An Assessment of Biodiversity and Socio-

economic Conditions in the Targeted

Protected Areas and Biological Corridors Assessment of Biodiversity and Socio-economic Report Conditions in the Targeted Protected Areas

and Biological Corridors

Report

Enhancing Sustainability and Climate Resilience of Forest and Agriculture Landscape and Community Livelihoods in

Bhutan

UNDP, BHUTAN SEPTEMBER 2016 SEPTEMBER 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………...……iv Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………….v

Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………1 1.Background……..……..………………………………………………………...... 1 2. Objectives and Scope of the Assignment……………………………………………….1 3. Organization of the report……………………….……………………………………...2

Chapter 2: Approach and Methods 1.Methodology…………………………………………………………...... 3 1.1. Study Area………………………………………………………………………….3 1.2 Sampling framework……………………………….………………………………..4 1.3 Data Collection Tools…………...……………………………………...... 6 2 Data and information collection…...………….……...…………….…………………....6 3. Data management and analysis……………………………………………………..…..7 4. Limitations……………………………………………………………………...... 7 Chapter 3: Assessment of Biodiversity and Social Conditions of 3 Landscapes...…..8 1.Introduction………………………………………………………………...…...... 8 2. Status of Biodiversity…...……….…………………………...... 8 2.1. Wild biodiversity…………………………………………………………………8 2.2. Agrobiodiversity………………………………………………………………...15 2.3. Community awareness and perception on biodiversity and ecosystems………..16 3. Status of socio-economic conditions………………………………………………….20 3.1 Demographic Characteristics……………………………………………………..20 3.2 Livelihood and income…………………………………………………...... 21 3.3 Membership, gender and social inclusion………………………………………..24 4. Key threats and root causes…………………………………………………………...25 4.1 Human wildlife conflicts…………………………………………………………25 4.2 Over-grazing……………………………………………………………...... 27 4.3 Poaching and wildlife trade………………………………………………………28 4.4 Over-exploitation and unsustainable use of natural resources……………...... 29 4.5 Land use change and conversion………………………………………………....39 4.6 Forest Fires……………………………………………………………………….30 4.7 Infrastructure and hydropower………………………………………………….. 31 4.8 Climate Change…………………………………………………………...... 31 5. Status of PA management effectiveness……………………………………………....33 5.1 Management plans and implementation………………………………………… 33 5.2 Policy and legal framework………………………………………………………34 5.3 Institutional and technical capacity………………………………………………35 5.4 Financial sustainability…………………………………………………...... 35

ii

5.5 Monitoring and evaluation………………………………………………………..36

Chapter 4: Strategic Recommendations………...…………………………………….37 1. Strategy for Addressing HWC and Threats………………………………………...... 37 2. Recommendation for enhancing management effectiveness………………………...41

Annexure 1: Assessment of Biodiversity and Social Conditions of Landscape 1……….42 Annexure 2: Assessment of Biodiversity and Social Conditions of Landscape 2..……...66 Annexure 3: Assessment of Biodiversity and Social Conditions of Landscape 3..…...…96 Annexure 4. List of Forest Genetic Resources under the landscapes…………………..121 Annexure 5. Survey Questionnaire....…………………………………………………..123 Annexure 6: Biodiversity tracking tools for the PAs in the three landscapes……..…....131

Bobliography……………………………………………………………………………132

iii

Acronym BAOWE Bhutanese Association of Women Entrepreneurs BAP Biodiversity Action Plan BC Biological Corridor BWS Bumdeling Wildlife Sanctuary CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management CFO Chief Forestry Officer CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species DFO Divisional Forest Officer DSA Daily Subsistence allowance FGD Focus Group Discussion FGR Forest Genetic Resources FNCA Forest and Nature Conservation Act of Bhutan GEF Global Environment Facility GNHC Gross National Happiness Commission HKH Hindu Kush Himalayas HWC Human Wildlife Conflict ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature JDNP Jigme Dorji National Park JKSNR Jigme Khesar Strict Nature Reserve JSWNP Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park LCMP Land Cover Mapping Project LDCF Least Developed Countries Funds MAPS Medical and Aromatic Plant and Spices METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool NEC National Enviroment Commission PA Protected Area PM Park Manager PNP Phrumshingla National Park PPG Project Preparation Grant RNR Renewable Natural Resources RSPN Royal Security for Protection of Nature SHG Self Help Group UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Wildlife Conservation Division WCD

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Brief introduction of the project Royal Government of Bhutan remains strongly committed to managing its biodiversity and addressing pressing threat to promote climate resilience of biodiversity, agricultural landscapes, and community livelihoods. The government has requested support from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through UNDP for a full-sized project titled “Enhancing sustainability and resilience of forest and agriculture landscape and community livelihoods in Bhutan.” The project aims to operationalize an integrated landscape-based approach to climate change adaptation and biodiversity conservation. It seeks to do so through: (a) improvement of institutional capacity at national, sub-national, and local levels to manage forest and agricultural landscapes sustainably for enhanced climate resilience; (b) emplacement of governance system for biological corridors and operationalization of conservation management system in the pilot corridors; and (c) development of climate-resilient livelihood options for the local communities.

