Jennifer R.B. Miller G.S. Rawat K. Ramesh
Pheasant Population Recovery as an Indicator of Biodiversity Conservation in the Great Himalayan National Park, India
Jennifer R.B. Miller U.S. Fulbright Scholar
Dr. G.S. Rawat Supervisor
Dr. K. Ramesh Co-Supervisor
October 2008
A research project funded by a United States Fulbright Scholarship in affiliation with The Wildlife Institute of India
Copyright © 2008 by Jennifer R.B. Miller
The Wildlife Institute of India, PO Box #18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248001,
Uttrakhand, India
Cover photographs: Mountain scene at Koilipoi camp, GHNP © Jennifer R.B. Miller;
Plumages of Western Tragopan, Himalayan Monal and Koklass Pheasant, modified from photos © John Corder
The authors welcome discussion on the data and conclusions in this report. Please contact [email protected] with your comments.
Suggested citation:
Miller, J.R.B., Rawat, G.S., and K. Ramesh. 2008. Pheasant population recovery as an indicator of biodiversity conservation in the Great Himalayan National Park, India.
Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ______i
LIST OF FIGURES ______ii
LIST OF PLATES ______iii
LIST OF APPENDICES ______iv
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ______v
ABSTRACT______1
1 INTRODUCTION______2
1.1 Human Exclusion as a Conservation Practice ______2
1.2 The Great Himalayan National Park (GHNP) as a Case Study ______3
1.3 Biodiversity Conservation Efforts in the Great Himalayan National Park ______4
1.4 The Need for Ecological Assessment ______9
1.5 Study Objectives ______11
2 METHODS______13
2.1 Design Overview ______13
2.2 Study Species ______13
2.3 Intensive Study Site ______15
2.4 Population Abundance Estimates______17
2.5 Interviews with Villagers and Park Officials______19
2.6 Analysis ______20
3 RESULTS ______22
3.1 Population Abundance Estimates______22
3.1.1 Overall Abundance ______22
3.1.2 Abundance by Transect______22
3.1.3 Abundance by Forest Type ______25
3.1.4 Abundance by Elevation Range ______25
3.2 Group Characteristics for Himalayan Monal______28
3.3 Call Frequency for Koklass Pheasant and Western Tragopan______30
3.4 Interviews______30
4 DISCUSSION ______33
4.1 Recovery of Pheasants and Park Biodiversity ______33
4.2 Causes of Recovery ______34
4.2.1 Impacts of the Ban on NTFP Collection______35
4.2.2 Impacts of the Declining Gucchii ______36
4.3 Management Recommendations ______37
4.4 Final Remarks ______41
5 REFERENCES ______42
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Characteristics of the sampling units used to estimate pheasant population
abundances ______16
Table 2. Mean and change in encounter rate before and after the ban on natural resource
harvesting in the Great Himalayan National Park ______24
Table 3. Male to female composition ratio of male-female combined groups ______29
Table 4. Encounter rates of Koklass Pheasant and Western Tragopan from comparable
studies______34
i LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location and composition of the Great Himalayan National Park______6
Figure 2. Map of the intensive study area in the Great Himalayan National Park _____ 16
Figure 3. Depiction of call count stations used to measure population abundances for
Koklass Pheasant and Western Tragopan ______19
Figure 4. Encounter rates before and after natural resource harvesting was banned____ 23
Figure 5. Encounter rates by forest type in 2008______26
Figure 6. Encounter rates by elevation range in 2008 ______27
Figure 7. Proportion of observations of Himalayan Monal in each elevation range ____ 28
Figure 8. Group characteristics of Himalayan Monal observed in 2008 ______29
Figure 9. Calling frequency of Koklass Pheasant and Western Tragopan in 2008 _____ 30
Figure 10. Buying price for dried gucchii over time in Gushani and Banjar ______31
ii LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1. Photographs of gucchii ______47
Plate 2. Photographs of study species ______48
Plate 3. Photographs of Kharongcha villagers______49
iii LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Data sheet for measuring population abundance of Himalayan Monal ___ 50
Appendix 2. Data sheet for transects ______51
Appendix 3. Data sheet for measuring population abundances of Koklass Pheasant and
Western Tragopan ______52
Appendix 4. Data sheet for call count stations______53
Appendix 5. Detailed descriptions of transect and call count stations______54
iv PROJECT BACKGROUND AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The seed behind this project was sown during my first visit to India as a second- year college student in 2006. On a visit to Corbett National Tiger Park with my father, I observed villages situated along the fringes of the protected area and head stories of the conflicts that exist between human and wildlife communities around and inside the park.
I had read about such places in National Geographic but actually seeing the struggle inspired me to make wildlife conservation my personal mission. Upon returning to my college two weeks later, I declared my major as Organismal Biology and dedicated my remaining time as an undergraduate to learning ecology.
Two years later as I prepared to graduate from college, my thoughts wandered back to my experience in Corbett and I began to search for a way to study conservation in the same region. I found my answer in the U.S. Fulbright Scholarship, a grant that would provide me with nine months of financial support to carry out research in India on a topic of my choice. A family friend helped me contact Mr. Payson Stevens, a prominent philanthropist in Himachal Pradesh and adviser to the Indian non-government organizations, My Himachal and Friends of GHNP. He recommended that I contact the
Director of the Great Himalayan National Park (GHNP), Mr. Sanjeeva Pandey, who in turn passed me along to Dr. G.S. Rawat of the Wildlife Institute of India. Dr. Rawat had been part of the 1994-1999 Forestry Research Education and Extension Project that gathered baseline data on the ecological and social environment of the park. He realized that I offered an ideal opportunity to collect follow-up data and we decided that I would collaborate with one of his previous students, Dr. K. Ramesh, who had carried out his
PhD dissertation research on pheasants in the Great Himalayan National Park. Our project proposal interwove themes of ecodevelopment, local villagers, biodiversity and
v conservation practices, and echoed of the issues I had witnessed in Corbett National Tiger
Park.
My work in the GHNP matured me as a scientist, conservationist and traveler.
Carrying out fieldwork in a remote area of a foreign country presented me with a variety of obstacles ranging from the scientific logistics of data collection to language and cultural barriers. I had never worked in a terrain as physically demanding as the Western
Himalayas, and conquering the mountains of my study area on a regular basis empowered me as no fieldwork had before. My field assistant, Pritam Singh, generously allowed me to reside in his home while resting from the field, and my days in Kharongcha provided me with invaluable insight into Himachal village culture and lifestyle. Living among the villagers personalized the rural people who were in conflict with the wildlife I had come to study and allowed me to view the system with greater sensitivity to all aspects of the ecosystem. I now appreciate aspects of the country that few foreigners and conservationists can observe and feel very fortunate for the time I spent in rural Himachal
Pradesh.
This project could not have occurred without the support of countless individuals.
First and foremost, I express my gratitude to the United States Department of State,
Institute of International Education, United States-India Educational Foundation and
Fulbright India office staff members for funding, organizing, coordinating and assisting my entire journey from the U.S. to India and back again. I am very grateful to Dr. Rawat and Dr. Ramesh for their abundant enthusiasm, astute guidance and endless patience. I extend my sincere thanks to the Director, Dean, faculty and staff of the Wildlife Institute and Dr. Vinay Tandon, Dr. Harsh Mitter and local forest staff of the Himachal and GHNP
Forest Departments for providing the resources, services and permissions that made my research possible. I could not have connected with such eminent biologists without the
vi aid of Mr. Payson Stevens and Mr. Sanjeeva Pandey. Much of the labor and logistics behind my research was coordinated and carried out by members of the local GHNP village community and my field assistants, Mr. Pritam Singh, Mr. Dhani Ram, Mr. Kapil
Dev, Mr. Duni Chand, Mr. Rit Ram, Mr. Lal Chand and Mr. Himat Ram.
Finally, I greatly acknowledge my friends at the Wildlife Institute of India and throughout India who welcomed me into their field stations, hostel rooms and homes, sitting with me for hours as we discussed the intricacies of Indian culture, language and conservation. Last but not least, I wish to thank my friends and family in the United
States who supported me during all stages of my Fulbright experience.
vii ABSTRACT
For the past two decades, the Great Himalayan National Park (GHNP) in Himachal
Pradesh has been the site of a series of conservation efforts utilizing societal development as a tool for protecting biodiversity. From 1994 to 1999, the Forest Department implemented an ecodevelopment program in and around the Ecodevelopment Zone of the GHNP. Subsequent final notification of the park generated a ban on extraction of non-timber forest products by the local people. While the social implications of these events have been examined at length, the ecological consequences have been poorly studied. To test whether the ban on natural resource collection in the GHNP impacted biodiversity, I compared the population abundances of Himalayan Monal (Lophophorus impejanus), Koklass Pheasant (Pucrasia macrolopha) and Western Tragopan (Tragopan melanocephalus) between 1998 and 2008.
