographic areas to define trophy types 3 A review of community-based trophy hunting programs in Pakistan

2.1 Trophy Hunting in Chitral

In Chitral, NWFP, the trophy hunting started in 1983 the NWFP Wildlife Department spearheaded the initiative ‘Chitral Conservation Hunting Program’, a trophy-hunting program for markhor. Initially the program was not fully community-based conservation program that lasted 8 years until the GoP banned the export of trophies along with all big game hunting throughout Pakistan. The program continued from 1983 till 1991, when hunters from Shikar Safari Club International took trophies and paid US $250,000 as fees and also as help to conservation. This amount was deposited in a special account of the NWFP Wildlife Department for a while and later it was deposited in the national exchequer.

In 1999 the trophy hunting program was again launched with the approval of Federal Government where surveys proved sustainable harvest was feasible. The NWFP Wildlife Department restarted the program while in Northern Areas IUCN supported and implemented the Pre-Investment Feasibility (PRIF) phase of the project “Maintaining Biodiversity in Pakistan with Rural Community Development” commonly known as Biodiversity Project. So far 21 Markhor and 5 Ibex trophies have been hunted by foreign hunters resulting in an income worth Rs. 280 million. The Wildlife Department NWFP auctions trophies of markhor and ibex through the National and International newspapers (Annex. 4). The latest trophies of markhor were sold worth US$ 55,000 each as compared to NA where these were sold for US$ 25,000 only. Markhor are found in the Qashqar Conservancy while ibex in Tirichmir. More Markhor are taken from the Tushi valley of Chitral just adjacent to Tirichmir Conservancy.

2.1.1 Ibex Conservation and Trophy Hunting:

Arkari valley of Tirichmir Conservancy is famous for its Ibex population. The 2005 survey depicts a population of about 600 ibex in the valley, which comprises ten villages. The ibex hunting fee has been fixed as US$ 3,000; that is still unchanged. The Community gets 80% share while the remaining 20% share goes to the government. The village where hunt takes place gets half of the total amount while remaining amount is equally distributed among the villages of the notified VCC. The total amount received on account of ibex hunting by the communities is Rs. 452,000, out of which they have spent a sum of Rs. 123,000 on construction of a water channel and Rs. 50,000 on community school construction. The remaining amount has been deposited in their VCF. The Arkari VCF has accumulated an amount of Rs 1,300,000. The community hired 8 VWGs for watch and ward activities and they were being paid an honorarium of Rs. 1,000 each out of the VCF profit. But since some time this practice has been abandoned due to a decrease in the rate of return on the VCF accounts. The banks have reduced the mark up on one hand and there have been no hunt for the past some time in Arkari on the other, which has limited the income of the VCF.

2.1.2 Markhor Conservation and Trophy Hunting:

The number of markhor trophies allocated to NWFP is four since 1999; out of these four trophies, three are from Chitral while one is from Indus Kohistan. Two trophies are allocated to Tushi area adjacent to Tirich Mir Conservancy, and one to Gahrait-Golain area. Golain and Koghozi, two villages, are part of MACP Conservancy while there are seven villages in this Conservation area that get their equal share from markhor trophy. All hunts so far have taken place in Gahraite village catchments area. Therefore the

6 principal amount (50% of community share) goes to Gahraite while about 6% goes to Golain and Khoghozi each. Golain has a VCF of Rs. 10,50,000 and they have their VWGs (3-4) whom they pay each a sum of Rs. 1,000 per month round the year. The share of trophy hunt has been deposited in the VCF and no money other than honoraria of VWGs has been taken.

Koghozi has a VCF of Rs. 16,60,000 in the form of Term Deposit. Their share of hunt fee of Markhor goes to the VCF and only VWGs expenses are being met out of the profit of the VCF. Presently there exist some community issues in Koghozi where two groups are in logger heads for leading the VCC. The one of the rival group who used to dominate VCC could not find majority in the last VCC reorganization. This group blames the existing VCC to be ineffective and incapable of managing and controlling illicit hunting by community members themselves. This rival group was critical about the way wildlife census being carried out. The MACP staff and WD brushed off these blames by negating the validity of these claims. This issue of community conflict will be resolved when majority of community members take interest in conservation and social pressure is exerted on those who violate the rules among the community members.

The graph below shows evolution of trophy hunting program, especially for markhor, whereas ibex resource has not been utilized optimally.

Figure 1. Trophies of ibex and markhor taken and fee (US$) trends for Markhor (1999-2006).

0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Ibex 221 Markhor 2333443 Fee 3.36 5.36 5.58 5.4 7.9 10.8 9.9 Fee increase in 000 23 28 30 30 33 45 55

There were only 5 ibex trophies sold in Arkari valley and the last one in 2001. Since then there were no trophies of ibex taken from Chitral. The fee for ibex remained US$ 3,000 each while there was quite handsome increase in trophy fee of markhor, starting from US$ 25,000 in 1999 to US$ 55,000 in 2005/6. The reason for enhanced fee was as a result of competition among hunters for Markhor, as it is a species which is much demanded in the International market. Knowing the demand WDNWFP started auctioning the trophies of Markhor. The yellow bar showing aggregate fee is in million rupees, while the blue bar showing the trends in US$ in thousands.

2.1.3 Key Issues around Trophy Hunting in Chitral a. Reorganization of VCCs:

During the PRIF phase of Biodiversity Project, Village Conservation Committees were formulated and had their Village Conservation Plans (VCPs) and VCF established. The same arrangement persisted throughout MACP phase of implementation. In new areas of MACP, valley-level conservation and development techniques were introduced, keeping in mind the MACP concept of contiguity and inclusiveness. The new areas have so far not been included in the trophy hunting program because majority of new VCC’s have not been notified as “controlled hunting areas” and for Chitral, there is more Ibex population which hunters are not very much found of. The other reason for lack of interest for Ibex hunt is the Lawari Pass blockade from November till May each year; and inclement weather in Chitral hinders PIA flights to operate. There are examples of people getting stuck in Chitral for weeks.

The areas where VCCs were formed years ago get their VCCs re-organized as per their Bye-Laws. Some VCCs follow their bye-laws ritually some do not. The MACP and the department need to support VCCs in reorganization as per the bye-laws. This support would be needed for initial some time till the VCCs get used to this practice and start seeing results. As the membership of VCC continuously gets changed and new people get in and take responsibilities. Till they are fully acquainted with the concept and spirit of conservation support will be required. In Chitral, there is strong presence and establishment of the NWFPWD, which had started the trophy hunting program much before the advent of MACP. The department has now experience of working with communities and even in the areas of MACP and the DFO Wildlife is a co-signatory of VCF in addition to communities and MACP staff.

Ideally VCCs themselves had to nominate/elect their committee members, once in two years, but that practice has not been followed strictly. For example in Koghozi, since its formation in PRIF phase, the committee has only been re-organized once, and same is the case with Golain. The other key issue is involvement of few VCC members actively participating in the conservation efforts – not the majority of the community – so the remaining members remain indifferent to the dynamics of the prevailing situation. The VCF and its profit is yet another issue which motivates the active involvement of some of the members. If a few sincere members oppose them, this creates factions in the community. MACP and the department staff should be sensitive to this kind of emerging situation and should have proper conflict management and social organization skills to cope with the situation. Presently less attention has been paid to resolve such issues. Chances exist, if these issues continued to add up, the VCC will stop functioning and ultimately get dissolved. b. Survey techniques

In Chitral, NWFP, the survey of big game animals is carried out by community and the department staff (while in NA the survey team comprises of department staff, community members and representatives of conservation agencies like IUCN and WWF). The time allocated for survey is usually three days. The survey technique used is based on the “actual sighting”. Various vantage points have already identified for ibex and markhor. During the three days, various teams encircle the geographic area of the animal habitat

8 and count the animals they spot. They segregate the animal population according to age and gender. Here the trophy animals are counted and their ages are ascertained.

In MACP surveys the surveyors are nominated by VCCs through a resolution for engagement, with the criteria given by MACP. In MACP valleys well defined surveys have been conducted where trained persons from community and wildlife department participated. The training is refreshed and rehearsed every time one day before the teams departs to the vantage points. MACP staff and wildlife department senior staff effectively supervise the surveys. Survey is a specialized activity and only related and acquainted persons with experience can be engaged in this activity. Independent/impartial persons or persons from NGOs were not included as they were not available in these areas. Their inclusion was also not warranted as MACP persons themselves were impartial themselves. In the first survey, persons from Pakistan Forest Institute participated.