2. Purpose of the assessment The specific purpose/objective of the assignment is to assess biodiversity and socio- economic conditions of the targeted natural landscapes for project interventions and establish relevant project baselines related to protected areas and biodiversity.

3. Brief overview of the process/methodology Based in the three landscapes the study employed a mixed method to collect data and triangulate information from various sources to carry out the assessment.

The study is based on two sources- desk review of secondary information and analysis of primary data collected through anthropological investigation. Desk review of relevant documents, such as, relevant acts, rules, strategies, frameworks, management plan, survey reports, research papers, etc was undertaken. Primary data was collected through a questionnaire based respondent interviews with randomly selected respondents from across the landscapes, focus group discussion with local governments, consultative meetings with Wildlife Conservation Division and PA authorities, and other relevant agencies and experts.

Information collected through the surveys were encoded into excel data base and analyzed to assess field conditions. Information collected through consultations and desktop reviews were used to cross check, refine, and confirm findings as reported in the report. Final reports including biodiversity tracking tools were reviewed by park managers and WCD.

4. Summary of key findings 4.1. Biodiversity Ecoregions, ecosystems, and habitats: Biologically, Bhutan is part of Eastern Himalayan biodiversity hot spot with high habitat and species diversity. Bhutan not only harbors high profile species such as tigers and snow leopards, but also continues to provide important global conservation functions. Ecologically, almost all the ecosystems, habitats, and forest types that harbor key species known to occur in Bhutan are found in the three landscapes.

v

Landscape 1 which is contiguous with Kanchenjunga landscape and connects to landscape 2 which is then connected to Manas providing connectivity not just within Bhutan but internationally. A summary of the key findings of ecosystems and their ecological significance is presented below:

Table S1. Ecological and habitat significance of the landscapes Landscape Ecosystem/habitat Ecological significance represented Landscape 1 Temperate, alpine, and Connects Bhutan to conservation landscapes glaciers in India, Tibet and Nepal allowing movement Part of Sacred Himalayan of species internationally Landscape Provides biological corridor for movement of species between JKSNR and JDNP Landscape 2 Subtropical, warm Contiguous with Royal Manas National Park broadleaf, cool broadleaf, and Indian Manas which is a world heritage mixed broadleaf and site. Allow for species to move from the Indian conifer, mixed conifer, plains to the higher mountains in Bhutan and conifer through alpine across to China, Nepal, and Indian Mountains. meadows to glaciers. Source of water for Chendebji, Mangdechu Most pristine and and Punatsangchu hydropower schemes undisturbed conifer forest BC 2 connects JSWNP to JDNP along the found here. boundary between Thimphu and Punakha Wangdue Dzongkhags BC 8 composed of numerous smaller landscapes connects JSWNP to JDNP and WCNP Landscape 3 Temperate, alpine, and Represents mid country temperate ecosystem glaciers and allows lateral connectivity to BWS to east Subtropical, cool broadleaf, and WCNP to the north temperate conifer habitats Important and only corridor that connects JSWNP towards east through PNP.

Globally threatened and endemic species: Together the three landscapes harbor almost all the threatened species of plants, mammals, and birds. The information on fishes is patchy, reflecting the lower intensity of survey for fish relative to other taxonomic groups. There has not been an assessment of reptiles and amphibians in the study landscapes.

Fifteen of the mammal species are listed by CITIES as appendix I, of which tiger (Panthera tigris), snow leopard (Panthera uncia), wild dog (Cuon alpinus), Asian elephant (Elaphus maximus), musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster), golden langur (Trachypithecus geei) are listed as endangered by IUCN. All these species are also totally protected by the forest and nature conservation act of Bhutan, 1995. In addition, 8 species of appendix I birds have also been recorded in the landscapes. Of these White bellied heron (Adrea insignis) is critically endangered and roosts in Punatsangchu, Mangdechu, and Ada Tso in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park.

vi

Records indicate about 38 species of fish are present in Bhutan. Of these, Putitor masher (Putitor masher) is endangered and Masher (Tor tor), Gray’s stone loach (Balitora brucei) are near threatened. Although there has been no national survey of butterflies, available records indicate about 40 species of butterfly present in the three landscapes. Of those present in the landscapes, Bhutan glory (Bhutanitis ludlowi), Tibetan blackvein (Aporia peloria), Plain sulphur (Decas verhuelli), and Plum judy (Abisara exherius) are rare.