Encounter rates collected with transect walks and call counts indicated that abundances for all three pheasant populations increased significantly over the ten years. Population recovery appears to have been stimulated by a reduction in human disturbance from the final notification ban and a natural decline in morel mushrooms (gucchii), a targeted non-timber forest product. Pheasant abundance is increasing although some people continue to extract natural resources in spite of the ban, suggesting that complete human exclusion may be neither achievable nor necessary in many remote protected areas, such as the GHNP. This report discusses how biodiversity conservation can accommodate multiple stakeholders through active regulation of natural resource use that involves mutual agreement with local communities. Finally, I make management recommendations for future conservation efforts in the park and the surrounding communities.
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Human Exclusion as a Conservation Practice
In India, where 64 percent of the rural population and 100 million tribes depend on nearby forests for livelihood and culture, community involvement is a vital component of environmental conservation (Lynch 1992, McNeely 1994, Hayes 2006). Yet the needs of people living in or near protected areas have often been suppressed in the rush to protect biodiversity. One hundred and three villages with 4,594 people have been relocated since the inception of Project Tiger in the early 1970’s with little actual reduction in the amount of human impact on the protected areas (Tiger Task Report 2005). The Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 forbids all settlements and natural resource harvesting inside a national park, yet at least three million people currently reside inside protected areas (Kothari & Patel 2006).
Although co-existence of people and wildlife is not always feasible (Tiger Task
Report 2005), complete human exclusion from rich wildlife areas is not unequivocally necessary. In landscapes with sparse human presence and/or long histories of inhabitation, communities have subsisted at sustainable levels and become integral components of the local ecology. These people claim, and some studies support, that they promote biodiversity by facilitating vegetation re-growth and succession and barring the entry of poachers (Negi et al. 1993, Chhatre & Saberwal 2006). Even in areas where humans have obvious and severe influences on their environment, ecosystems maintain an ecological threshold that marks a level of “tolerable” disturbance, beyond which human impact is no longer sustainable.
This report presents a case of ecological recovery in a national park where legal final notification reduced but did not eliminate environmental disturbance by local villagers. It is my hope that the study will lead the Indian Forest Department to re-evaluate the value of
2 mechanical human exclusion and instead tailor conservation strategies to compliment the unique needs and behaviors of the human communities surrounding each protected area.
1.2 The Great Himalayan National Park (GHNP) as a Case Study
Humans are the greatest threat to biodiversity in India. Even inside protected areas, species are vulnerable to a number of human pressures, including livestock grazing, fire, collection of medicinal herbs and other non-timber forest products (NTFPs), tourism, pilgrimage, developmental projects, poaching and illegal felling (Mathur et al. 2004). A range of political, financial and socio-economic factors inhibits the Indian Forest Department from fully mitigating these impacts (Badola 2000, Nangia and Kumar 2001, Baviskar 2003,
Chhatre 2003, Saberwal 2003, Chhatre and Saberwal 2005, Saberwal and Chhatre 2006,
Tiger Task Report 2005), generating inevitable decline for many sensitive species.
Excluding people from protected areas is currently believed to be the most effective method of reducing human-wildlife conflict. Consequentially, either villages are relocated or park borders are drawn around adjacent communities (Badola 1999, Tiger Task Force 2005,
Saberwal and Chhatre 2006). A third conservation strategy, ecodevelopment, has more recently gained popularity, supported by the increasing global recognition that biodiversity protection and human well-being share common goals that can be realized through the incorporation of ecosystem management and population development (Convention on
Biological Diversity 1992, Agrawal & Gibson 1999, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
2003). Beginning in the 1990’s, the Indian Forest Department introduced a wave of ecodevelopment efforts with the two-fold purpose of conserving biodiversity while enhancing economic progress in neighboring communities (Badola 2000).
One of the first ecodevelopment projects in India was implemented in the villages around the GHNP in Himachal Pradesh. The park was legally notified in the final year of the 3 project, banning all human settlement and natural resource collection inside its borders. This series of biodiversity conservation efforts attracted extensive international attention, generating analysis of the program from a variety of perspectives (Wildlife Institute of India
1999, Badola 2000, Nangia & Kumar 2001, Chhatre 2003, Misra & Gokhale 2003, Gouri et al. 2004, Chhatre & Saberwal 2005, Chhatre & Saberwal 2006, Saberwal & Chhatre 2006,
Pandey 2008).
The GHNP thus serves as an excellent site to study impacts of conservation practices on biodiversity because (1) baseline data exists on the socio-economic and biodiversity conditions in and around the park; (2) two of the three human-oriented conservation strategies of India have been carried out in the park; (3) ecodevelopment was followed by a ban on resource-use inside the park by people, providing a logical order of events in which villagers had both time and guidance to prepare for the transition; (4) over a decade has passed since the final notification and ban on natural resource collection, offering adequate time for strategies to take effect; and (5) the GHNP Forest Department faces many of the obstacles experienced in protected areas worldwide, offering a backdrop of common challenges to which managers in other countries can relate.
1.3 Biodiversity Conservation Efforts in the Great Himalayan National Park
The GHNP is located in the Kullu District of Himachal Pradesh, India. The national park covers 754.4 km2 and is adjacent to the Sainj Wildlife Sanctuary (90 km2), Tirthan
Wildlife Sanctuary (61 km2) and Ecodevelopment Zone (265.6 km2; Fig. 1). Together, the four areas form a 1,170 km2 contiguous stretch known as the Great Himalayan National Park
Conservation Area, which is interchangeably referred to as the GHNP. This area supports a rich biodiversity of flora and fauna characteristic of the Western Himalaya. Due to the large area of permanent snow, only 17 percent of the park is forested, consisting primarily of 4 Himalayan moist temperate forest, sub-alpine forest and alpine scrub (Champion & Seth
1968, Negi 1996). Prominent fauna include the threatened musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster), snow leopard (Uncia uncia) and the state bird of Himachal Pradesh, the
Western Tragopan (Tragopan melanocephalus). The park falls within one of the ICDP
Biodiversity Project Endemic Bird Areas of the World and contains a total of 203 identified bird species (International Council for Bird Preservation 1992, Wildlife Institute of India
1999). Pandey 2008 contains a vivid description of the past and current legal, political and socio-economic settings of the GHNP and its surrounding communities. Thus, I provide here only a brief background of conservation efforts in the park.
Villagers living around the GHNP have historically depended on natural resources in a sustainable manner, grazing their livestock and harvesting food, fodder and firewood in the forests (Tucker 1997). However, a growing demand for medicinal plants and morel mushrooms (Morchella esculenta) by expanding international commercial markets during the
1960’s led to a sudden increase in the collection of NTFPs. By 1997, villagers were earning
70 percent of their cash income from the extraction and sale of NTFPs, especially medicinal and aromatic plants from the GHNP premises (Tandon 1997). Recognizing the danger of unsustainable harvest on the local people and environment, the Indian government initiated ecodevelopment efforts in the communities around the park to lessen their dependency on the protected area.
5
Figure 1. Location and composition of the Great Himalayan National Park, including the intensive study area Source: Ramesh 2003.
6 Between 1994 and 1999, the Forest Department of Himachal Pradesh received a loan of US $1 million from the International Development Agency of the World Bank to fund the
Conservation of Biodiversity Project in the Ecodevelopment Zone of the GHNP. The
Ecodevelopment Zone contains 127 villages and 14,000 people historically dependent on natural resources inside park borders (Pandey 2004, Mathur et al. 2004). Under this program, the management authorities of GHNP organized microplan units called Village
Ecodevelopment Committees, in which forest officials collaborated with local villagers to assess community needs and implement ecodevelopment projects. The Forest Department also initiated Women Saving and Credit Groups and a conservation-awareness street theatre group. Stakeholders were educated about alternative forms of income generation, such as vermi-composting, organic farming, medicinal plant cultivation, seed oil extraction, souvenir crafts and ecotourism (Pandey 2008). Simultaneously, the program supported a massive collaboration between Indian and international scientists to gather baseline on the biological and social environment in the GHNP and the surrounding communities (see Wildlife Institute of India 1999). Many components of the ecodevelopment program ended with the project’s conclusion in 1999, and only the Women Saving and Credit Groups, education campaigns and ecotourism efforts continue to exist today. They are now jointly supervised by the GHNP
Forest Department and a non-government organization called the Society for Advancement of Hill and Rural Areas (SAHARA).