In nutshell, the survey of big game animals in Chitral was to ascertain that there are enough trophy size animals to support conservation efforts and the surplus harvest. An important aspect was mentioned by an outfitter that ‘NWFP has larger population of animals with better horn size as compared to NA for legal hunting, and therefore, this should be supported by scientific and neutral surveys. c. Site selection for trophy hunting

The site for trophy hunting is selected keeping in view several considerations, including population size and accessibility, as the majority of the hunters are in their middle ages and are not enthusiastic for adventurous hunting, but rather prefer an easy and large size trophy. Their interest is a road side hunt with minimal labor.

On the other hand, communities involved in trophy hunting are very supportive of continuing this practice as they get a sum of 50% of the total community share alone, while the remaining amount is shared by the remaining communities in the same notified valley. MACP valleys, which are part of trophy hunting program in Chitral, NWFP, are Koghozi and Golain in Qashqar Conservancy and Arkari in Tirichmir Conservancy. Since there is more population of markhor in Gahrait as compared to Koghozi and Golain and the hunt is also easier in Gahrait. Koghozi and Golain do not have viable population so far to qualify for the trophy hunting. There is a need to have confidence building measures with these communities not to make them aggrieved, as they never had any trophy hunt taken place in their area. This is a good example as per “conservancy principle” that contiguous communities share the resources and benefits. Same is the example in SKB area of NA.

The Arkari valley have not had hunt since 2001. The main reasons are; blockade of Lawari pass and very uncertain flights between Peshawar and Chitral, in the hunting season, the ibex hunters are discouraged. They apprehend to be stranded in Peshawar and Chitral. In the hunting season, the approach to Arkari valley, and also to other ibex valley, is heavily snowbound and it becomes very adventuress and time consuming for the hunters to have access to the hunts. Approach to markhor areas is comparatively much easier. Markhor is very rare and most coveted trophy while ibex is most common and can be obtained from many easy places. Foreign hunters take least interest in ibex hunt in Chitral. Some of the hunts they took place in Chitral were mostly tied in a package with the permit of markhor trophy hunt. The ibex permit fee of $ 3,000 is also

9 considered high and the department has now recommended reducing it to $2,000. For local/national hunters also, the department has proposed, on the persuasion of MACP, to allow hunts for Rs. 25,000 permit fee. This will motivate national hunters to try to take a trophy from Arkari valley. This reality of trophy season and access my need to be explained to all those communities who might get misunderstood of failure of hunters to come to take trophies. d. Use of trophy hunting procedures

The trophy hunting procedures drafted jointly by IUCN MACP, WWF, NAFWD, and NWFPWD and reviewed several times are although principally agreed by all parties but still remain un-approved. In the absence of such procedures, NA and NWFP departments implement hunting program without synergy. The biggest and foremost problem is the announcement of dates and allocation of trophies quota to each village/valley, mainly in NA. Hunters and outfitters make their hunting programs almost one calendar year in advance, whereas the quota is usually announced just before the beginning of trophy season. This not only hampers the smooth functioning of hunting program but also leaves a negative impression on foreign hunters, coming to NA. Due to the different procedures, the fee structure is also different for NA and NWFP for all species presently offered for hunting. The conservancy communities both in NA and NWFP have least awareness and knowledge about the trophy hunting procedures and its benefits. e. Guidelines for VCF use The ‘Village/Valley Conservation Funds’ were established in the PRIF phase of the Biodiversity Project and that fund still continues as Village Fund in some areas, and as Valley Fund in others. No community in Conservancies has been operating VCF on a broad based approach like Conservancy Fund; they are mainly village conservation funds. The funds established have so far either been utilized as per the ToPs signed with MACP staff. This utility is very limited to payment of VWGs remuneration or to meet the surveyor’s expenses. There is a need to explore more areas and encourage VCCs to try more options for the betterment of the habitat and ecosystem. The VCCs keep the funds as Fixed Term Deposits, called TDRs. There are co-signatories to this fund in NA as well as in NWFP. In NA the VCC members and MACP staff are co-signatories while in NWFP VCC, MACP staff and DFO Wildlife are signatories. The interest of VCF is mainly utilized for VWG honoraria, while a portion (30%) of the amount obtained from trophy hunting has been used for development projects, such as water channel repairs or school building repairs.

Some VCC members were demanding to use this money as VO funding for lending purposes to VCC members for increased interest earning and community businesses enhancement, yet these demands are not met so far. There is no example of any place in Chitral where VCFs have been utilized neither for conservation support nor in real terms for poverty alleviation and livelihood improvement of the community members. So the VCF contribution to livelihood and conservation have yet to be planned and implemented. f. What about after MACP?

Communities actively engaged in conservation efforts are uncertain, having no idea of the future of the existing decade-long community conservation efforts, after MACP

10 withdraws its support. Arkari community was not very satisfied with MACP support, although they felt that they had some support in the initial few years from MACP staff which is not the case in the later years. In addition, majority of the communities misunderstands the term “Conservation” with Trophy Hunting.

In few areas, where initial surveys were undertaken for identification of Medicinal Plants and assessment of pastures, communities had knowledge of the broader concept of conservation.

In Chitral, principally in Tirichmir Conservancy, the scope of commercial utilization of the available medicinal plants species is very limited because of their low populations. If some species have some potential for meager local trade, that has already been tried to exploit. MACP has trained quite a few male and female plant collectors in standard collection and processing methods, introducing conservation, which has reportedly improved the product and income of the collectors.

Pasture management plan have been drawn in four out of five valleys of Garam chashma (Lotkoh Tehsil) in Tirichmir conservancy and they are under implementation. A number of community members in each valley, have received the basic training about the pasture assessment and management. All these valleys have set aside parts of their higher pastures out of livestock grazing reserved for wild ungulates. The implementation of the plan has yet to bring impacts. One major activity, a community enterprise, of mechanized wool processing, to integrate pastures management with wool production is also underway in Garam Chashma and the machine has already reached for installation.

2.2 The Northern Areas

Conservation and Trophy Hunting of Himalayan Ibex

The initiation of Community based Trophy Hunting Program (CTHP) and the longest running CTHP in Pakistan is the Torghar Conservation Project (TCP) established in 1986. This project was initiated by the late Nawab Taimur Shah Jogezai and Sardar Naseer Tareen. In 1994, TCP was formalized as a registered NGO - the Society for Torghar Environmental Protection (STEP), and in the first 10 years it had generated about US $460,000 from hunts for 14 markhor and 20 Urial (Johnson 1997)4.

WWF-Pakistan was the second to develop true CTHPs, first beginning in 1989 in the Barr Valley in NA. Himalayan Ibex have been the focus of WWF’s CTHPs. The then Chief Secretary NA, Mr. Shakeel Durrani, supported the potential communities like KVO to initiate their conservation program. He was the first to take a trophy of 40” Ibex among the government officials who paid the fee of Rs. 18750 out of his pocket. This led other government officials to stop poaching practices. When IUCN came to NA people welcomed it and among the first few were the Khyber and KVO community who adopted the teachings of Biodiversity project. The Bar valley program collapsed because of community conflicts which WWF could not effectively manage and solve the conflict, while KVO merged into PRIF phase of Biodiversity program.

IUCN-Pakistan’s involvement in trophy hunting began when it implemented a Pre- Investment Feasibility (PRIF) project - “Maintaining Biodiversity in Pakistan with Rural Community Development” between January 1995 and April 1999. The Northern Areas of Pakistan started a real community based trophy hunting program at the beginning of PRIF phase of Biodiversity Conservation Project in 1995-96. The number of trophy quota was enhanced gradually from the initial of 5 in 1995 to 30 in 2005. There is a six-time quota enhancement over the past ten years, which is a great achievement in terms of realizing value of the resource and conservation efforts by communities and the department. The Northern Areas Administration has notified yet another ten areas as potential sites for conservation and trophy hunting by involving communities in conservation efforts. The graph below shows quota allocation and trophies taken in the past eleven years.

4 D.M Shackleton, Review of community based trophy hunting program in Pakistan, 2001.

The individual status is stated in sections below.

Figure 2. Trophy hunting trend of Ibex in Northern Areas

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Ibex Quota 5 5 15 15 15 20 20 30 30 30 30 Hunt 5 1 4 14 5 6 8 11 24 23 29

Source: NAFWD and MACP data The Year 2000, there were some hunts took place but only 6 hunts record could be traced, strangely neither the department nor MACP could locate the full data. That made it hard to verify the total hunts in the year 2000. The year 2001 has seen unprecedented events like 9/11 followed by attack on Taliban government in Afghanistan by US led army, yet there was one expatriate hunter (Anthony Fredrick who took a 38” trophy from Khyber) rest of the seven were all Pakistanis. After 9/11 incident no other hunter came to Pakistan in 2001.

2.2.1 Trophy Hunting (Khunjerab Village Organization).

Khunjerab village organization (KVO) comprises a cluster of six villages namely Galapan, Gircha, Morkhun, Nazimabad, Jamalabad and Khunjerab itself. These villages are along the Karakoram highway and almost 200 km north of Gilgit towards China border. The KVO areas range from 8,500 to 12,000 feet above sea level.