Agrobiodiversity: As an agrarian country Bhutan exhibits substantial diversity of agricultural crops. This richness could partly be attributed to large elevation gradient coupled with varying climatic conditions. Over 18 different species of crop species have been recorded by National Biodiversity Center. In addition, about 11 different species of livestock are also recorded in the landscapes. Of these Nublang (Bos indicus) is native to Bhutan and is currently facing threat of extinction due to competition from improved breeds.

4.2. Socio-economic conditions Demographic characteristics: Demographically, the population of farmers across the landscapes displays ethnic diversity in a homogenous system of livelihood activities. Overall, 55.3% of the respondents were female and 44.7% male. 89.4% of the respondents are between the ages of 15-65 representing high share of working population. In terms of educational attainment, large proportion of the respondents (70%) are illiterate and only 7% completed high school education.

Livelihood sources: Like across much of Bhutan, agriculture (49.8%) and livestock (35.5%) are ranked as the top livelihood sources by majority of the farmers in the landscapes. In general, a majority of the farmers own up to 3 acres of land. These small farmers are highly vulnerable to uncertainties related to weather, pest and disease or other calamities like fire.

On the livestock front, 81.9% of the farmers reported owning herds of various sizes. Of these 48.7% of the households indicated grazing livestock in forests and feed them in stalls at night with additional 14% practicing 100% forest grazing. Major constraints faced by livestock are insufficient grazing land and loss to predators. Any attempt to improve the livelihood of the households in the landscapes, at least, in the short run, will need to focus on improving agriculture and livestock opportunities that could include diversification including farm businesses.

Cash sources: Average annual household income, earned from various sources, is about Nu.81, 887. 59% of the average household income is contributed by the agriculture and 22% by livestock.

Food security: On average, over 84% of the households are food secure. The most food insecure communities live in Athang gewog where 14% of the farmers are still food insecure.

Awareness about biodiversity and existence of biological corridors: The level of awareness about biodiversity and ecosystem conservation is impressive across the landscape with over

vii

90% of the respondents saying they are aware about biodiversity conservation. Although men were less aware about biodiversity, analysis to ascertain differences in awareness levels by gender, education levels, and age is not found to be significant.

Similarly, over 88% of the respondents indicated they are aware about the existence of the biological corridors. Respondents (61%) also overwhelmingly confirmed that the biological corridors are established for nature conservation, while a smaller percentage (34%) said it’s for wildlife migration, which is the real scientific purpose of establishing the BCs. Respondents also ranked park officials as the top source of information regarding BCs followed by local governments, dzongkhags, MoAF staff, and village elders.

Community perception regarding biodiversity: Community believe that biodiversity across the landscapes has either improved or remained unchanged over last five years. At a species level, predation by tiger is reported to have decreased across the landscapes. The national tiger survey has not been able to record tiger evidences from JKSNR. This demands an empirical study to ascertain tiger population in the landscapes. On the other hand, respondents reported that the population of wild pig and macaques are on the rise. There was also no evidence of significant difference in the perception on biodiversity status between women and men.

Community support for wildlife protection and conservation policy: There is an overwhelming support (84%) to protect wildlife and support the wildlife conservation policy. This support stems from a variety of sources including cultural and conservation significance of tiger, leopard (as precious and endangered species), and wild dog as predator for wild pig and sambar as prey for tiger and leopard. This is hugely impressive given that these same farmers are suffering from livestock predation and crop damage by the same species. Backgrounds of the respondents such as ethnicity, gender, age, and education did not influence their support for wildlife protection and policy significantly.

Memberships and community groups: Self-Help Groups (SHGs) are taking root in the communities across the landscapes with many joining these groups. The survey has captured over 13 different groups across the landscapes from community forests to cane and bamboo management groups. Compared to male (35.8%), more women (64.2%) were members of the SHGs indicating women playing an active role in community groups/organizations

4.3. Threats Key threats to the long term integrity of biodiversity, habitats, and ecosystem conservation in the landscapes emerge from human wildlife conflicts, excessive grazing, unsustainable harvesting of forest products, poaching of forest and wildlife, forest fires, infrastructure development leading to land use changes, and climate change.

Human wildlife conflicts: Crop damage, livestock predation (and sometimes loss of human life) and retaliatory prosecution of wildlife by aggrieved farmers is an emerging threat that could jeopardize future conservation prospects. All the respondents suffered crop damage in the last year from wildlife including wild pig, sambar, barking deer, macaques, porcupine, monkeys, and birds. Respondents (98.9%) ranked wild pig as the top agent

viii

responsible for crop damage, followed by barking deer (66.1%), and sambar (39.7%).