The Forest Department instated a ban on extraction of all NTFPs from the park immediately following the termination of the ecodevelopment program. Although the
Himachal Government declared the designation of GHNP on 1 March 1984, legal status was not constituted until 28 May 1999. As per the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972, all consumptive use of biomass within the park was subsequently forbidden and monetary
7 compensation was provided to individuals who had written rights in the historic Settlement
Report of the area (Pandey 2004).
Angered by the sudden restrictions to the resources of the GHNP, many of the local people protested final notification by destroying park properties such as bridges, inspection huts and rest houses. This was a severe blow to the park’s infrastructure and the Forest
Department is still in the process of rebuilding these structures (Brockington & Igoe 2006, author’s personal observation). Since 1999, villagers have continued to petition in less confrontational ways by requesting politicians to reinstate their rights in the park in exchange for election votes (Baviskar 2003, Chhatre & Saberwal 2005). The Forest Department lacks the necessary funds and manpower to coordinate consistent enforcement of the law against
NTFP collection, further amplifying poor relations between forest officials and village people. The few forest guards that patrol the park often lack personal motivation and thus overlook the violation of legislation, turning a blind eye to intruders (Nangia & Kumar 2001,
Saberwal 2003).
Throughout history, many protected areas have first closed their borders to adjacent communities and only later implemented ecodevelopment projects to help the affected people adapt their lifestyles and livelihoods. This model denies villagers their basic source of sustenance, livelihood and tradition without offering them an alternative, perpetuating their poverty and enflaming their relations with park authorities. In contrast, management in the
GHNP applied a reverse series of events, in which final notification of the park excluded natural resource use after ecodevelopment had been initiated. This order of “education first, application second” theoretically creates a smoother transition for the villagers and provides an ideal scenario from which we can study the effects of these interventions (ecodevelopment and exclusion) on the biodiversity value of the managed system.
8 1.4 The Need for Ecological Assessment
While the social and economic implications of the park management have been discussed at length (Wildlife Institute of India 1999, Badola 2000, Nangia & Kumar 2001,
Chhatre 2003, Misra & Gokhale 2003, Gouri et al. 2004, Chhatre & Saberwal 2005, Chhatre
& Saberwal 2006, Saberwal & Chhatre 2006, Pandey 2008), its impacts on the ecosystem had yet to be assessed before this report. An evaluation of the environmental response was needed to comprehensively determine the effects of ecodevelopment and exclusionary legislations in the GHNP and to offer lessons to the world at large.
This study attempts to assess the ecological response to final notification of the
GHNP and subsequent ban on extraction of NTFPs and livestock grazing in the GHNP. To sense changes in faunal populations, I compared abundances of the Himalayan Monal
(Lophophorus impejanus), Koklass Pheasant (Pucrasia macrolopha) and Western Tragopan
(Tragopan melanocephalus) as bioindicators before and ten years after the ban on biomass extraction. Time restrictions and language barriers prevented me from surveying the local communities around the GHNP to investigate the long-term impacts of the ecodevelopment program, and data from this study can only offer insight on the impacts of final notification.
Additional research is required to target questions of socio-economic progress and accurately determine how the ecodevelopment program of the 1990’s continues to influence local people today.
Pheasants are ideal indicators for biodiversity because they are extremely sensitivity to human exploitation (Fuller & Garson 2000, Nawaz & Malik 2000). Their omnivorous diets and preference of a variety of forest types and undergrowth patches make them highly responsive to habitat degradation (McGowan & Gillman 1997, Devictor et al. 2008).
Pheasants are also an important prey base for raptors and mammalian predators, causing shifts in their population abundances to directly impact higher trophic levels. The distinct 9 markings and colorful feathers of the birds have made them a central figure in traditional decorations and conservation awareness materials, establishing them as flagship species and cultural keystones recognized and appreciated by both native people and the mainstream public (Kumar et al. 1997, Nawaz & Malik 2000). Finally, pheasants can be effectively sampled during the breeding season, when males are audibly and visibly apparent as they attempt to attract mates.
The GHNP contains five pheasant species (Ramesh et al. 1999), of which the
Himalayan Monal, Koklass Pheasant and Western Tragopan were chosen for this study. All three species have overlapping elevation and habitat niches in the upper temperate forests, offering a perspective on biodiversity responses in an array of habitats. The appropriate sampling techniques (transect walks and call counts) also permit data collection for all three species within a single morning, enabling efficient sampling with limited effort.
Natural resource extraction and human-wildlife interface issues are significant in the pheasants’ habitats. Previous research suggested that the increasing demand for NTFPs by expanding commercial markets had led to unsustainable pressure on their habitats and caused a decline in pheasant populations within the GHNP (Gaston & Garsen 1992, Ramesh et al.
1999). The largest decreases in population abundances of Himalayan Monal, Koklass
Pheasant and Western Tragopan were most recently noticed during a study conducted between 1997 and 1999 and largely attributed to human disturbance associated with the collection of morel mushrooms, more popularly known as gucchii by Himachal locals
(Ramesh et al. 1999; Plate 1). These three species are particularly sensitive to this activity because their breeding seasons overlap the March-May period when mushrooms are gathered
(Ramesh 2003). As people scour the forest floor for the inconspicuous mushroom, they destroy nests, consume eggs, trample habitat and invertebrate prey and permit their domestic dogs to chase and predate upon the birds. In 2008, dried gucchii were sold for Rs. 10,000 (US 10 $230) per kilogram in local markets around the GHNP (author’s personal observation) and were considered a subsidiary source of income for at least 54 percent of households located at the periphery of the park (Pisharoti 2008). Although banned in 1982, poaching is also still believed to impact pheasant populations (Tucker 1997). A recent survey found that pheasants were hunted in as many as 83 percent of the 75 villages sampled around the GHNP, with offtake rates per hunting household of approximately one Himalayan Monal and Western
Tragopan and eight Koklass Pheasants per year (Kaul 2004).
1.5 Study Objectives
The primary goal of this study was to assess the ecological impact of the 1999 final notification of GHNP and resulting ban on biomass extraction, using pheasants as an indicator taxon for the status of the overall biodiversity in the park. This broad goal was focused through specific objectives:
• Determine the current status of pheasant populations, and compare pheasant
abundances in 2008 to abundances in 1998.
• Evaluate how the ban has affected local peoples’ behavior with regards to collection
of NTFPs.
• Sense how changes in the amount of NTFP collection has impacted pheasant
abundance.
This report presents the study’s findings on how populations of the Himalayan Monal,
Koklass Pheasant and Western Tragopan have responded to final notification and the ban in the Tirthan Valley area of the GHNP. I draw correlations between changes in population abundances and the reduction in human disturbance following the ban on natural resource utilization. My results indicate that population recovery in the GHNP may be occurring despite a low level of continued human disturbance, suggesting that biodiversity conservation 11 in some protected areas may permit a more lenient and inclusive management approach than complete human exclusion. Finally, I make suggestions for future research and monitoring efforts that could be initiated to more deeply understand the impacts of both final notification and ecodevelopment on the GHNP social and ecological system.
12 2 METHODS
2.1 Design Overview
I compared pheasant population abundance estimates between springs 1997-1999 and spring 2008, framing the 1999 ban on NTFP collection as the experimental treatment. Data from 1997-1999 was taken from a study on pheasant ecology conducted in the park by
Ramesh et al. (1999). I collected data during 2008 according to the sampling design in
Ramesh et al. 1999 to enable direct comparison between years. Data collection during both periods was carried out during the peak of breeding season in April and May, when pheasants occupy the full range of their natural habitats. In addition to sampling pheasants, I also interviewed villagers and park officials to sense the amount of natural resource harvesting within the GHNP over time.
Ramesh et al. (1999) recorded the lowest pheasant abundances during 1998, and data from this year was utilized for direct comparison to 2008 abundances to illustrate the greatest potential impact of final notification. Data from the full span of 1997-1999 was used to comment on pheasant habitat and elevation preferences, since the larger sample size offered more profound insight on the birds’ behaviors.
2.2 Study Species
The Himalayan Monal is perhaps the most well recognized pheasant species of the
Western Himalaya (Plate 2a). The male’s brilliant, rainbow-colored plumage and importance to Himachal folklore (Delacour 1977) have contributed to the species’ high status as the national bird of Nepal and the state bird of Uttarakhand, India. Although well established in the GHNP, the Monal is declared a protected species under the Indian Wildlife (Protection)
Act of 1972 because of habitat degradation and hunting pressure throughout its range.
Hunting has decreased substantially since made illegal in Himachal during 1982 (Tucker 13 1997), but the male Monal continues to be targeted by poachers for its crest feather, which
Himachal village men use to ornament their ceremonial hats (Kumar et al. 1997, Ramesh
2003). The Himalayan Monal ranges from eastern Afghanistan through the Himalayan areas of Pakistan, India, Nepal, Southern Tibet and Bhutan and favors upper temperate oak and conifer forests scattered with open grassy slopes, cliffs and alpine meadows between 2,500 m and 4,500 m (Johnsguard 1986, Ramesh 2003).