The area is best known for its trade-related activities with China. Customs, immigration, import, and export of cargo handling facilities are handled out of the Sost Dry Port. Besides trade activities, the area has been blessed with impressive wild animal species like ibex, blue sheep, and snow leopard. The world famous Marco-polo sheep, sharing its distribution range with China, has its copulating zone in the Khunjerab National Park5 (KNP) on the Pakistan side of the border.

Illegal hunting in the past drove some stakeholders to initiate dialogues with the community of KVO in order to uphold the notion of sustainable use of natural resources. The Village Conservation efforts were started much before (in 1988) the formal establishment of IUCN office in Gilgit. IUCN mustered the local inhabitants on one point agenda of natural resource conservation in 1995, KVO reshaped its conservation efforts

5 Source: Director KNP

13 to form a VCC and a VCP drafted which was approved by the department. A Village Conservation Fund was also established with the support of Biodiversity Project.

Trophy hunting of ibex was started in 1993 when several annual surveys proved potential of optimum harvest level viable. KVO had the honor of hosting the first trophy hunt in Northern Areas under the Forest department. The then Chief Secretary Mr. Shakil Durrani was the first-ever hunter to take trophy home in 1993 and also was the first legal national hunter and most senior official of the NA who paid the trophy fee out of his own pocket.

The KVO president Mr. Bahadur Khan with his colleagues Muhammad Rahim (General Secretary KVO) and Amjad Ali (Member KVO) were interviewed to unveil the facts and figures pertaining to trophy hunting and its socio-economic effects on the community.

The income from trophy hunting has been deposited in the village conservation fund, which presently stands Rs. 1,000,000/-. An agricultural fertilizer fund has also been set up where the flow is Rs. 1,000,000. The aim is to provide sufficient quantity of chemical fertilizers to local farming community during peak growing season for the only cash crop of the area, the potato. The fertilizer is purchased by KVO in bulk and provided on credit to communities, the value of which is recovered later after harvesting/marketing by potato growers. This practice has enabled majority of farmers to utilize the previously barren area and brought it to cultivable land. Consequently the conservation became a precursor to uplift the livelihoods of the local farming community. The 90% of the communities depend upon subsistence farming in the area while the remaining earn their livelihood from other means.

The council of KVO in consultation with local inhabitants decided to have a share in newly constructed Dry Port at Sost. They deposited share amount is Rs. 18,50,000/-; as yet, no fiscal return in this connection has been received.

The KVO area lures most of the trophy hunters for the unique opportunity of hunting from roadside as most of the hunters want to avoid the strenuous trek to search for ibex, using habitat higher than markhor. They can even hunt the trophy sitting in their vehicles.

During the year 2005-6 six international and five national hunters (11 in total) succeeded in attaining trophies against a quota of 6 ibex for the year. The actual quota allocated to KVO was six, while the government kept some 5 as reserve quota at the discretion of the NA Administration. If there are fewer hunters than the overall quota of 30, then the NA Admin has the prerogative to allot un-utilized quota to any community controlled hunting area where population could support the harvest. In case of KVO the same was applied. This however is not a good way, both socially and scientifically.

The KVO members are cautious about the annual quota of trophy permits as each year permits to hunt in KVO area is double the preceding year; easy hunts and larger trophy size are the main reasons for this. They are concerned that if such increasing demand exists and over-harvesting continues, the ibex population may crash.

The KVO people are enthusiastic to combat pollution by utilizing town compost and human waste as an organic input to their crops. They are extremely concerned about the filthy and unhygienic conditions and municipal waste of the trade hub in Sost. Large

14 scale human invasion for trade-oriented activities and the absence of a proper system of waste disposal are the factors behind the crisis.

KVO is also considering the construction of cold storage units for the potato crop, as well as greenhouses to produce seedlings and vegetables during the off season.

Issues: The KVO community is an organized, motivated, and resourceful community knowing how to use their resources optimally. They have good communication and advocacy skills, enabling them to get a major share of resources and financing from the KNP as well. Shimshal community has a long-standing territorial issue with the KNP management that has not been resolved for the past two decades. Though Shimshal community participated in MACP since 2003, however their interest in conservation increased in 2005/06 when they were granted quota of 4 blue sheep of which only one hunt was permitted by KNP management. This might result into communal conflict with KNP in future.

The community share of about 2 million rupees has been invested in the Sost Dry Port, without a return as yet. Community representatives have to guard their share carefully and cautiously so that community money is secured. Community has also invested a million rupees in the fertilizer business, which has so far not been very productive. This is their second year of investment in this area and that has so far not developed the shape of cyclic business. There is a potential of this to become a beneficial business, yet they have to be very vigilant in financial management. They have to watch and calculate its returns and get the share on time so that the money is not sunk.

There is a quota of 30 Ibex granted by NCCWW to NA Administration. The NAFWD in consultation with WWF, and IUCN have granted a quota to identified conservation communities. The quota used to be reviewed after every two years on the basis of ibex population census. Since 2004/5 the NAA started allocating quota to communities without taking other NGOs along. However these NGOs have a very good liaison with the DFO wildlife department who recommends quota to Secretary Forest, who in turn recommends the same to the Chief Secretary (CS). With the consent of the CS quota is issued to communities. Initially for the year 2005/6 a quota of 6 ibex was given to KVO and Khyber each, but later on 5 more permits were issued to hunters to take trophies from KVO conservation area. This was because fewer hunters opted to go to other sites as a result 7 trophies were being under utilized6. There were applications from hunters for KVO so on that basis NAA decided to issue 5 more permits from KVO as result 11 hunts took place, which gives almost 90% above the quota allocation. A total of 28 ibex trophies were taken against the quota of 30 from NA in 2005. Population of Ibex has to be scientifically monitored so not to compromise on the conservation principles for the sake for earning money earning. To avoid such allocation, trophy hunting procedures may be approved and implemented in toto; also, quota allocation committee be revived and its role shall be notified whose recommendations should be honored on the basis of scientific survey results. Previously DCCs used to recommend quota to the departments, reviving this practice will help equitable distribution to quota to communities. Valley facts sheets should be used as information dissemination tool for hunters for those valleys where animal population is high and hunter inclination is less, e.g. Hushe, Karumbar and

6 Source: DFO Wildlife Gilgit

Bar valley. This will decrease the unnecessary burden on valleys like Khyber, Gulkin and KVO.

2.2.2 Conservation and Trophy Hunting of Ibex in Khyber Valley

Khyber village is situated in Tehsil Gojal of Gilgit along KKH. It has 108 households and encompasses an area of 310km2. The current population of Khyber village is 755 with a zero mortality rate during the last two years.

Khyber area is the abode of wild goat species “ibex.” One can see herds of this wild creature during winter season along roadside and in the fields grazing like livestock.

It is a well organized and motivated conservation community. The area was brought under MACP to manage the natural resources on scientific lines in order get sustainable utilization.

In 1990 Khyber community itself put a ban on free grazing practices where normally larger numbers of sheep and goats were taken to high pastures for grazing. This practice created competition with wild fauna that saw a pressure on existing carrying capacity of the pastures.

IUCN drove the local concepts of having a symbiotic relationship with the environment through rural appraisals, conservation planning, joint wildlife surveys, and imposing a ban on illegal hunting. The idea gained a foothold among masses and first trophy hunting campaign was successfully launched in 1997. So far 31 trophy-sized ibex have been hunted. The ratio of foreign to local hunters is almost 50:50.

There are two organizations in Khyber village called SKIDO (Shahi Khyber Imamabad Development Organization) while SKIWO is its implementing arm. The members and office bearers were interviewed to share their experiences during the process of wildlife conservation in Khyber area. Mr. Fazal Karim (Vice Chairman), Nisar, Asadullah, Gulamuddin and Meherban Shah (Members) enunciated the salient features of wildlife saga.

According to them fifty percent of the income generated through trophy hunting goes to VCF where the current deposit is Rs. 15,00,000.

Regarding expenses, it was revealed that a conservation and development centre has been constructed utilizing Rs. 1,200,000. Rs 250 to 500 are disbursed to village wildlife guides during trophy hunting campaigns as TA/DA, while there is no other kind of honoraria. The community centre bore fruit this year, and it was utilized to cater to the needs of hunters and their team. The current annual income from the center is Rs. 35,000.

The ibex population is 639 according to the January 2006 survey. They mentioned that after entering into conservation treaty with IUCN they gradually reduced the number of goats, as it was the major competitor with wild fauna in high pastures. They acknowledged IUCN for the fiscal support extended for the construction of irrigation channel enabling them to increase the area under cultivation.