In addition, about 61.8% of the respondents have reported livestock predation. Respondents ranked leopard as the top predator followed by wild dog, tiger, and the Himalayan black bear. Records from the parks indicate that at least 95 cattle, 9 horses, and 1 mule were killed by predators such as tiger, Himalayan black bear, leopard, and wild dog. It is important to note that predation by tiger is absent in landscape 1 and declining in landscape 2 and 3. One tiger and one Himalayan black bears were reported killed for predation in landscape 2.

Over grazing: Livestock is an important component of agriculture in the landscapes. Cattle including yak are reared across the landscape with high percentage of forest grazing, which degrades habitat quality and out competes wild ungulates. This, if unchecked, could degrade habitat quality and reduce wild prey numbers.

Poaching: Although biodiversity in Bhutan enjoys the patronage of the Buddhist religion which regards taking of life as sin, poaching of wildlife species is becoming more evident for monetary gains. Wildlife species of high monetary values such as tiger, leopard, Himalayan black bear, and musk deer are being increasingly poached. Records indicate that 1 tiger, 2 Himalayan black bears, 5 musk deers, 2 gorals, and 2 sambar deers were killed. If adequately adequate staff skilled in SMART are available these numbers could increase.

Unsustainable use of forest products: Farmers across the landscapes depend heavily on forest products including timber for construction and roofing and non-timber resources such as fuel wood, medicinal and aromatic plants, mushrooms and other wild vegetables, cane and bamboo, plants barks and pulps for traditional paper, and wood for handicrafts/furniture etc. Information compiled from the field indicate that all types of natural resources starting from stone, sand, timber, to medicinal plants are harvested illegally.

Forest fires: Forest fire is a major threat in the protected areas. Forest fires not only destroy critical habitats and kill wildlife but also expose top soil and make them vulnerable to soil erosion and landslides, thereby drastically reducing regeneration and changing the ecology of the area. Overall in the last 5 years 30 incidences of recorded forest fires have damaged over 30,020 acres of forests with majority occurring in chirpine forest (25 of the 30 incidences).

Infrastructure development: Development of infrastructure including hydropower, transmission lines, and roads continue to threaten the integrity of biodiversity and ecosystems. This threat level is especially high in landscape two with three major hydropower plants under construction.

Climate change: Climate change impacts are threatening both livelihoods and ecosystem. Respondents from the landscapes reported enduring a variety of climate related sources of vulnerabilities, such as, drought, erratic rainfall patterns, wind/hailstorms, pest and diseases, etc. Of these, maximum number of respondents (75.8%) reported suffering from

ix

wind and hail storms that damaged crops, vegetables, and house roofs. On the biodiversity front, climate change would translate into an upslope movement of broadleaf and subalpine forests, with loss of most of the alpine and subalpine habitat. Loss of these important habitats will come at the cost of losing high altitude fauna putting the functionality of the ecosystem at high altitude. Some conifer and subalpine forests will remain in the northern regions of the landscape. This could increase the habitat for tigers with an equal if not more retreat of habitat for its sister cat, the snow leopard. The first to be impacted are the vulnerable species (species with low population, restricted home range, etc), which will be driven to extinction in the longer run. For instance, glacier melt and drying of wetlands will impact the breeding grounds of black necked cranes. Receding snow and glaciers will also reduce the habitat for snow leopards with tigers moving to higher grounds. Overall, combination of ecosystem changes will impede ecosystem services making life difficult for both nature and humans alike.

4.4. Management effectiveness Management plan implementation: Management plans are currently being implemented in JSWNP, PNP, and JKSNR. While the plans are decent, its full implementation is constrained by fund availability and adequate staff. Preparations are under way to prepare management plans for BC1, BC 2, and BC 4. The plans for BC2, and BC 4 are expected to be ready by December 2016.

Policy and legal framework: Forest and Nature Conservation Act 1995, Forest and Nature Conservation Rules 2010, and the biological corridors rule 2007 provides the policy and legal framework for PA management in Bhutan. Curent version of the forest and nature conservation rules is adequate for now but there is room for improvement to make it wildlife specific.

Institutional and technical capacity: Institutionally, the management of parks and BCs are entrusted to park managers and DFOs. Both park managers and DFOs report to the Director, department of forest and park services. On the capacity front, both the WCD and the PAs are short staffed. WCD is in need of qualified biologists, planners, and GIS experts. At the PA level, parks are in short of skilled staff while the BCs have no dedicated staff at all.