In contrast to the Monal, little is known about the Koklass Pheasant due to its skulking behavior (Plate 2b). The species is found in temperate broadleaf, conifer and sub- alpine oak forests with dense undergrowth between 2,100 m and 3,300 m from Afghanistan to central Nepal and northeastern Tibet to northern and eastern China (Johnsgard 1986,
Grimmett et al. 1998). The bird is believed to have a large global population size and is currently ranked by the IUCN as a species of least conservation concern (2007).
With less than 5,000 individuals in the world, the Western Tragopan is considered the rarest pheasant in the world (IUCN 2007; Plate 2c). Its narrow endemic range extends from
Hazara in northern Pakistan through the states of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and the western part of Garhwal in India (Johnsguard 1986, Grimmett et al. 1998). The species favors broadleaf and coniferous forests with thick undergrowth and bamboo between 2,000 m and 3,000 m in winter. The species was recently announced the state bird of Himachal
Pradesh and is listed as vulnerable on the IUCN 2007 Red List and in Appendix 1 of CITES and Schedule I the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972.
14 2.3 Intensive Study Site
I measured pheasant abundances along trails within a 16 km2 intensive study site in
Tirthan Valley of the GHNP (Fig. 2). Reconnaissance surveys and previous research carried out by Ramesh et al. (1999) indicated that the site supported a substantial population of the study species. With elevations between 1,890 m and 3,710 m and several different forest types (Table 1), the area represents a wide range of habitat composition and topography. The site also lies within close proximity of the Ecodevelopment Zone and was frequented by villagers collecting mushrooms and grazing their livestock prior to final notification. These factors make the study area an excellent location to evaluate human impacts on the ecosystem.
15
Figure 2. Map of the intensive study area in the Great Himalayan National Park, Transects are represented by “T” and call count stations with “C”. Map by K. Ramesh.
Table 1. Characteristics of the sampling units used to estimate pheasant population abundances.
Transecta Sampling Transect Dominant forest Elevation unitsb length (km) type range (m) Rolla-Dulunga T1, C1, C2c 1.0 Broadleaf 2290-2640
Dulunga- T2, C3, C4 1.0 Mixed broadleaf 2700-2770
Grahani and conifer
Shilt-Chorduar T3, C5, C6 1.2 Mixed broadleaf 2900-2920
and conifer
Shilt-Dara T4 0.7 Sub-alpine oak 2900-3010
Rolla-Basu T5, C7, C8 1.0 Conifer 2420-2655
Basu-Koilipoi T6, C9, C10 1.0 Conifer 2710-2870 aTransect names reflect the campsite or village located on either end of the footpath. bT=transect; C=call count station. cC2 was used by Ramesh et al. (1999) but was not utilized in the current study.
16
2.4 Population Abundance Estimates
Pheasant abundances were estimated based on a systematic design appropriate to each species’ behavior. I sampled Himalayan Monal with transect walks because the species frequently flushes along trails but calls sporadically during the day (Kaul & Shakya 2001). In contrast, Koklass Pheasant and Western Tragopan are elusive and elicit audible breeding calls at dawn from April to May; hence, call count is a more effective method for measuring population abundance of these species (Ramesh 2003).
I sampled six transects and ten call count stations twice per month during April and
May, generating four pseudo-replicates of each. Additional repeat measurements were not possible due to the limited period of breeding season. Ramesh et al. (1999) had designated transects as portions of pre-existing footpaths since the inaccessibility of the rough terrain and dense forest made random selection of transects and stations inefficient. The selected paths varied in length from 0.7 km to 1.2 km and were located among an assortment of habitat types and elevations, with each transect and call count station positioned to represent a single dominating forest type (Table 1; see Appendices 2 and 4 for data sheets). Fixed widths were not employed, but birds were counted only if they could be visually observed when flushing. Vegetation density was observed to be consistent enough between 1997-1999 and 2008 to prevent differences in sighting ability. I recorded weather conditions (wind intensity, precipitation, cloud cover and temperature) during each transect walk and call count. I avoided sampling pheasants in adverse weather such as thick fog, heavy rainfall or strong winds because these conditions are thought to alter normal pheasant activity and/or obscure observers’ ability to accurately measure bird presence (Khaling et al. 2002).
I walked transects in the mornings before 10:00 am, before Monals left their roosting sites for the day. This timing allowed me to sample abundance in habitat that is critical for
17 pheasant survival. Sampling in the morning additionally lowered the chances that villagers and tourists would flush the birds when they occasionally traversed the trails. For each encounter of Monal, I recorded data on sex, sighting angle, sighting distance, time and latitude/longitude location (see Appendix 1 for data sheet). Walking pace was standardized to reduce irregularities in sampling effort and abundance estimates.
I conducted call counts of Koklass Pheasant and Western Tragopan from call stations, which were fixed circular areas with 300 m listening radii (Fig. 3). Each trail contained one or two stations positioned 500 m apart to avoid listening overlap between observers. My field assistants and I sampled two call stations on each morning, with one observer measuring from each station. On the morning of sampling, observers positioned themselves at the stations 15 minutes before first light to minimize disturbance of the pheasants (arrival time at the station changed with seasonal lighting shifts and ranged from 5:30 am in early April to
4:15 am by late May). Observers began sampling at the first audible call and ended one hour after sunrise, which K. Ramesh and I determined to be the most effective period for measuring both Koklass Pheasant and Western Tragopan. Each call was recorded with respect to species, time, distance and cardinal direction (see Appendix 3 for data sheet). After sampling, observers compared the time and direction of calls to eliminate multiple accounts of the same bird from different stations.
18
Figure 3. Depiction of call count stations used to measure population abundances for Koklass Pheasant and Western Tragopan. Source: Ramesh 2003.
2.5 Interviews with Villagers and Park Officials
I interviewed villagers and GHNP Forest Department officials to sense local opinions on pheasant conservation and harvesting of gucchii from the park. The villagers I interviewed were predominantly residents of Kharongcha, Dingcha, Ropa and Gushaini. These villages belong to a cluster located closest to the GHNP Tirthan Valley entry gate and their residents have the most access to NTFPs in the park. Officials were forest guards and their assistants
(watchers) stationed at the entry gate and Sai Ropa Community Training and Tourist Center.
Information on the market value of gucchii between 1998 and 2008 was collected from my assistant, Pritam Singh, who is well informed about mushroom collection in the area. Pritam gave confident estimates of the average buying price for 2004-2007, but could not clearly recall values for years prior to 2004.
Interviews were formatted as informal conversations and were not structured as surveys. Because most villagers spoke either Hindi or a local language, my assistant, Pritam
Singh, translated most conversations into English. To reduce the risk of biased translation, I
19 repeated the same questions to various people, including English-speakers, and interpreted an overall sentiment from the responses I received.
2.6 Analysis
I calculated Himalayan Monal and Koklass Pheasant abundances using data from
April and May 1998 and 2008, since the breeding behaviors of these species remained constant during both months. Western Tragopans emitted calls predominantly during May due to a later breeding season, and I consequently restricted calculations of Tragopan abundance to May observations so as to reflect their peak calling period and avoid timing bias.
I calculated an encounter rate for each pseudo-replicate by dividing the number of birds observed by distance (transect walks) or station (call counts). The arithmetic mean for each transects or call station was pooled to calculate the mean encounter rate and standard deviation for 1998 and 2008. I checked for the normality of the data and appropriately tested for statistical differences between years with the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test (Monal transect walks) and Paired Samples t-Test (Koklass Pheasant call counts) using SPSS 16.0 for
Mac. These tests were conducted only on data collected in sampling units common to both
1998 and 2008 (n = 9 stations, 6 transects) in order to account for statistical and biological validity. No statistical tests were performed to analyze Western Tragopan encounter rates due to a dearth of positive records during the initial study year (1998), and because direct comparison was sufficient to detect variation in the abundance.
Encounter rates were also organized by transect, forest type and elevation ranges
(based on the distribution of transects where data was collected) to detect differences among these factors for all species. Finally, the group characteristics of Himalayan Monals were
20 investigated by compiling observations from transect walks and opportunistic sightings and calculating distributions of group size and sex composition.