The community is keen to extend better education facilities specially for the female population, and in this context a matching grant from AKES (about half a million rupees) and a donation of US$ 4,000 will be expanded on the Girls High School Project. The expansion of community center is also in the pipeline; whereas the interest of the TDR has been consumed twice for the said center construction.

Issues: They are much concerned about the procedure of trophy hunting permits. According to them the permit should be directly given to the community to auction it at higher rates to national and international hunters. The rates for national hunters have been raised this year to Rs. 50,000, while the international rates are more than double to this amount.

They recommended that the hunting period should be same for all the hunting sites because there have been some practices to extend the period for some communities. The trophy permit allocation system should be made transparent for all and should be a binding agreement. All the communities in conservation should have equal rights to have international hunters, presently the trend is skewed towards a few communities.

It was revealed during the study that a composite survey methodology should be practiced in order to avoid duplication. This is possible by thorough surveys with latest equipments and manpower in ample time. The current actual sighting technique that only lasts for three days is not enough to access the real population of the wild species.

2.2.3 Conservation and Trophy Hunting of Ibex in Basho Valley

Basho is the village about 50kmshort of Skardu town and is situated across the river Indus on right of KKH. There are 350 households having a population of about 3,000 individuals. The peculiarity about Basho is that it is very rich in natural resources, including an extensive forest patch which is only present in Skardu valley. It is large area surrounded by glaciated mountains giving rise to an ample number of freshwater nullah and perennial streams. The Northern Areas Energy Department has planned to install high capacity hydro-electric equipment for enhancing power generation from the water resources.

Nature has endowed Basho with flora and fauna and its part of MACP Nanga Parbat Conservancy. The Ibex population of about 4757 animals with a trophy size of 25 Ibex (NAFWD 2004), while MACP 2005 survey revealed a population of 138 ibex with a trophy sized animals of 9 were cited. There is only one trophy quota from Basho. So far 3 ibex trophies have been taken, all by foreign hunters, generating a good income as a reward for their conservation activities.

The Forest Department has established one Forest Barrier in which one Forest guard has been deployed to check on illegal trafficking of other natural resource like animals and medicinal plants. The community, in addition to the Forest Department, has put another VWG to assist the Forest Guard in consultation with the department. This shows good mutual coordination and collaboration between the communities and the department. The VCP is regularly reviewed after every two years and the people are very optimistic about the CMC after the departure of MACP. They feel that the

7 NAFWD Working Paper for Increase of Trophy Hunting Quota 2005-2006

17 conservation efforts are still in infantile stages and need the assistance of a strong institution for a while until the maturity of the current initiative.

2.2.4 Conservation and Trophy Hunting of Ibex in Kachura Valley

Kachura community is an adjoining community near Skardu town about 25 kilometres west of it. The community joined conservation activities in the PRIF phase of Biodiversity project and the first hunt took place in 1999. The second hunter who was a senior government official from the Federal government, failed to climb and hence failed to shoot. What communities feel is that because of complaint of that senior official the NA Administration is treating Kachura community negatively and allocates no quota and do not promote trophy hunting in this community. That’s why they are deprived of any trophy hunting since long. This needs to be cleared up in consultation with DFO Wildlife NA. Despite the fact that it is part of controlled hunting area, there is a population of 70 Ibex, of them 9 are trophy size, no trophy permits are allocated to any one. NAFWD argued that there are no hunters willing to go to Kachura because of difficult terrain and vast area, hard to take a trophy.

The VCC continued working for few years when a conflict arose and it shattered. The cause of conflict was actually triggered by extraneous elements who had malafid’e intentions. They supported a group to cause a dispute in this community to damage the conservation efforts put in early years. MACP has not yet been successful in resolving the community dispute despite their best efforts. Among several reasons one of the most and acute reason described by pro-conservation group is that being very near to Skardu town the local officials have made Kachura a leisure spot for high ranking officials and bring them and facilitate illegal trophy hunting to please their superiors. The main reason behind the community conflict is this group who take personal advantage by damaging the conservation efforts of the area.

The potentiating factors include the absence of a representative of the Wildlife Department in Skardu to support community efforts and resolve conflicts. The DCC, being one of the available forums, and which can potentially play the role of arbitrator as well as pro-conservation body to stop illegal hunting and poaching has unfortunately been inactive. MACP has also been not very effective mobilising DCC and other resources to resolve this issue.

2.3 Conservation and Trophy Hunting of Markhor in Northern Areas

2.3.1 Conservation and Trophy Hunting in Bunji

Bunji village is situated 60 kilometers east of Gilgit and is now part of newly created administrative District of Astore, which was previously part of Diamer District. Bunji falls in Himalayan range, has topography of vast barren lands and snow-topped mountains, with little flow of water from adjoining glaciers. Bunji has a population of about 15000 individuals with a household population of 1500.

Bunji people have been struggling due to scarcity of water from the very beginnings of their settlement, and still are deprived of electricity. A considerable portion of the Bunji area has been acquired by army for the NLI (Northern Light Infantry) Training Centre. In the past Bunji was thought to be important for its geo-strategic location, as it was the junction point for the approach ways to Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh via Skardu and Astore but now it is the bastion of NLI.

Mostly people depend on subsistence agriculture and agriculture is mainly fodder and horticultural crops. People are also engaged in the livestock rearing and grazing in high pastures. The wild fauna was previously over-exploited and the world famous markhor and urail sheep were diminishing day-by-day.

IUCN intervened by having a dialogue with the community of the area. Consequently a Village Conservation Committee was established ten years ago with an agenda to conserve the wild fauna and flora of the area and a sustainable utilization of natural resources. The process was lengthy but started with participatory rural appraisals, wildlife surveys, identification and census of wild fauna, training of wild life guards and guides etc.

A Village Conservation Fund was established with a 25% share from the community and rest of the amount from PRIF phase. Recurrent wildlife surveys and closer check on illegal hunting/poaching made first trophy hunt of markhor possible five years ago.

According to agreements reached between the Government, IUCN and the community, a huge amount of the hunting fee (80%) was deposited in community driven account. This was a catalyst, which acted to promote conservation-related activities and molded the vision of the inhabitants of the area regarding wildlife conservation.

According to the spokesman and president of village conservation community Haji Niamatullah, in the 1st and 2nd year one and two trophy hunting campaigns were successfully launched, and up to now a total of five trophy sized markhor are taken by all foreigner hunters. The approximate population of markhor is 150-160 in Bunji conservation area, whereas urial population (n=60) is still below the required trophy hunting size.

A total of five million rupees are in the VCF in the shape of Term Deposit Receipts (TDR). Various community welfare projects were funded partially by the fund either directly or by the profit of the TDRs. A matching grant of Rs. 500,000 were shared by the Aga Khan Education Service with Rs. 125,000 share from community conservation fund

19 for the up gradation of Girls Middle School to high standard and salary of two female teachers was met with the profit of above grant.

An abandoned government project has revamped with an amount of Rs. 700,000. The irrigation water irrigates vast area of Bunji that is a step towards self-sufficiency in fodder and indigenous agriculture.

An enormous area of land has been divided among the locals of Bunji measuring twelve thousand kanals and it is further divided into ten plots giving a share of approximately 6.5 kanals per person. 10,000 (saplings) trees of diyar have been planted with the help of AKRSP and Forest Department. This is a huge source of attachment of the local people with wildlife conservation activities and the fruit they expect is from the income in shape of trophy hunting fee.

The expenditure for the watch and ward activities and services of the wild life guides during hunting exercises is also met from the said fund. An amount of Rs 30,000 has been disbursed in this context.

Bunji has also shown considerable progress in recovery of Urial through implementation of the Urial recovery plan. They have cordoned off the area for grazing and a watch tower is under construction. As a result the Urial population is on an increasing trend since past few years.

Issues: The Bunji village has great potential not only in wild fauna and flora, but it has huge terrain of barren land. Large pastures and the Indus flowing below this village can be tapped for productive purposes. The village is still deprived of electricity and if that is available the Indus water can be pumped up and used for agricultural purposes.

There are other species of wild fauna, like Urial, which has increased in population size due to spillover effects of markhor conservation creating a potential for future harvest if maintained the same pace of conservation efforts.

The markhor fee is US$ 25,000, which is much less than that of NWFP trophy fee. NA Wildlife Department can follow the footsteps of NWFPWD in auctioning the trophies of Astore markhor, which is a rare species in the world. So far the community is not confident enough to purchase the trophy of markhor from their own resources and sell it in the international market due mainly to lack of access to Safari Clubs and more so is because of management capacity of VCC.

The outfitters who facilitate the trophy hunt feel that Bunji has lot of potential in future but they need to involve neighboring communities of Haramosh in conservation activities so that protection of markhor is done more effectively. The Bunji terrain is quite difficult, so it is not the first choice of middle-aged hunters. There are three trophy permits for the Northern Areas of which one goes to Bunji, one to SKB an done to DMT. While DMT VCC could not effectively manage their conservation program and the surveys do not support Trophy hunting program. Hence their quota is being allocated to Bunji communities. So the Bunji community enjoys share of two hunts while DMT gets none. DMT needs more support in conservation.