Financial sustainability: Government of Bhutan provides funds to cover basic current expenditure and few priority activities in the parks. Currently, BCs do not receive dedicated funds from the government for its management. GEF biodiversity tracking tools indicate a need for US$ 2,521,483 for basic management and US$ 3,388,460.6 for optimal management of PAs. Taking current funds into consideration, this translates into a financing gap of US$1834623.81 and US$2701601.41 for basic and optimal management respectively. Bhutan for life initiative may help fill these gaps.

Monitoring and evaluation: Despite high ambitions to improve management efficiency and effectiveness, for unclear reasons, monitoring and evaluation has remained a new initiative for Bhutan. Past records indicate that evaluations were hardly ever carried out on PA projects and programs. At the field level only a system of monthly and quarterly meetings exists to discuss activities and plans.

x

5. Management recommendations 5.1. Management recommendation to reduce human wildlife conflicts Strategy 1: Reduce grazing pressure, protect livestock from predation, and conserve predator species by preventing retaliatory killing • Design and implement herd management plan to improve the current management which is susceptible to predation risks. This plan must discourage reducing stray grazing especially in remote predator habitats or hot spots and encourage a presence of a herder(s) with their livestock; • With agriculture and livestock development extension services, identify pastures for livestock grazing in buffer zones and in multiple use areas and educate farmers on consequences of overgrazing and its impact on ecosystem and sustainability of their livelihoods; • Provide subsidy to access improved cattle breeds and cultivation of improved fodder if possible using agroforestry models that has multiple ecosystem benefits including soil conservation; • Design and provide assistance to improve existing cattle sheds to make them predator proof. If possible with help from livestock department or other donors provide in kind or cash support to build predator proof sheds especially for herders; • Encourage farmers to stall feed their livestock to reduce vulnerability of free ranging cattle to wildlife depredation and the economic savings from not having to herd; • Currently, the livestock department is providing a subsidy for the purchase of improved breeds and cattle shed construction materials. It should help farmers to access these facilities. This facility will not only reduce grazing pressures and predation losses but also enhance cash incomes; • Introduce livestock insurance scheme to compensate for livestock killed by wildlife when herded in designated pastures and agricultural fields, or in cattle sheds. Improve on the existing community based insurance scheme by providing more seed funds. Discontinue compensation for free ranging cattle lost to wildlife depredation; • Study the grazing impacts to: assess the severity of impacts; identify grazing hotspots; study cattle migration trends; • Investigate to confirm the decreasing trend in livestock predation by tigers and assess tiger population status to develop strategic interventions.

Strategy 2: Reduce crop damage, improve food security, and conserve wild ungulates • Identify crop damage hotspots throughout the target landscape including dominant wildlife species responsible for damage; • Design and implement crop protection methods against key crop damaging wildlife species. Best practices such as electric fencing, sound and light alarm, must be scaled up across the PAs; • Initiate research to find a solution to reduce crop damage by monkeys and birds; • Pilot crop insurance scheme. Current community based insurance scheme must be developed further to make it effective before its acceptability falls.

xi

Strategy 3. Eliminate poaching and illegal trade of wildlife and their parts • Form and train a core anti-poaching squad in each PA consisting of physically able park rangers and park guards; • Equip the anti-poaching squad with state of the art equipment including GPS, communication tools, field gears, arms, etc. to effectively implement anti- poaching protocols; • Carry out rigorous anti-poaching exercises and implement anti-poaching and illegal trade rules; • Develop a robust intelligence network to detect illegal poaching and trade in forest products and wildlife and wildlife parts. Collaborate with other law enforcement agencies including Royal Bhutan Army (RBA), Royal Bhutan Police (RBP), Bhutan Agriculture and Food Regulatory Authority (BAFRA), etc to strengthen enforcement; • Provide awareness and education programs focused on anti-poaching, FNCA 1995, FNCR 2010 directed to the herders, and other farming communities in and around the landscape. • Carry out a trans-boundary study to document key trade routes, trading centres, source areas and species involved. This can then lead to regional law enforcement action plans developed with stakeholders.

Strategy 4: Reduce poaching and illegal trade in medicinal and aromatic species (MAPS) • Plan and implement regular patrolling especially inside the PAs and international boarders; • Seek collaboration from local residents such as Yak herders in intelligence gathering to detect poachers; • Form local MAPS associations composed of local farmers who have traditional rights to legal collection and train them to spot and apprehend illegal poachers; • Educate local collectors on sustainable collection techniques of MAP species.