21 3 RESULTS
3.1 Population Abundance Estimates
3.1.1 Overall Abundance
Population abundances for all three pheasant species show large recovery over the ten-year period. Himalayan Monal encounter rates tripled from 2.2 ± 1.1 birds/km in 1998 to
6.1 ± 3.0 birds/km in 2008 with a significant increase of 3.9 birds/km (z = -2.86, p < 0.005, n
= 24; Fig. 4a). Encounter rates for the Koklass Pheasant also tripled from 3.2 ± 1.2 birds/station to 10.9 ± 2.9 birds/station, a rise of 7.7 birds/ station (t = -11.5, df = 35, p <
0.0001; Fig. 4b). The abundance of Western Tragopan increased from 0.2 ± 0.0 birds/station to 3.2 ± 1.4 birds/station, or 3.0 birds/station, an encounter rate 16 times greater than the 1998 value (Fig. 4c). Although no statistical tests were conducted to confirm differences between
1998 and 2008 abundances for Western Tragopan, the distance between 95% confidence intervals strongly suggests the validity of these contrasting values.
3.1.2 Abundance by Transect
For Koklass Pheasant, increases in population abundance were evenly distributed throughout the intensive study site (Table 2b); however, this was not the case for all pheasant species. Himalayan Monal abundance increased dramatically along the Shilt-Chorduar and
Basu-Koilipoi transects (Table 2a), while Western Tragopan abundance rose substantially only along the Shilt-Chorduar transect (Table 2c).
22
Figure 4. Encounter rates before (1998) and after (2008) natural resource harvesting was banned, for (a) Himalayan Monal (n=6); (b) Koklass Pheasant (n=9); and (c) Western Tragopan (n=9). Y-bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. 23 Table 2. Mean (± SE) and change in encounter rate before (1997-1999) and after (2008) the ban on natural resource harvesting in the Great Himalayan National Park for (a) Himalayan Monal; (b) Koklass Pheasant; and (c) Western Tragopan.
Transect Encounter rate in birds/km (Monal) or birds/station (Koklass and Tragopan)
1997-19991 2008 Change from 1997-1999 to 2008 Himalayan Koklass Western Himalayan Koklass Western Himalayan Koklass Western
Monal Pheasant Tragopan Monal4 Pheasant Tragopan Monal Pheasant Tragopan
Rolla-Dulunga 0.8 ± 0.3 1.2 ± 0.3 0.0 0.8 ± 0.3 9.3 ± 0.34 0.02 0.0 8.1 0.0
Dulunga-Grahani 2.4 ± 0.5 0.2 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.2 3.0 ± 0.7 10.0 ± 1.24 1.5 ± 2.13 0.6 9.8 1.1
Shilt-Chorduar 3.9 ± 0.5 1.2 ± 0.3 0.0 10.6 ± 2.3 8.6 ± 0.66 4.5 ± 0.73 6.7 7.4 4.5
Shilt-Daran 2.5 ± 0.6 0.7 ± 0.2 0.4 ± 0.1 2.5 ± 0.9 9.0 ± 0.74 0.02 0.0 8.3 -0.4
Rolla-Basu 1.5 ± 0.8 0.3 ± 0.1 0.0 2.0 ± 0.7 7.6 ± 1.36 0.8 ± 0.85 0.5 7.3 0.8
Basu-Koilipoi 1.4 ± 0.4 0.4 ± 0.2 0.2 ± 0.1 8.5 ± 2.5 6.0 ± 1.36 1.5 ± 0.65 7.1 5.6 2.3
1Pooled mean between years, n=11 (Ramesh 2003) 4Arithmetic mean, n=4 2Arithmetic mean, n=1 5Arithmetic mean, n=6 3Arithmetic mean, n=2 6Arithmetic mean, n=8
24 3.1.3 Abundance by Forest Type
No substantial species-specific differences in encounter rates occurred between forest types (Fig. 5). All three species are known to inhabit the four forest types sampled in this study (except for Western Tragopan, which does not favor broadleaf forest, as is indicated by the lack of sightings in broadleaf forest). The overlapping standard errors may confirm that the pheasants indeed do not show large preferences for one forest type over another.
However, the extremely small sample size (n=1 for broadleaf and oak and n=2 for mixed broadleaf and conifer and conifer) makes comparison between the groups unsubstantiated and it is impossible to confidently draw conclusions from the data set.
3.1.4 Abundance by Elevation Range
Comparisons of encounter rates between three elevation ranges showed that most pheasant species preferred higher elevations. Higher population abundances were measured for both Himalayan Monal and Western Tragopan, with no differences arising between the
2700-2900m and 2900-3000m ranges (Fig. 6a, 6b). However, a greater proportion of
Himalayan Monal sightings were observed in the highest elevation range, suggesting that the species may more commonly frequent upper elevations (Fig. 7). Abundances of Koklass
Pheasant were equally distributed among all three ranges (Fig. 6b).
25
Figure 5. Encounter rates by forest type in 2008 for (a) Himalayan Monal; (b) Koklass Pheasant; and (c) Western Tragopan. Y-bars indicate standard error. 26
Figure 6. Encounter rates by elevation range in 2008 for (a) Himalayan Monal (n=2); (b) Koklass Pheasant; and (c) Western Tragopan. Y-bars indicate standard error. 27
Figure 7. Proportion of observations of Himalayan Monal in each elevation range, including both opportunistic and transect observations (n=137).
3.2 Group Characteristics for Himalayan Monal
Analysis of Himalayan Monal group characteristics indicated that most birds sighted were either alone or in pairs (Fig. 8). Very few groups contained more than 4 individuals, a result consistent with the findings of Ramesh (2003). Both males and females were most commonly seen alone, and I observed approximately an equal number of single males and females (n=25 and n=20, respectively). Of the male-female combined groups that I observed, sexes were most often present in equal proportions or with a higher number of females (Table
3).
28
Figure 8. Group characteristics of Himalayan Monal observed in 2008 (n=137) for group size distribution (top) and sex composition (bottom). Columns illustrate the number of groups and diamonds represent the mean group size. Y-bars indicate standard deviation.
Table 3. Male to female composition ratio of observed male-female combined groups (n=9).
Male:Female Composition Number of groups
1:1 5
1:2 1
2:2 2
2:5 1
29 3.3 Call Frequency for Koklass Pheasant and Western Tragopan
A comparison of calling frequency against time between Koklass Pheasant and
Western Tragopan indicated that Tragopan initiated calling as much as 30 minutes before
Koklass, while Koklass Pheasant continued calling well after Western Tragopan had finished
(Fig. 9). Out of the sampled time, both birds called for 60 minutes with 30 minutes of this period overlapping and a simultaneous peak calling time of 5:00-5:14 am. Males from the two species appear to be utilizing different time periods, perhaps as an evolved strategy to maximize their chances of being heard.
Figure 9. Calling frequency of Koklass Pheasant (black bars, n=335) and Western Tragopan (light bars, n=44) across sampled times in April and May 2008.
3.4 Interviews
Interviews with villagers in the Ecodevelopment Zone indicated that the number of people collecting gucchii has been steadily declining since the ban on collection was imposed with final notification in 1999. Some people cited the park restriction as a primary reason for ending their collection, but many more complained that a decreasing availability of gucchii in the forest has made collection unsustainable. Consequentially, collectors either dedicate more effort and time in the forests with lower productivity or abandon collection altogether in 30
Figure 10. Buying price for dried gucchii (morel mushrooms) over time in Gushani and Banjar, two towns located in the Tirthan Valley close to the Great Himalayan National Park. Sources: Ramesh 2005 (1994-1998) and current study (2004-2008).
favor of agriculture or work in nearby towns. The latter option does not seem to be a favorable or convenient one, as men from the most rural villages such as Kharongcha or
Dingcha would be forced to either commute two hours each day or live away from their families in order to work in town. I also heard several men express frustration over the shortage of available day jobs in the nearby cities (Gushani and Banjar), raising the question of whether the current job market can even withstand a surge of new workers.
In response to a falling supply of gucchii, middlemen have been raising their buying price on a yearly basis. The market buying price for one kilogram of dried gucchii steadily increased in value from Rs. 900 (US $20) in 1994 (Ramesh et al. 2005) to Rs. 10,000 (US
$230) in 2008 (author’s personal observation; Fig. 10). It seems as though the high price of the mushroom tends to motivate collection by people who are especially poor (often defined by the villagers as owning no land) or have extra time to dedicate to collection (i.e. they are otherwise unemployed or have enough income to afford the time). Although gucchii continue
31 to be a targeted NTFP, people are increasingly reducing their dependence on park resources in favor of other, more dependable sources of income.
32 4 DISCUSSION
4.1 Recovery of Pheasants and Park Biodiversity
The results of this study indicate that abundances of Himalayan Monal, Koklass
Pheasant and Western Tragopan have increased significantly since livestock grazing and the collection of NFTPs were banned in the GHNP. In the years immediately prior to final notification (1997-1999) during the formative period of ecodevelopment, the pheasant populations showed decline in response to human activities in their habitats (Ramesh et al.