There community feels that other than trophy hunting, medicinal plant potential may also be looked into for exploring more avenues of development.

The community center built years ago has so far not been used for productive purposes.

2.3.2 Conservation and Trophy Hunting of Markhor in SKB valley

The cluster of three villages are situated on the banks of the Indus towards Skardu around 150km along Skardu road. These areas represent a rich habitat for ibex and Astore markhor and have practiced conservation since the PRIF phase of the Biodiversity Project. They have a very effective VCP and established a VCF amounting to Rs. 1.03 Million.

Since the trophy hunting program in NA, they have provided 3 ibexes for trophy hunting, and 6 markhor have been taken by international hunters. The trophy hunting share is equally distributed among the three communities of SKB. The communities are using the amount received for trophy hunting on VWGs honoraria, books for school children who are unable to afford them, and they have put a share into repairs for their girl’s school, construction of a pony track, a small section of road from the bridge to a village, repair of a mosque, and some other community-based infrastructure projects like a foot-bridge, etc. The SKB communities are quite poor when compared to other communities on the KKH; the communities unanimously decided to purchase food items like flour and grains from the trophy hunting money (6% was used for this purpose8) and provided it to the needy and the poor in the community.

The outfitter Mr. Asif Khan was not satisfied with SKB population of markhor, especially the trophy size animals. According Mr. Asif Khan, realistic and neutral teams should be assigned to ascertain the markhor population otherwise he thinks the trophy hunting program will collapse, as hunting community is linked with one another and they share their experiences mutually.

In SKB, according to Mr. Asif Khan, the population of markhor is not enough to sustain the trophy quota in the coming years. This has been confirmed by the MACP Field Office (Skardu) where they had only seen one trophy-sized markhor during the last survey of 2006, which was taken during this last hunt. This means that SKB would need to wait a few years for the younger generation of markhor to reach it’s the adequate harvest size and age.

The VCC also felt this need that they needed to wait a few years and that more care is needed to guard against poaching. The committee members observed that the Markhor breeding has decreased over these years since they started conservation efforts. They felt that in pre-conservation period a wild goat used to give birth to more than one offspring, now the rate of twin or more kids have decreased to one kid. They felt that nature is providing a check on the animal population this way. The other statement they gave is about the population of Snow Leopard which has increased to the extent that it can be seen wandering across the river, some time chasing markhor. The communities blamed a female snow leopard who hunted several trophy sized markhor, as well as causing interference in rutting animals.

8 Use of trophy hunting fee, MACP MTR reports,

2.4 Blue Sheep Conservation and Trophy Hunting

2.4.1 Conservation and Trophy Hunting of Blue Sheep in Shimshal Valley

Shimshal is a village on the north-east of Gilgit town at a distance of about 250 kms from Gilgit and about 45km from Gojal. The total population is about 1,500 people living in 150 households. The total area is about 2,700km2 at an altitude of about 10,000 feet above sea level. Shimshal is strategically located between the Khunjerab National Park, established in 1975 as IUCN category II, and Central Karakoram National Park established in 19969. Most of its area has been part of Khunjerab National Park, since the notification Shimshali communities are trying very hard to de-notify some of its area to enable them to use that piece of land for trophy hunting. There have been several meetings held, so far the discussions bore no fruit in this regard. The Shimshali communities initiated their conservation program in 1989 with the help of Japanese Government and started their first Environmental Education program. This program continued for ten years impacting the communities in such a manner that they themselves imposed a ban on hunting of blue sheep and ibex which are in abundance in Shimshal.

The Khunjerab National Park (KNP) comprises 95% of Shimshal area while KVO has 5% area in the park boundaries (buffer zone), stated Mr. Muzaffaruddin, SNT task force member. The shimshali people did not want their area to become part of KNP, yet government has notified it. During the ten years in conservation, the Shimshal could only get one blue sheep trophy permit on the basis of scientific studies. It was meant that their efforts were not appreciated as it was their conservation efforts that led to the increase in the population of blue sheep in Shimshal to more than 4,000 (some claim that the number is even greater (more than 15000 animals). Only in the year 2005/6 did one trophy hunt take place and an amount of US$ 5,000 was deposited in the Wildlife Department Northern Areas account; will be paid by the CS in a ceremony along with other communities share as well. The KNP management objected to this trophy hunting program because the boundaries of KNP and Shimshal village has not been clearly demarcated, and that may risk the National Park animals to be taken as trophies from the buffer zone. Virtually there is no buffer zone between Shimshal and KNP.

Issues:

There are several impending issues in Shimshal mainly with the NA Wildlife and Parks Department. The boundary between KNP and Shimshal village has not been demarcated so it must be segregated and properly demarcated to eliminate any future dispute. There has been a court case between the Department and the community on benefits of the park, which KVO community has been accruing but not the Shimshal community. There is a need for an effective dialogue between the Department and the aggrieved community – properly arbitrated by government and high political representatives. Several meetings of the department and communities were facilitated by MACP, the department agreed to declare Shimshal area as community use zone, while maintaining the status of KNP. However notification has yet to be issued. .

9 Virk Amjad, NASSD Background Paper on Biodiversity.

This has negatively affected the image of the NA Parks Department and no other community is willing to participate in getting their area notified as NPs. The reason is simply economic; i.e. there is a great demand from all those communities who are familiar with conservation and benefits of trophy hunting. When their areas are notified as NP they will have no right to use it as grazing land as summer pastures, getting fuel wood from its trees and shrubs, stones for housing, marbles in some other areas for commercial purposes. Even the trophy hunting will also not be permitted in and around a proposed NP territory. The other reason is that the existing NPs are notified in IUCN category II. Those are needed to be shifted to category V and VI, getting communities along in conservation. The Handrap community has gone to court of law and gotten a stay which has prevented NAFWD to further work on this parks establishment.

2.4.2 Conservation and trophy hunting of Blue Sheep in KVO

The trophy hunting of blue sheep started in 2005 and two trophies have so far taken against the quota of three animals, generating an income of US$ 8,000 for communities (the current population of blue sheep observed is 70). The conservation program has and the issues have been discussed in KVO section above.

3. Trophy Hunting and Livelihood of communities

"Conservation" is relatively a new term and a new experience for the communities of Northern Areas and Chitral. This is against the common notion of “natural resources are God gifted for use”. When the introduction of new concept of “use but with caution” (conservation) was introduced it was well accepted by the communities who were included in the Biodiversity Project in 1994/95. The communities were familiar with the concept of VO savings introduced by AKRSP in the early 1980s and there were communal funds collected as VO Fund, which later was used for lending as community micro-bank. The VCF is almost an “untouchable” fund guarded by stringent procedures, which has put a barrier to plunder it or misuse of it. The criteria set forth was 30% of the trophy share of communities be channeled to VCF and that would be used to improvement of ecosystem and habitat. As there are no examples of VCF in the country prior to this program so there are any precedence to be followed. The VCF established is also an example of this kind of fund that is pooled but cannot be used for communal developmental schemes. Almost all VCFs are deposited as Term Certificates or Receipts (TDRs), and mark-up of those are being used for VWGs honoraria. The fee received as community share of trophy hunting has to be deposited in the VCF account. Ideally, the percentage agreed to has to go to VCF while the remaining amount should be used for addressing issues related to livelihood improvement and poverty alleviation.

In the MACP areas of Chitral, a major part of the VCF is intact and a very low amount has been used for communal projects, such as water channels and school construction and repair. Since the principal amount of VCF was so small its utility would have not impacted much, so better to save was the principle use. The money received on account of trophy hunting has been deposited into the same VCF account.

In Gojal Conservancy, part of trophy hunting amount was deposited in the VCF account while the remaining money was used for community projects, such as a community center in Khyber, and community support services in KVO.

The Bunji community has established a quite sizeable amount in their VCF and that amount is sitting at about 5 million rupees. So far the community has not been able to decide as to what the judicious use of the VCF would be. All income from markhor trophy hunt has been deposited in VCF except the expenses incurred on supporting the hunt.

The SKB community claims that it has spent money (accrued from trophy hunting) by addressing food needs of the community. They have divided equal shares among the households, and also invested some part on communal projects like pony-tracks, bridges, road construction and watch and ward activities. The same is the case with Basho community.

What is more important is the need to institutionalize the VCPs because so far it (VCPs) is revolving around personalities. There is a need to devise systems and mechanisms by which all community members realize the pros and cons of conservation and also realize the need to sustainably use the communal resources for addressing poverty and other community needs.