Strategy 5: Reduce unsustainable harvesting of forest products to reduce habitat degradation and competition for limited resources. • Strengthen the farmer’s capacities for community based natural resource management (CBNRM) through farmer trainings and educational programs; • Prospect, design, and implement community based eco-tourism programs. Nabji eco- tourism program can be scaled up to rest of the landscapes. Another best practice that can be scaled up is the homestays, local guides, and cooks as evidenced from Phobjikha (by RSPN) and Bumthang (by WCNP). This will not only earn extra cash income to offset losses associated with conservation restrictions, reduce their dependence on forests, but also earn support of the public towards conservation efforts; • Upscale community forestry in biological corridors and homestead forestry in the national parks (community forestry is not allowed in National Parks) to meet their forest product requirements; • Promote firewood saving technology including subsidized distribution of appliances for lighting, cooking, and heating in the landscape. Government must increase the present level of subsidy on rural electrification especially those who live in the PAs to both compensate for restrictions on natural resource use, crop and livestock losses, and to encourage alternatives to firewood.

xii

Strategy 6: Enhance resilience of farms and ecosystems from climate change induced impacts • Identify and protect/restore water sources such as wetlands, lakes, springs, streams, and glaciers; • Promote smart water harvesting and conservation technologies in the villages; • Monitor to detect new incidences of pest and diseases and take preemptive actions to prevent costly outbreaks; • Promote climate resilient, high yielding, and bio friendly crop species, and livestock species; • Raise awareness amongst local communities on the cause of climate change and its impacts on humans and environment. Build capacities of local leaders to monitor climate change indicators and plan adaptation strategies; • Introduce alternative livelihood initiatives and subsequent diversification of incomes that also have benefits for local wildlife species; • Identify and map critical wetlands, habitats, and fresh water resources and implement localized conservation actions to enhance ecological integrity.

5.2 Management recommendations to strengthen management effectiveness Strategy 1: Strengthen PA management effectiveness • To alleviate staff shortages and their low technical capacity, a master plan for developing capacities of PA staff must be developed and donor funds sought to implement it. The master plan must focus of producing highly competent biologists, human dimensions of wildlife specialists, management planners, GIS experts, as well as focus on building skills through professional development. Professional development shall focus on building needed skills in wildlife inventory, wildlife rescue, SMART patrolling, anti-poaching skills, etc.; • Policy directives must also be set up to avoid transfer of skilled staff to territorial or Dzongkhags; • The WCD’s METT+ once fully passed must be strictly implemented to monitor and evaluate PAs management effectiveness; • A long term financing mechanism must be developed (such as Bhutan for Life) to support the PAs.

Strategy 2: Project management Project implementation may be decentralized to PAs and local governments for enhancing efficiency and effectiveness. 90% of the local officials supported the idea of a decentralized project management arrangement for implementation. They justified their views arguing that it reduces time in paper works and leads to more efficient and effective delivery of services.

xiii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1. Background Bhutan is widely known for its high levels of biodiversity which arise due to its positioning at the cross-section of two major bio-geographic realms namely the Palearctic and Indo- Malayan and due to the many different habitats that exists along its enormous elevational gradient. Despite its small size Bhutan is home to numerous megafauna of global conservation significance including the endangered Bengal tiger, snow leopard, red panda, golden langur, white bellied heron, black necked cranes, etc. Biodiversity continues to enjoy the patronage of the Buddhist religion and the support of the government’s proconservation policy. The constitution of the Kingdom of Bhutan requires that the country maintain at least 60% of its territory under forest cover for all times to come. Realizing the seriousness of this constitutional directive and the emerging threats from socio-economic development, the government established the network of Protected Areas (PAs) covering almost 51% of the country.

In order to reduce climate change vulnerabilities and improve the sustainability of local livelihoods and biodiversity in the country, the Royal Government of Bhutan (RgoB) and the United National Development Program (UNDP has developed a full-sized Global Environment Facility (GEF), titled “Enhancing sustainability and resilience of forest and agriculture landscape and community livelihoods in Bhutan.” The project aims to operationalize an integrated landscape-based approach to climate change adaptation and biodiversity conservation. It seeks to do so through: (a) improvement of institutional capacity at national, sub-national, and local levels to manage forest and agricultural landscapes sustainably for enhanced climate resilience; (b) emplacement of governance system for biological corridors and operationalization of conservation management system in the pilot corridors; and (c) development of climate-resilient livelihood options for the local communities.

As a part of series of assignments to support the project design, this assignment assesses the current state of biodiversity, socio-economic conditions, and conservation management across the three project landscapes in Bhutan. The project will cover the following landscapes: 1. Landscape 1: Jigme Khesar Strict Nature Researve (JKSNR) and Biological Corridor 1 (BC1); 2. Landscape 2: Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park (JSWNP), Biological Corridor 2 (BC2), Biological Corridor 8 (BC8) and; 3. Landscape 3: Phrumsengla National Park (PNP) and Biological Corridor 4 (BC4).