2005). The recent reduction in human disturbance appears to have caused the populations to rapidly recover, indicating high species sensitivity to disturbance.
This finding is consistent with the conclusions of previous studies on species responses to reduced human disturbance (Madhusudan 2004, Harihar et al. 2008).
Additionally, a previous study measuring abundances of the Satyr Tragopan (Tragopan satyra) and Koklass Pheasant in comparable vegetation types with less human disturbance measured encounter rates ranging from 5.0 to 7.0 birds/station and 4.2 to 5.7 birds/station, respectively (Kaul & Shakya 2001). The close resemblance to the data of the current study
(Table 4) suggests that populations of Western Tragopan and Koklass Pheasant in the GHNP may be approaching more natural abundances than recorded in the past.
As indicator species, the Himalayan Monal, Koklass Pheasant and Western Tragopan may reflect the conservation status of temperate forest ecosystems of the Western Himalaya.
The three pheasant species inhabit a variety of vegetation types between 2,000 m and 4,500 m ranging from upper temperate broadleaf, conifer and sub-alpine oak forests to dense undergrowth of bamboo and alpine scrub, to open grassy meadows and slopes, to barren cliff sides (Ramesh 2003). The increased abundances of these species suggest that these habitats in the GHNP may also be quickly recovering. Several mammalian species share the
33 pheasants’ habitats, including prominent species such as goral (Nemorhaedus goral),
Himalayan tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus), Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus), Himalayan brown bear (Ursus arctos), common leopard (Panthera pardus), red giant flying squirrel
(Petaurista petaurista) and yellow-throated marten (Martes flavigula). Populations of these species are also likely to benefit from improved habitat quality as a result of lower human disturbance.
Table 4. Encounter rates of Koklass Pheasant and Western Tragopan from comparable studies.
Pheasant Encounter rates by source (birds/station)
Ramesh et al. 1999 Current study Kaul & Shakya 2001
Koklass Pheasant 3.2 ± 1.2 10.9 ± 2.9 4.2 to 5.7
Western Tragopan 0.2 ± 0.0 3.2 ± 1.4 Not measured
Satyr Tragopan Not measured Not measured 5.0 to 7.0
4.2 Causes of Recovery
Evidence suggests that the recovery of habitat conditions in parts of the GHNP has been stimulated by a reduction in human pressure. Based on my observations in the field, I attribute changes in human behavior to two possible influences:
(1) The ban on livestock grazing and collection of NTFPs resulting from final notification, and
(2) The decline in abundance of gucchii in the GHNP forests.
34 4.2.1 Impacts of the Ban on NTFP Collection
There is no doubt that the ban on natural resource collection has reduced human presence in the GHNP. In my interviews, several local people stated that park restrictions had deterred them from collecting mushrooms and grazing livestock. Comparisons between my observations of human presence in the park with K. Ramesh’s reflect these statements. In
1998, K. Ramesh observed groups with as many as 50 people entering the GHNP on a single day to collect mushroom, yet the biggest group I observed in 2008 consisted of no more than
20 individuals. I also observed an absence of domestic dogs in the park during 2008, whereas villagers had previously brought their dogs for protection against wild animals (Ramesh et al.
2005). This change would reduce disturbances to breeding pheasants and may reflect villagers’ attempts to lessen their visibility while collecting NTFPs within the GHNP.
Although slack in enforcing restrictions on NFTP collection, the Forest Department appears to actively prevent livestock grazing in the park. In a survey of select villages in the
Tirthan Valley, 10 percent of all households said they no longer graze their livestock inside the GHNP and 22.7 percent of these cited park restrictions as the primary reason for their shift (Pisharoti 2008). Some villagers reported confrontations with forest guards in which they were repetitively blocked from passing through the entry gate with livestock. One man mentioned that the Forest Department had filed a law case against several shepherds, although I could not locate documentation to confirm legal action. Regardless, the rumor seems to have intimidated many villagers and prevented them from attempting to graze livestock in the park.
Income from alternative livelihoods may also have decreased human pressure on pheasant habitat. The organization SAHARA recruits program participants from families known to collect natural resources in the GHNP (Pandey 2008). Approximately 800 women from these households now participate in Women’s Saving and Credit Groups. Many of the 35 men work as porters, cooks and guides for SAHARA’s ecotourism group, which provides them with decent wages and a distraction during the gucchii harvest season. My only observations of lingering ecodevelopment influences were several ecotourist groups led by
SAHARA employees that I encountered in the GHNP. Further research is necessary to determine whether these supplemental incomes reduce families’ dependence on natural resources.
4.2.2 Impacts of the Declining Gucchii
Final notification of the GHNP occurred just as the gucchii population began to decline, making it challenging to deduce which of these two factors had a greater impact on ecological conservation. An especially poor mushroom harvest that occurred between April and June 1999 led to low human activity during this year (K.R.’s personal observation), making it virtually impossible to judge the immediate impact of the ban in May 1999.
However, my interviews and observations, as well as the drastic price rise of gucchii in the local market, are signs that fewer villagers may have collected mushroom in 2008 than 1998.
A reduction in the number of people gathering mushrooms would likely stimulate environmental restoration because collection causes extensive disturbance. Gucchii are small, cream-colored fungi that typically grow on the ground around fallen trees. Their camouflaged appearance makes them difficult to locate, forcing collectors to stray from park trails and trample vegetation as they meticulously scour the forest floor. Villagers living in the Tirthan
Valley are also incredibly resourceful and tend to gather a plethora of natural products whenever they are in the forest. I observed villagers collecting feathers, bamboo, wood, fruits, vegetables, herbs and even trash that they found in the park. Reducing this impact would certainly lessen the impact on the ecosystem.
36 4.3 Management Recommendations
It is highly probable that the increases in pheasant abundance are not due to park restrictions or mushroom decline alone, but rather to a combination of the two factors.
Although the GHNP is legally closed to collection of biomass, in reality villagers continue to pressure the habitat, although in lesser degree. Yet despite the continued disturbance, pheasant populations no longer appear to be declining. A threshold may have been crossed, reestablishing a balance in the system and allowing villagers and pheasants to again coexist.
The data of this study are too preliminary to make strong conclusions and thus additional research is needed to determine whether the system is sustainable.
With this in mind, I suggest the following recommendations for future management in the GHNP:
1. Regulate Rather Than Remove Villagers
The equilibrium indicates that regulation rather than elimination of people’s activities may be a plausible compromise for conservation in the GHNP. The management must ensure that this transformation is stable enough to survive considerable changes in the system, such as an exceptionally high annual yield of mushroom or a lack of alternative sources of income.
One potential regulation scheme could be to distribute complimentary permits for mushroom collection within the buffer forests and adjacent sanctuaries. This would track and control human presence during critical months for threatened fauna, such as the May-June breeding season for the Western Tragopan. In addition to conserving habitat, this action would strengthen the trust between the Forest Department and villagers by formally recognizing local people’s needs and the environment’s ability to accommodate some level of human disturbance.
37 Although many challenges would accompany active regulation, its attainment is not inconceivable. Forest guards will need to be personally motivated to carry out their duties, since frontline presence is directly correlated to the effectiveness of a management program
(Brunner et al. 2001). The Forest Department in Himachal Pradesh has already taken a significant step towards solving this problem. They recently hired and trained new wildlife guards who have accomplished high levels of education, many of them with postgraduate degrees in biology. These individuals are apt to infuse the Department force with knowledge, fresh perspectives and self-initiated passion for conservation.
2. Initiate Ecological and Social Monitoring and Research
As suggested in this case, frequent monitoring efforts are another simple yet essential component of evaluating the success of park management. In my study, the timing of final notification created an ideal yet unintentional experimental circumstance. Yet this report examines only one ecological component (pheasants) of a complex system, and the current dearth of monitoring data has prevented a comprehensive evaluation of the biological and sociological responses to both final notification and ecodevelopment. Monitoring programs aimed at vital ecological and sociological issues can help protected area managers remain aware of the conditions in their areas and maintain a realistic understanding of the relationship between local communities and biodiversity.
The GHNP authorities have already planned a Long Term Monitoring Project and this effort should be consistently carried out. Ecotourist groups led by SAHARA could collect or comment on ecological conditions, with the benefit of simultaneously supplementing regular monitoring data and educating tourists.
I also suggest continued monitoring of the Tirthan Valley populations of Himalayan
Monal, Koklass Pheasant and Western Tragopan. The research conducted by K. Ramesh 38 (Ramesh et al. 1999, Ramesh 2003, Ramesh 2005) and myself (current study) provide population abundance estimates from 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2008, thus providing an excellent beginning to a longer monitoring project of pheasants in the GHNP. At the end of this report,
I include a detailed description of my sampling units for future data collection (Appendix 5).