4. Trophy Hunting, its market and supply.

Presently, as of 2006, the trophy hunting market is not doing well. There seems to be a large gap between demand and supply of trophies. However, what is more important is to understand the business chain. The trophy hunters associations and clubs are groups of people who have a desire of taking bigger trophies to establish a record, which is based on competition - conservation will provide hunters this opportunity to attain a bigger trophy with less efforts and putting their lives at stake. Their investment to community based conservation reciprocates their contribution in the form of availability of easy trophies. The study of this program over the years shows that the hunters are usually in their middle to late middle ages and cannot afford expeditions for hunting. For them the size of the trophy matters which they take home and not the struggle or adventure for hunting.

The dynamics of trophy hunting is the ‘role of players’ who act as intermediaries. These include, most importantly, the outfitters who act on behalf of hunters. As economics is involved in all affairs of life, the outfitters usually have a package deal with the hunters and as the hunt is easy and less time consuming, outfitter will earn more profit. So the outfitter is the primary source of information to the hunter who is sitting thousands of miles away in another continent. The education and motivation of outfitters and involvement in the context of Pakistan trophy hunting program is more important as any incorrect information may change the inclination of hunting in certain areas, e.g. law and order situation in some area, sectarian tension and other political unrest will hugely affect community support programs, like trophy hunting.

The NWFP Wildlife Department is auctioning trophies through advertisements in national and international newspapers. This can be only viable if effective quota allocation is ensured, which is based purely on scientific and professional surveys – at least one calendar year in advance so that hunters/outfitters who often plan their program well ahead of time can finalize/adjust their plans accordingly. If possible some video clips of trophy animals should be made available to substantiate the claim of trophy sized animal in an area.

There is a need to make the trophy hunting program by and large easy, accountable and transparent – right from allocation of quotas to export of trophies, including establishing several communication channels.

5. Wildlife Survey Techniques

In Chitral, Wildlife surveys are being carried out by the community VWGs and the department staff nominated, MACP acts as the neutral and technical experts. While in NA a third factor, NGOs like WWF and MACP staff also take part in surveys.

The survey techniques been used are physical sighting of the animals from vantage points already fixed. The teams are constituted to travel the demarcated area using nullah routes as boundaries separating one area from other by preventing physical movement of big game animals.

Usually the survey days are also fixed (three) and the teams cover the stipulated area in these days and count the animals sighted and return. The teams try to simultaneously cover the demarcated area in the stipulated time to avert the chances of duplications.

The logistic arrangements are done on the basis of forecast of the team persons and availability of resources. The most wanted elements are water, cooked or uncooked food items, tents, equipments like GPS, binoculars etc. The increase in team members may increase the baggage load and make the logistics difficult to supply and transport.

In the beginning days of PRIF and MACP prior orientation sessions of the surveying team used to take place in the form of a one day workshop so to give them an exposure to the technique used and terrain they are to trek. However, in the latter part of MACP implementation the support provided is being tapered off as the communities are now more familiar with survey techniques, except in those area where turn-over is more and more new people take part in surveys. The communities now have available resources and training to conduct the surveys themselves in collaboration of the department. MACP staff, however, accompanied the teams.

There is a need to support the communities till MACP life and some ways and means to be identified for post-MACP to keep this practice continued for few year (5ears), withdrawal of this support will quite negatively impact the surveys quantitatively and qualitatively. As already mentioned above, the confidence level among communities has not reached to a level where they feel confident investing VCF to areas those areas of businesses where they might get good returns.

The surveys are now being conducted with fewer members of the teams and only one day orientation is given to the members of these teams. MACP has withdrawn logistic support that results undertaking a quick survey which in turn might have affected the quality of population assessment.

The more experienced members of surveying teams are continuously being changed and new members are added to these teams (these new members are inexperienced and need more orientation and support).

6. Summary and Conclusions

The overall trophy hunting program led by WDNWFP and IUCN is a story of success of community based innovation in sustainable harvest of big game animals. Communities now have increased level of awareness for their natural resources and they have a desire to include other wild fauna and flora for sustainable use.

Having said that, after ten years of IUCN support to conservation, communities are still unable to attain a self-sustaining level by means of knowledge, resources and expertise to participate in the global market cycle. They need a hand-holding for at least one more decade, if not more. The example of AKRSP led Village and Women Organizations is in front of the development world that the maturity level of these VOs/WOs is not yet satisfactory and up to the mark after a support of twenty five years. AKRSP is envisaging forming intermediary organizations to provide support to grassroots level community institutions.

Agencies like IUCN, NAWD and WDNWFP need to implement a similar program in both NA and NWFP and any dissimilarity shall be corrected to alleviate any transparency issues to arise.

Some recommendations to this end are:

• Communities are to be involved in the management of natural resources like Trophy Hunting program considering them a support to conservation. The longer the communities remain oblivious of the procedures and rules the more distrust and the gap between the two will get wider. Involving them in the program management from the outset will enhance their confidence upon the institutions and also they will learn more as to how to deal with issues of wider spectrum. This will act as coaching for capacity enhancement of communities.

• The present quota allocation system needs to be made transparent before new areas are brought under this program (CTHP). The distribution of quota should be made public and through a transparent mechanism involving community representatives. The timing of quota allocation needs to be planned well in advance so the market forces have enough time to negotiate and prepare themselves for hunting program. This will give an opportunity to both demand and supply side to negotiate for better value for the money and goods. Using electronic media for quota announcement would be of much help.

• Institutions like IUCN should encourage communities to establish and run trophy fairs and conventions, where wide publicity is carried out so that more hunters and outfitters will be attracted. This will provide an opportunity to communities to get optimal prices for their resources. This will only be possible when the level of confidence among communities reach to a stage when they themselves purchase the trophy permits from the government and sell in the open market. This is contingent upon several factors, foremost is a good population of big game animals, access to the trophy animals by hunters by means of distance and easy approach, effective implementation of VCPs and resultantly communities abide by the conservation ethics.

• Open auction of markhor in the international market may generate huge money. This practice is going on outside Pakistan, where a single animal fetches amount like four hundred thousand US $. The money generated is utilized on special task though including education, conservation, park management etc. Such few hunts can help communities to build their own financial reserves for various sectors of conservation in the conservancy.

• In SKB where markhor population of trophy size animal is diminishing, there should be given a break to hunt for a while till the population reaches to sustainable harvest level. Communities may be taken into confidence before such a decision is made.

• Some of the communities who are presently better performing in conservation and trophy hunting program might lag behind (SKB) because of the various factors cited above. These communities, however, have to be compensated with some other manner, like, enhancing and utilizing their potential in medicinal plants, tourism, and support in forest and agricultural related areas. This will vary from community to community and depending upon their potential for natural resources they possess.

• Since MACP has now up-scaled from valley to conservancy level operation, it would be a good idea to motivate communities for conservancy level quota allocation, hunt facilitation and benefit sharing. This way, communities having no opportunities of hunt shall also get share from the resource.

• Communities are still naïve using earnings from the trophy hunting into more down trodden sects of community to address their poverty and livelihood needs. The Trophy Hunting procedures should clearly outline the utilization of money earned from the sustainable harvest of natural resources. This included share of VCF and VCF utilization procedures.

• There is also a need for a verification mechanism of population status of endangered species like markhor in the country. A group may be constituted having expertise of this field and can be called technical survey group by brining technical people from the relevant organizations to conduct occasional surveys in different markhor areas. The advice of the group should be binding, and that will ensure that government and communities are abiding by the principles of conservation and sustainable use.

• Trophy hunting is only one conservational tool; there is a need of thinking of other non-consumptive uses. This will add further value to the program. Photography, wildlife filming, and guided tours to the pastures where animals can be spotted would be a potential idea. Communities now need to open their own web sites which can help provide the information to the hunting communities and outfitters with ease. What is presently lacking is the confidence among communities. Government and NGOs should provide some hand-holding for a while till the communities are self-sufficient.

• In some areas, MACP and the department has to think of the scientific aspects of conservation. For instances, population of Ibex in KVO, Khyber or few other sites may adversely effect the pasture conditions. The study of carrying capacity is essential which will lead to the decision of fixing real harvest quota.

• Experience elsewhere has shown that a package of animals rather than a single animal market can add value to the hunt by attracting handsome money for supporting community based conservation. This can be done either through combining two species or even more as a package for increase revenue. In addition, communities may also be allowed to think of bargaining and negotiating hunt for social development. For instances, communities may trade off a hunt with a hunter, organization or outfitter for a conservation center, bridge, school, hospital or any other appropriate need hunt outside.

• The existing conflict of KNP management with Shimshal community needs to be resolved on priority basis so that new communities (like Handrap) may be motivated to participate in NP notification and management. The new notification should include rights of communities in management and use of the NP area.

In the conclusion, the project has helped communities understand the value of wild animals. There is high chance of expanding the program, provided demand and supply of the market is kept in mind.