2. Objectives and scope of the assignment The specific objective of the assignment is to assess biodiversity and socio-economic conditions of the targeted natural landscapes for project interventions and establish relevant project baselines related to protected areas and biodiversity.

To achieve the purpose and the objectives of the study, the scope of the study included the 1

following activities: i. Review of existing data and information on the biodiversity of the project-targeted landscapes, and collate up-to-date biodiversity information including the status of globally threatened species, endemic species, ecoregion(s), ecosystem(s) and habitats represented in the target project areas; ii. Review of existing data and information on the socio-economic conditions, including population size and structure, current land use, livelihoods, and poverty level, of the local communities that live in, and/or use natural resources from, the project-targeted landscapes, and collate up-to-date socio-economic information including gender-disaggregated data and ethnic composition; iii. Identification of key threats to the target landscapes and establish baseline and indicators for monitoring these threats. We focused our threat assessment on encroachment, land use conversion, poaching and illegal extraction of natural resources, forest fire, human-wildlife conflicts, and foraging competition between livestock and wild ungulates. Also make note of climate change risks to the natural ecosystems and habitats in the target project areas; iv. Used the GEF-METT (Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for Protected Areas) to assess the management effectiveness of the protected areas and biological corridors including the development and implementation of the conservation management plans, legal framework, institutional and technical capacities, monitoring system, financial sustainability, identify existing constraints and gaps, and recommend measures to effectively address them.

3. Organization of the report The study report is organized as follows for coherence, clarity, and ease of reading:

Chapter 1: Introduces the assignment, its background, objectives and scope of the assignment. Chapter 2: Presents the detailed descriptions of the methods and approach undertaken to complete the assignment. Chapter 3: Synthesizes the findings from the three landscapes. The synthesis is described for assessments of social conditions, biodiversity status, and management effectiveness. The detailed findings for each of the individual landscapes are described in annexures 1, 2, and 3. Chapter 4: Presents a brief strategic recommendation to deal with human wildlife conflicts, threats, and management and policy inefficiencies.

2

CHAPTER 2 APPROACH AND METHODS

1 Methodology 1.1 Study Area The study covers the three landscapes that spread over 37 gewogs under the project. Landscape 1 is comprised of Jigme Khesar Strict Nature Reserve (JKSNR) and Biological Corridor 1 (BC1); landscape 2 is comprised of Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park (JSWNP) and BC2 and BC8 and; landscape 3 is composed of Phrumsengla National Park (PNP) and BC4 (Figure 1). The biophysical and Administrative statistics of the three landscapes are detailed in Table 1 below:

Figure 1. Protected area map of Bhutan with biological corridors (source WCD, 2016)

Table 1. Biophysical and administrative statistics of the 3 landscapes Landscape Area Population Dzongkhags Gewogs (Km2) Landscape 1 758.5 12,620 Haa Sombay, Bjee, Sama JKSNR 609.5 Paro Tsento BC1 149 Landscape 2 2,844 52,852 Wangdue Athang, Bjena, Daga, Dangchu, JSWNP 1730 Gase tso gom, Gangte, Phobji, BC2 275 Nysho, Kazhi, Nahi, Sephu BC8 839 Trongsa Korphu, Langthel, Nubi, Tangsibji. Zhemgang, Trong Sarpang, Chhudzom, Jigmecholing Tsirang Phuentenchu Punakha Kabjisa, Toepisa Thimphu Chang 3

Landscape 3 1,406 23,311 Bumthang Chhume, Tang, Ura PNP 905 Lhuentse Gangzur, Jarey, Metsho BC4 501 Mongar Tsamang, Saleng Zhemgang Nangkhor, Shingkhar Trongsa Langthel Source: Population and Land cover information for the project landscapes

1.2 Sampling framework Due to limited time and scope of the study, sample gewogs were selected (Table 2) using personal experience, expert knowledge, findings from the desktop review of existing biophysical and socio-economic information. Particular attention was paid to the following characteristics while selecting the sample gewogs: i. Area inside the landscapes (preference was given to gewogs with large areas inside the landscapes); ii. Conservation significance (here expert knowledge in terms of existence of critical habitats, presence of high profile species, and providing core areas for migration of species (animals and genes) were given preference; iii. Socio-economic conditions, gewogs with large populations that depend on resources (water, non-wood forest products, agriculture, grazing, etc.) from in and/or the buffer of the landscapes were given preference; iv. Threat intensity, gewogs that exhibited higher incidences of threats to biodiversity through conflicts, poaching, etc were also given preference; v. Redundancy and repetition was avoided by reducing gewogs that exhibited similar/homogenous biophysical and socio-economic conditions. Special care has been taken to ensure that the design is sensitive to social and biophysical conditions to reduce redundancy, but ensure representation of all social and biophysical characteristics of the landscapes. As social and biophysical conditions are largely homogenous across some gewogs and chiwogs, at least 3 representatives from each chiwog were interviewed. In consultation with the gewog administration, effort was expended to ensure that the representatives were from different socio-economic standings in each chiwog. In addition, Chief Forest Officers (CFOs) from Parks, Biologial Corridors (BC), Biological Corridor coordinator and team from Wildlife Conservation Division (WCD), Biodiversity officers from National Biodiversity Center (NBC), fishery expert from Cold Water Fishery in Haa (Table 3), were consulted to collect additional information especially relating to METT and Tracking Tools. Total of 25 individual respondents are selected for FGD and 15 respondents for interview from each gewog. On the other hand, different stakeholders were consulted for further synthesis of information as per the analysis of ToR.