Although both K. Ramesh and I sampled the species over a two-month period, sampling could be focused in the month of May, when both Koklass and Tragopan males call, to reduce the time required. During my study, I trained Vijay Thakur, one of the newly hired
Wildlife Guards, to conduct pheasant call counts and transect walks. Mr. Thakur could effectively monitor these pheasants on a yearly basis with the guidance of Pritam Singh, a villager from Kharongcha who worked as a lead research assistance for both K. Ramesh and myself. Monitoring of these species would measure the rate of recovery and determine whether the populations are stable.
Maintaining an accurate record of villagers entering the Tirthan Valley entry gate is critical for fully understanding the ecological and social systems in and around the GHNP.
Many of the conclusions in this report would gain more credibility if supported by data on gucchii. I strongly encourage that the Forest Department initiate a project to meticulously examine collection of gucchii and other NTFPs in the GHNP. In addition, when K. Ramesh visited the GHNP at the end of my study, he commented on the large amount of vegetation re-growth compared to his last visit in 2000. The change may be a result of decreased livestock grazing and a research study on the vegetation response to the final notification ban would be useful to understanding the system. Researchers at the Wildlife Institute of India have expressed interest in these issues and I am confident they would be enthusiastic about collaborating on such projects.
39 3. Implement More Intensive Ecodevelopment Efforts
The current situation in which people are dishonoring legal obligations and continuing to exploit the park’s resources signifies that the ecodevelopment investment was not staggered according to the level of dependency, and that the program has not fully benefited the communities. The higher effort level now required to harvest gucchii means that a majority of collectors are driven by poverty. This is an opportune time for the Forest
Department to initiate another round of intensive ecodevelopment and target villagers who are still dependent on NTFPs. Hopefully a fresh management perspective would succeed in guiding these people into more stable and sustainable sources of livelihood.
3. Appropriate Zonation of the Park and Buffer Zone
This study suggests that pheasant populations (and possibly the greater biodiversity) within the study site in the Tirthan Valley can co-exist with a minimal level of human disturbance. It seems that the area proximate to the study site may not require the strict protection laws that accompany national park status (i.e. a complete ban on biomass extraction) for biodiversity to be conserved. A more feasible and pragmatic strategy may be to designate such areas as Wildlife Sanctuary or Buffer Zone to allow local people traditional resource-use in a sustainable manner. National Park zonation could accordingly be restricted to more sensitive or degraded core forest areas of the park region. However, additional studies on other aspects of the ecosystem besides pheasants should be carried out prior to re- zonation to ensure that human disturbance is not causing detrimental effects on biodiversity that the current study may have overlooked.
40 4.4 Final Remarks
The findings of this study indicate that conservation can successfully move away from a battle against local people towards an approach that reaches compromise between all stakeholders. The recovery of pheasant populations in the GHNP is an encouraging case study for other protected areas in India and the world at large, and serves as a testament of the positive impacts that can result from appropriate park management.
41 5 REFERENCES
Agrawal, A., and C.C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of
community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27:629-649.
Badola, R. 1999. People and protected areas in India. Unaslyva 50. Available from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/x3030e/x3030e05.htm (accessed September 2008).
Badola, R. 2000. Local people amidst the changing conservation ethos: relationships between
people and protected areas in India. Pages 187-201 in T. Enters, P.B. Durst, and M.
Victor, editors. Decentralization and devolution of forest management in Asia and the
Pacific. RECOFTC Report N-18 and RAP Publication 2000/1. Regional Office for
Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. Available from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6898e/x6898e05b.htm (accessed August
2008).
Baviskar, A. 2003. States, communities and conservation: the practice of ecodevelopment in
the Great Himalayan National Park. Pages 267-299 in V.K. Saberwal and M.
Rangarajan, editors. Battles over nature: Science and the politics of conservation.
Permanent Black, Delhi, India.
Brockington, D., and J. Igoe. 2006. Eviction for conservation: a global overview.
Conservation and Society 4:424-470.
Brunner, A.G., Gullison, R.E., Rice, R.E., and G.A.B. da Fonseca. 2001. Effectiveness of
parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291:125-128.
Champion, H.G., and S.K. Seth. 1968. A revised survey of forest types of India. Manager of
Publications, New Delhi, India.
Chhatre, A. 2003. The mirage of permanent boundaries: politics of forest reservation in the
Western Himalayas, 1875-97. Conservation and Society 1:137-163. 42 Chhatre, A., and V. Saberwal. 2005. Political incentives for biodiversity conservation.
Conservation Biology 19:310-317.
Chhatre, A., and V. Saberwal. 2006. Democracy, development and (Re-) visions of nature:
rural conflicts in the western Himalayas. Journal of Peasant Studies. 33:678-706.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 1992. Multilateral: Convention on biological diversity
(with annexes). United Nations – Treaty Series 1760:142-382.
Delacour, J. 1977. The Pheasants of the World. Spur Publications and the World Pheasant
Association, United Kingdom.
Devictor, V., Julliard, R., and F. Jiguet. 2008. Distribution of specialist and generalist species
along spatial gradients of habitat disturbance and fragmentation. Oikos 117:507-514.
Dowie. M. 2008. Eviction slip. Guernica. New York, NY. Available from
http://www.guernicamag.com/features/556/post_1/ (Accessed September
2008).
Fuller, R.A., and P.J. Garson, editors. 2000. Pheasants: status survey and conservation action
plan 2000-2004. IUCN Publications Services Unit, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Gouri, Mudgal, S., Morrison E., and J. Mayers. 2004. Policy influences on forest-based
livelihoods in Himachal Pradesh, India. International Institute for Environment and
Development, London.
Grimmet, R., Inskipp, C., and T. Inskipp. 1998. Birds of the Indian subcontient. Oxford
University Press, Delhi, India.
Harihar, A., Pandav, B., and S.P. Goyal. 2008. Responses of tiger (Panthera tigris) and their
prey to removal of anthropogenic influences in Rajaji National Park, India. European
Journal of Wildlife Research DOI 10.1007/s10344-008-0219-2.
Hayes, T.M. 2006. Parks, people, and forest protection: an institutional assessment of the
effectiveness of protected areas. World Development 34:2064-2075. 43 International Council for Bird Preservation. 1992. Putting biodiversity on the map: priority
areas for global conservation. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge,
United Kingdom.
Kathari, A. and A. Patel. 2006. Environment and human rights: an introductory essay and
essential readings. New Delhi, India. National Human Rights Commission.
Kaul, R., and S. Shakya. 2001. Spring call counts of some Galliformes in the Pipar Reserve,
Nepal. Forktail 17:75-80.
Khaling, S., Kaul, R., and G.K. Saha. 2002. Calling behavior and its significance in Satyr
Tragopan, Tragopan satyra (Galliformes: Phasianidae) in the Singhalila National
Park, Darjeeling. Proceedings of the Zoological Society (Calcutta) 55:1-9.
Kumar, S.R., Rawat, G.S., and S. Sathyakumar. 1997. Winter habitat use by Himalayan
Monal (Lophophorus impejanus) in Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary, Western
Himalaya. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 103:49-56.
Lynch, O.J. 1992. Securing community based tenurial rights in the tropical forests of Asia –
an overview of current and prospective strategies. Issues in Development, World
Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
Madhusudan, M.D. 2004. Recovery of wild large herbivores following livestock decline in a
tropical Indian wildlife reserve. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:858–869.
McGowan, P.J.K., and M. Gillman. 1997. Assessment of the conservation status of partridges
and pheasants in South East Asia. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:1321-1337.
McNeely, J.A. 1994. Protected areas for the 21st century: working to provide benefits to
society. Biodiversity and Conservation 3:390-405.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecoystems and human well-being. Pages 71-84 in
World Resources Institute. Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for
assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C., United States. 44 Misra, M.K, and S.S. Gokhale. 2003. Base line information on medicinal plants conservation
and sustainable utilization. Himachal Pradesh. Foundation for Revitalisation of Local
Health Traditions, Bangalore, India. Available from
http://www.frlht.org.in/html/reports/arunachal%20pradesh.pdf (accessed August
2008).
Nangia, S., and P. Kumar. 2001. Population and environment interface in the Great
Himalayan National Park. International Union for the Scientific Study of Population,
Paris, France. Available from
http://www.iussp.org/Brazil2001/s00/S08_P08_Sudesh.pdf (accessed August 2008).
Nawaz, R., Garson, P.J., and M. Malik. 2000. Monitoring pheasant populations in montane
forests: some lessons learnt from the Pakistan Galliformes Project. Pages 196-209 in
Galliformes 2000: Proceedings of the 2nd International Galliformes Symposium.