Lessons Learned

The community based trophy hunting program, though a successful story in Northern Areas and Chitral have several lessons learnt during the course of MACP implementation. These can be described as “specific” to the current topic mentioned below:

Specific:

1. Trophy hunting is a conservation tool not to be merely used for enhancing economics of the communities.

2. It is important to keep close watch on the population of ungulates included in trophy hunting program so not to compromise its population standards. This can be done by external agencies like IUCN, NCCW, and Caprinae Specialist group through neutral assessment after a period of 3-4 years.

3. The new areas should be included only after careful market survey of supply and demand forces. If more areas are included without proper market assessment, the supply side will be skewed and prices will get down, so number of hunters decrease, ultimately the benefits to communities decrease. This will become a negative cycle.

4. Putting trophy animals in open market for auction bears better results than controlled permits. The example of NWFP and NA are two classic examples of these two, respectively.

5. Outfitter Association may be supported to form and operate in Pakistan. This will enhance contacts with outer world and enable communities having good prices for their trophies.

6. Trophy hunting is a delicate and difficult business, especially in the context of NA and NWFP terrain. Several factors hinder attaining a trophy like precarious climatic conditions, road blockade, and predation may affect the animal position.

7. Geo-political situation greatly affect the hunters inclination to select a country.

8. There is a need to strengthen fora and committees, like DCC, VCC and their representation in higher forums. This will build confidence among communities, and increase their interface with government and other developmental actors.

9. The role of intermediary organizations is very important in conservation. In areas where there is no intermediary organization the conservation and support to communities gradually become weaker, e.g. Bar valley where WWF support was decreased over the years because of persistent community conflicts.

10. The capacity of the respective departments greatly influences the program development and sustainability. For example, in NWFP the Wildlife Department is established for quite some time and they have requisite capacity to manage and support the CBTH, while in NA there is a need to strengthen Wildlife Department to manage the required programs independently, as there is only one DFO Wildlife for the whole NA.

11. Community behavior greatly influences hunters choice, for example Gojal valley is preferred than any other because of community norms and traditions. Community mobilization skill is a must for those who manage conservation programs. These skills are needed to overcome some of the traditions which adversely affect conservation programs. Community livelihood is closely related to its natural resources, positive and wise use will help decrease poverty. Communities are presently not at a stage of knowledge and skills dealing with these kinds of technical issues. They need external support for a while to maintain their conservation program.

12. Communities have to learn good practices of conservation and they have to be sensitized the risks of over harvest of animals.

13. The role of NGOs and other intermediary organizations is crucial playing as a buffer between the department, communities and hunters.

Bibliography: Aga Khan Rural Support Program, reports on VO/WO sustainability (IDE 1998). Frisina, M.R, Campbell, D. and Lajia Cairen. 2000. Enhancing conservation of Caprinae using geographic areas to define trophy types. Presentation at the IUCN Caprinae Specialist Group's Workshop on Taxonomy and Conservation. May, 2000.

Gloekler, M.A. 1999. Project Process Evaluation: Lessons Learned During the PRIF (Pilot Phase 1995 – 1999). Maintaining Biodiversity in Pakistan with Rural Community Development,

Gloekler, M.A. 2000. The role and function of the District Conservation Committee (DCe) - a discussion paper. IUCN-Pakistan, Gilgit. Johnson, K. A. 1997. Trophy hunting as a conservation tool for Caprinae in Pakistan. Harvesting wild species: implications for biodiversity conservation.

Model Wildlife Laws, NWFP.

NAFWD Working Paper for Increase of Trophy Hunting Quota 2005-2006

NASSD report (2003)

Project Document, MACP 1999-2006

Progress Reports of MACP 2000-2005

Reports of Chitral Wildlife Division, NWFP Wildlife Department, 1999-2004

Reports of Wildlife Department NA, 2005/06

Shackleton, D.M. 2001. a review of community-based trophy hunting programs in Pakistan. General Conservation Actions and Implementation.

State of the Environment and Development Report, NA (SoED) 2003.

Trophy Hunting Procedures (un-approved) WWF Pakistan.

Virk, Amjad T. 1999a. Integrating Wildlife Conservation with Community-based Development in Northern Areas, Pakistan.

Use of trophy hunting fee, MACP reports prepared for MTR, Virk, A.T. 1999b. A brief summary paper on wildlife conservation and management in Pakistan.

Virk Amjad, NASSD Background Paper on Biodiversity 2003.

Annex 1. List of people consulted in Chitral and NA

Date Name Designation Place Key findings 12.4.06 Mohammad Hakeem Ex. President VCC Golain Markhor Hunt Area and is part of Qashqar Conservancy. A VCF of Rs. 10,50,000. Main hunt takes place in Gahrait while other communities get their equal share which is about 6%. Gahrait gets 40% while the government gets 20%. Other communities who are part of this VCC get equal amount (6%). 12.4.06 Kabirullah Ex. President VCC Koghozi Part of Gahrait Conservation Area. VCF of Rs. 16,60,000, 13.4.06 Imtiaz Hussain DFO Wildlife Chitral Total Hunts 22 of these 18 Markhor and 4 Ibex trophies (2 non hunt), a total of Rs. 28 million rupees generated and 6.7 million was spent by communities on their welfare. A sum of Rs. 21.2 million has been deposited in the form of VCF of various participating communities.

Trophy hunting procedure not approved yet. 13.4.06 Aitibar Shah President Arkari Part of Tirich Mir Conservancy, 4 Ibex Raheem KKhan VCC hunts so far and total amount received is Mir Ibad Khan Manager VCC Rs. 452,000. out of this amount they Abdul Jabbar members spent Rs. 133,000 on channel repair and Taleem Khan Rs. 50,000 on school construction. They Sardar Wali Khan have a VCF of Rs. 13,00,000.

Arkari community is very aggrieved of MACP behavior of discrimination towards them by non projecting Arkari as one of the potential area for trophy hunt. 18.4.06 AliCho VCC SKB Rondu Skardu Part of Nanga Parbat Conservancy Sikandar Total VCF is 1.5 million rupees. So far 6 Yaqoob Markhor and 3 Ibex have been taken generating an amount of US$ 128,000, equally divided among the three communities of SK & B. There have been found no more trophy sized Markhor left in SKB for future hunt.

20.4.06 Athar Biodiversity MACP NA office Specialist 22.4.2006 Sherazullah Baig Conservation MACP Gojal Planner office 22.4.2006 Mr. Bahadur Khan VCC KVO Gojal 6 Ibex permits, 11 hunts president Conservancy 6 foreigners 5 nationals. Muhammad Rahim Over harvest, share in Sust Dry port (General Secretary from which no returns, investment in KVO) fertilizer, still no fiscal returns. Amjad Ali (Member KVO) 22.4.2006 Fazle Karim VC VCC Khyber Gojal 7 Ibex permits 6 hunts SKIDO Conservancy 3 national 3 internationals Nisar Member 639 Ibex were seen during last survey Asadullah 2005/06 Ghulamuddin Mehr Ban Shah 24.4.2006 Asif Khan Outfitter Delays in announcing Trophy quota to villages, trophy hunting procedures are not approved yet, and harvest quota be maintained. Population in some areas is very low like SKB. 25.4.2006 Muzaffaruddin SNT Gojal 4 permits only one hunt of Blue sheep Shimshal Conservancy against a population of 4500 Blue Sheep. 95% of KNP is in Shimshal area while no

benefits are accrued to communities from KNP, rather it’s the biggest obstacle for Shimshal community. 26.4.2006 Mohammad Ayub DFO Wildlife NA Wildlife laws are about to be approved, Northern Administration this year trophies will be auctioned, ten Areas new areas have been notified as Community Controlled hunting areas and soon they will get the trophy permits for Ibex and Markhor hunt subject to population surveys. 04.5.06 Ahmed Yaseen Treasurer Basho VCC 3 Ibex hunts took place and all were foreigners. A VCF of Rs. 225,000. More Ibex and the quota is less. Quota issuing procedure is not clear and no community involvement. They are optimistic about CMC after MACP. 04.5.06 Syed Hussain Kazmi Ex. President VCC Kachura Part of conservation efforts since 1998, first hunt took place in 1999, second hunt resulted into failure, since then no hunter came to Kachura. VCC is shattered due to external interference mainly because of Kachura being near to Skardu town and it provides leisure hunt to high officials. The department role is negligible in preventing illegal hunting. 04.5.06 Syeda Tahir Musvi In Charge DCC role in quota allocation. MACP staff MACP office does not know the trophy quota Skardu allocation and have no knowledge of hunting program, data is provided from Gilgit, no wildlife department representative in Skardu.