World Pheasant Association, Reading, United Kingdom.
Negi, G.C.S., Rikhari, H.C., Ram, J., and S.P. Singh. 1993. Foraging niche characteristics of
horses, sheep and goats in an alpine meadows of the Indian Central Himalaya. Journal
of Applied Ecology 30:383-94.
Pandey, S. 2008. Linking ecodevelopment and biodiversity conservation at the Great
Himalayan National Park, India: lessons learned. Biodiversity Conservation 17:1543-
1571.
Pisharoti, P.M. 2008. Livelihood changes in response to restrictions on resource extraction
from the Great Himalayan National Park. National Centre for Biological Sciences,
Bangalore, India.
Ramesh, K. 2003. An ecological study on pheasants of The Great Himalayan National Park,
Western Himalaya. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India.
45 Ramesh, K., Sathyakumar, S., and G.S. Rawat. 1999. Ecology and conservation status of
pheasants of the Great Himalaya National Park, Western Himalaya. Wildlife Institute
of India, Dehradun, India.
Ramesh, K., Sathyakumar, S., and G.S. Rawat. 2005. Recent trends in the pheasant
population in Great Himalayan National Park, Western Himalaya: conservation
implications. Pages 40-43 in Wildlife Conservation, Research and Management. Y.V.
Jhala, R. Chellam and Q. Qureshi (editors). Technical report RR-05/001. Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehradun, India.
Saberwal, V.K. 2003. Conservation by state fiat. Pages 240-263 in V.K. Saberwal and M.
Rangarajan. Battles over nature: science and the politics of conservation. Permanent
Black, Delhi, India.
Saberwal, V., and A. Chhatre. 2006. Democratizing nature: politics, conservation, and
development in India. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, India.
Tandon, V. 1997. Report on the status of collection, conservation, trade and potential for
growth in sustainable use of major medicinal plant species. Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehradun, India.
Tiger Task Report. 2005. Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (Project Tiger), New
Delhi, India.
Tucker, R. 1997. The historical development of human impacts on the Great Himalayan
National Park. Winrock International and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India.
Wildlife Institute of India. 1999. An ecological study of the conservation of biodiversity and
biotic pressures in the Great Himalayan National Park Conservation Area – an
ecodevelopment approach. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India.
46 Plate 1. Photographs of morel mushrooms (gucchii). After gucchii are collected in the park (right center), the mushrooms are dried (bottom) and then sold in town to middlemen, who are often well-respected business owners or politicians. Jennifer R.B. Miller.
47 Plate 2. Photographs of study species, male (top) and female (bottom): (a) Himalayan Monal (John Corder); (b) Koklass Pheasant (Jean Howman and Stevenn N) and; (c) Western Tragopan (Sat Pal Dhiman and John Corder).
(a) (b) (c)
48 Plate 3. Photographs of Kharongcha villagers, who are dependent on the forests around them for fodder and firewood (top left) and for grazing their livestock.
49 Appendix 1. Data sheet for measuring population abundance of Himalayan Monal.
Transect Walk Data Sheet
Trail name: Observer(s): Date: Starting Time: Ending Time: Weather: Wind speed: 0-15 kph 16-30 kph >30 kph Precipitation: None Fog Light Rain Heavy Rain Hail Cloud cover: Sunny Partly cloudy Dense clouds Temperature: 0-10˚C (32-50˚F) 11-20˚C (50-70˚F) 21-30˚C (70-85˚F) >30˚C (>85˚F)
ID Species Number of birds in flock Initial Initial Flush Flush GPS UTMs Notes Male Female Sub Unkn Total sight. dist. sight. dist. (Northing/ adult angle (m) angle (m) Easting)
50 Appendix 2. Data sheet for transects.
Transect Walk Master Data Sheet
Trail # and name:
Description:
Start of trail: UTM Northing: UTM Easting:
End of trail: UTM Northing: UTM Easting:
Altitude at start:
Altitude at end:
Vegetation type:
Number of streams:
Side trail visibility (every 100m or 50m):
Evidence of human activities:
Photos taken:
Notes:
51 Appendix 3. Data sheet for measuring population abundances of Koklass Pheasant and Western Tragopan.
Call Count Data Sheet
Trail: Station #: Observer(s): Date: Starting Time: Ending Time:
Weather: Wind speed: 0-15 kph 16-30 kph >30 kph Precipitation: None Fog Light Rain Heavy Rain Hail Cloud cover: Sunny Partly cloudy Dense clouds Temp: 0-10˚C (32-50˚F) 11-20˚C (50-70˚F) 21-30˚C (70-85˚F) >30˚C (>85˚F)
Influences on audibility: Remarks:
T and time = tragopan K and time = koklass M and time = monal
N
W E
100 m
200 m
300
S m
52 Appendix 4. Data sheet for call count stations.
Call Count Master Data Sheet
Trail # and name:
Station #:
Description:
Center of station: UTM Northing: UTM Easting:
Altitude:
Vegetation type:
Proximity and number of water:
Audibility quality (valley, water, rocks, etc):
Evidence of human activities:
Photos taken:
Notes:
53 Appendix 5. Detailed descriptions of transect and call count stations.
Transecta Sampling Start description End description unitb Latitude Elevation Physical landmarksc Latitude Elevation Physical landmarksc Longitude (m) Longitude (m) Rolla-Dulunga T1 31˚40’44.7” 2,372 Approx. 15 min from Rolla 31˚40’58.3” 2,656 Last rock on trail before 77˚29’21.2” camp, first major rock 77˚29'13.2'' enter meadow clearing for overhang resting place Dulunga campsite where trail makes switchback to right of mountain C1 31˚40'50.6'' 2,499 Approx 20 min past start of ------77˚29'15.6'' transect, at steep ascent in trail by large boulders in trail Dulunga-Grahani T2 31˚41'00.3'' 2,726 After initial climb, on flat 314˚11'74.'' 2,736 In small clearing above 77˚29'17.3'' portion of trail soon after 77˚29'23.4'' Grahani camp near large conifer forest begins boulder before walking down trail to campsite rock overhang C3 31˚41'00.4'' 2,752 3 min after beginning of ------77˚29'21.7'' transect at boulder
C4 31˚41'12.4'' 2,752 Approx 10 min from end of ------77˚29'22.1'' transect at turn in trail near fallen log that obscures trail
54
Shilt-Chorduar T3 31˚41'10.3'' 3,015 Approx. 20 min from Shilt 31˚41'26.7'' 2,947 2 min past Chorduar camp 77˚28'59.5'' camp, at rock resting place 77˚29'23.7'' at fallen logs before trail with prominent vista point descends towards stream before trail descends C5 31˚41'23.7'' 2,954 Trail juts out from ------77˚29'11.4'' mountain side before large descent C6 31˚41'26.7'' 2,946 At end of transect in fallen ------77˚29'24.0'' logs
Shilt-Dara T4 31˚40'55.6'' 2,948 After trail forks between 31˚40'44.1'' 2,863 After climbing around 77˚28'53.4'' Shilt camp trail and Daran 77˚28'48.1'' several boulders on steep trail (take left fork to slope before descending Daran), just before entering towards Daran, view of meadow clearing villages ahead C11 31˚40'52.4'' 2,930 After initial meadow ------77˚28'51.5'' clearing at large boulder before entering conifer forest Rolla-Basu T5 31˚40'27.0'' 2,356 First prominent resting 31˚40'32.2'' 2,649 1 min walk past Basu 77˚29'23.2'' place with vista towards the 77˚29'70.5'' camp to turn in trail with mountains southeast of large rock on mountain- Tirthan Valley, before trail side of trail ascends C7 31˚40'22.8'' 2,379 Soon after transect begins, ------77˚29'25.8'' directly after climbing around large boulders C8 31˚40'20.4'' 2,663 3 min before Basu camp, at ------77˚29'41.9'' boulder immediately before large fallen tree 55 Basu-Koilipoi T6 31˚40'10.3'' 2,870 Approx. 25 min from Basu, 31˚39'54.9'' 2,979 On trail in forest before 77˚30'02.9'' at edge before large 77˚30'42.4'' meadow clearing for clearing on slope after trail Koilipoi camp ascends C9 31˚40'01.6'' 2,964 At highest ridge on trail ------77˚30'23.8'' among boulders
C10 31˚39'56.7'' 2,986 5 min before Koilipoi camp ------77˚30'35.7'' in down-sloping open meadow area by gorge aTransect names reflect the campsite or village located on either end of the footpath. bT=transect; C=call count station. cDescriptions are written with the assumption that the observer is starting at the first campsite or village listed in the transect name (i.e. for Rolla- Dulunga, observer is walking from Rolla to Dulunga).
56