Annex 2. MACP Conservancies

Annex 3

Terms of Reference

Case Study on Conservation Hunting in MACP Conservancies of NWFP and NAs

1. Background

The Mountain Areas Conservancy Project (MACP) is a seven year project funded by the UNDP – GEF and implemented by IUCN-The World Conservation Union. The main objective is to conserve biological diversity through community-based management of natural resources, with the project assisting in planning, implementation and monitoring with technical backstopping, and capacity building. The project is operational in four Conservancies, large areas representing typical mountain ecosystems of Pakistan, two each in NWFP and Northern Areas.

The Western Himalayas, Karakoram and Hindu Kush mountain ranges are famous for their diversity of wildlife, including such flagship species as snow leopard, brown bear and markhor. While some wild animals and birds were initially hunted for meat, trophies and body parts, others were killed as being predators of domestic livestock. Indiscriminate hunting and killing resulted in some species becoming rare, endangered, or even extinct. Several species, for example, markhor and Urial, are already included in the CITES Appendices. In addition to indiscriminate hunting and killing, degradation of wildlife habitats because of deforestation and overgrazing (with soil erosion resulting) is taking place. Local people are generally poor and therefore heavily dependant on natural resources for fuel wood, timber, and grazing. The result of all these factors is extensive damage to the local ecology, leading to a significant loss of biodiversity.

In order to stem this deteriorating situation, MACP initiated a sustainable community-based conservation hunting program for ibex, markhor and blue sheep as an incentive to local people to act as biodiversity custodians, making conservation of biodiversity financially sustainable and socially acceptable.

The program has proved to be successful in arresting the illegal hunting in the area; the communities enforcing a ban on big game hunting. A few valleys have established firm linkages with the international hunting community.

2. Terms of Reference (ToRs)

MACP requires the assessment of the effectiveness of the conservation hunting program in order to generate knowledge on the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife for benefits to both biodiversity and people, and to explore the possibilities of scaling it up to cover all the Conservancies.

MACP requires the consultant to conduct a case study and accomplish the following specific activities:

• Review the ongoing conservation hunting programs of Markhor, ibex and blue sheep in the MACP Conservancies in the Northern Areas and NWFP. • Assess the impact of the sustainable hunting on the local socio-economic conditions of the communities involved, with particular reference to the actual accrual of benefits to the

community sand VCF, and transparency in spending of the received income for community development. • Briefly assess the need for training of community wildlife and hunting guides, leading to the development and implementation of codes of ethics and standards (criteria setting for board, lodging, transportation, etc). • Assess the impact of conservation hunting on sustainable livelihoods and the generation of additional income for the local communities (with a focus on the multiplier and acceleration effects). • Review the current market chain and determine the trend in harvest demand of selected wild species for conservation hunting and prepared trophies. • Provide recommendations of using conservation hunting programs for improving habitats and conservation of biodiversity. • Review and update the existing one-pagers on the ungulate species currently harvested for helping international hunting communities to better access information. • Assess the present quota system being used for distribution of trophy hunting permits in NAs and NWFP, with particular focus on the transparency and accountability of the system both with in local government, outfitter and communities. • Explore the present system of Community-Controlled Hunting Areas (CCHAs) in term of the following: a. Notification of Wildlife Sanctuaries and Game Reserves into CCHAs; b. Newly established CCHAs and their functioning; c. Opportunities for the establishment of CCHAs within areas outside the present Protected Areas system and the Conservancies in NA and NWFP.

3. Duration of the study

The duration of the study would be seven weeks (49 days), including an estimated three and half (3.5) weeks in the field, and the remaining (3.5) weeks reviewing literature, analyzing the data and collating the report.

4. Outputs

The consultant will present their work (as noted in the ToRs above) in the form of final report in hard and soft formats. The draft report will be presented by the consultant to the MACP Project Management Unit (IUCN Islamabad Program Office). This will be followed by a final presentation/report after incorporation of the comments from all concerned.

The consultant will report to the National Project Manager (Project Management Unit, IUCN Islamabad Program Office) and shall work very closely with the MACP Regional Project Managers both in Northern Areas and NWFP.

Annex 4. The Advertisement of WDNWFP for the Trophy Hunting season 2005-2006

The Wildlife Department of North-West Frontier Province – Pakistan, on behalf of communities in Markhor and Ibex conservancies in NWFP offers following Trophy Hunting Permits in Community Game Reserves in Chitral and Kohistan Districts for 2005-2006 hunting season (15th December 2005 to 15 March, 2006).

1. Kashmir Markhor hunts – Four 2. Himalayan Ibex hunts – Ten

Hunters and Experienced Outfitters are invited to send their bids along with call deposit of US$ 5000/- in the name of:-

CHIEF CONSERVATOR WILDLIFE NORTH-WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE, FOREST OFFICES, SHAMI ROAD, PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN (Fax No. 0092-91-9212090, Email: [email protected]) Upto November 15, 2005. The offer shall be made in US Dollars. Successful bidders will be notified by November 20, 2005, through Fax or Email. Successful Hunters/Outfitters will be required to confirm their acceptance of Trophy Hunting Permits by depositing the bid money (non-refundable) with the NWFP Wildlife Department upto November, 30, 2005. Last year (2004-2005) each Markhor permit was sold for US Dollars 45000/-.

Other conditions for trophy hunting are as follows:- i. Big Game Shooting License Fee of US$ 100/- will be charged in addition to the Trophy Hunting Permit fee. ii. Hunting will be permissible only in community game reserves. iii. Hunters/Outfitters will be required to deposit the bid money (in foreign exchange) with NWFP Wildlife Department by November, 30, 2005 failing which, the permit will be offered to next qualifying bidder. iv. In the event of a Tie, permit will be granted on first come first served basis. v. Highest bidder will be given preference in hunting followed by the 2nd highest bidder. vi. Hunting will be permissible from December 15, 2005 to March 15, 2006 according to the days specified in the permit. vii. Trophy hunting fee will be non-refundable. viii. 80% of the trophy-hunting fee will go to the communities in conservation areas. ix. Successful hunters will be encouraged to make special personal donations to Village Conservation funds maintained by communities as well as to Wildlife Department. x. Successful hunters/outfitters will be expected for conducting entire hunt themselves including transportation, boarding and lodging of hunters, import permits of rifle, export permit for trophies, insurance, visa etc. etc. xi. Individual hunters will make their own arrangements for reaching Chitral/Kohistan with their hunting rifle, they will be conducted in the field by the Wildlife Department/Communities. xii. The hunters will collect their hunting permit personally from the Office of Chief Conservator Wildlife NWFP where they will be briefed on hunting regulations. xiii. Outfitters will not be allowed to accompany the hunter in the field. Guides will be provided by Wildlife department on payment. xiv. The hunter will personally report to the office of Chief Conservator Wildlife NWFP after hunting is over and will present his trophy for inspecting/examination before they leave NWFP. This will be a pre-requisite for issuing NOC for CITES export permits for the trophy. xv. Skinning specialists are available locally. xvi. CITES export permits will be issued by Ministry of Environment, Government of Pakistan for hunted trophies on recommendation of NWFP Wildlife Department and production of CITES import permit.

CAUTION: Hunting of Markhor and Ibex is an extremely challenging sport and requires complete physical fitness and patience. The hunters should be prepared for rugged difficult slopes, extremely cold weather as well as irregular flights for Chitral. December and January are more suitable months for trophy hunt.

CHIEF CONSERVATOR WILDLIFE NWFP FOREST OFFICES, SHAMI ROAD, PESHAWAR – PAKISTAN

Trophy Hunting Quota for 2005-2006

Sr. Name of Province/Territory CITES Status Minimum Fee Quota Species (US$) 1. Markhor NWFP Appendix-I 25,000 04 (for Chitral and Kaigah) 2 Markhor Northern Areas Appendix-I 25,000 03 (for SKB, DMT and Bunji Areas) 3. Markhor Balochistan Appendix-I 25,000 05 (04 for Torghar area and 01 for *Takatoo) 4. Balochistan Balochistan Appendix-II 8,000 15 Urial (10 for Durreji and 05 for Torghar) 5. Punjab Urial Punjab Appendix-II 10,000 08 (04 for Kalabagh and 04 for Salt Ranges) 6. Himalayan Northern Areas Non CITES 2,000 30 Ibex 7. Himalayan NWFP Non CITES 2,000 10 Ibex 8. Sindh Goat/ Balochistan Non CITES 2,000 06 Sindh Ibex (for Durreji area) 9. **Sindh Goat/ Sindh Non CITES 2,000 10 Sindh Ibex (for areas where communities will be organized as CBO) 10. Blue Sheep Northern Areas Non CITES 5,000 02 (01 for KVO and 01 for Shimshal)

* Quota for Takatoo may be used in Torghar if not marketed. ** Quota for Sindh Goat for Sindh Province is subject to the development of community managed hunting program and conservation plan.