4

Table 2. Sampling framework for gewogs in the three landscapes Landscape Dzongkhags Gewogs Sample size (n) Landscape 1 Haa Bji 15 Jigme Khesar Strict Nature Reserve + BC1 Paro Tsento 15 Thimphu Toepisa 15 Landscape 2 Dangchu 15 Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park + Wangdue Gangtey 15 BC2 + BC8 Athang 15 Daga 15 Tangsibji 15 Trongsa Langthel 15 Korphu 15 Zhemgang Trong 15 Sarpang Jigmecholing 15

Bumthang Chumey 15 Landscape 3 Ura 15 Phrumsengla National Park + BC4 Trongsa Langthel 15 Mongar Tsamang 15 Lhuentse Gangzur 15 Metsho 15

Table 3. List of the stakeholders consulted

List of Sl no Stakeholder consulted participants Activity Discussion and endorsement of Biodiversity CFO/ BC Tracking Tool and METT collected from BC coordinator, and park managers. Endorsement of human 1 WCD Focal person for wildlife conflicts strategy, general METT, Focal recommendations, and management person for HWC effectiveness

1. General discussion of and collection of 2 Park Management (JKSNR, information on biodiversity, threats, HWC, JSWNP, PNP) and socio-economic conditions; CFOs and team 2. Generating information and completion of biodiversity tracking tools. 1. General discussion of and collection of information on biodiversity, threats, HWC, 3 and socio-economic conditions; DFOs (Paro Forest Division CFOs and team 2. Generating information and completion of Wangdue Forest Division biodiversity tracking tool Collection of Zhemgang Forest Division) information for BCs

4 Gewog Administration (Bji, Focus discussion discussion on socio-economic Tsento, Toepisa, Dangchu, conditions in gewogs and collection of 5

Gantey, Athang, Daga, Gups, Mangmi, information on HWC, population of people and Tangsibji, Langthel, Gaydung livestock, gewog perceptions on project Korphu, Trong, management, parks, resources, etc. Jigmecholing, Chumey, Ura, Tsamang, Gangzur, Metsho) Biodiversity National Biodiversity officers for Collection of information relating to 5 Center agrobiodiversity agrobiodiversity. and livestock 6 Cold water fishery, Haa Fishery experts Collection of fish data

1.3 Data Collection Tools Due to the nature of the assignment that targeted multiple outputs such as biodiversity, social, and management effectiveness, several data collection tools were employed.

Questionnaire: Using the theory of change and the requirements in the ToR, a structured questionnaire (with closed and open ended questions) was designed to gather information on the focus areas including demography, livelihoods and poverty, resource use patterns, human wildlife conflicts, perception of conservation policies etc. (Annexure 4).

Biodiversity Tracking Tools: GEF biodiversity tracking tool (Annexure 5) was also used for data collection. This was mainly administered with the Park Managers, DFO’s, and focal person for BCs (at WCD) and their teams. Final meeting participated by WCD, WWF, and the consultant (partial participation from UNDP and PPG team) reviewed and finalized the tracking tools.

2. Data and Information Collection To adequately address the objectives, scope, and the tasks prescribed in the ToR, a mixed method (i.e. triangulation of the most appropriate qualitative and quantitative methods) was used to triangulate information to review/assess existing data and information on biodiversity and socio-economic conditions across targeted landscapes in Bhutan. Both qualitative and quantitative information were collected through desktop review reinforced by field visits and consultations with relevant stakeholders to verify existing information and to collect additional information. Desktop review: The desktop review was conducted to take stock of existing available information on biodiversity and social conditions in the target landscapes. This stock taking exercise also helped us better design our field visits including the questionnaire. The review included park management plans, researches and case studies in the target landscapes, project documents, policy documents, and field reports. The review focused on: i) collection of existing data and information on the biodiversity of the project-targeted landscapes, and collate up-to-date biodiversity information including the status of globally threatened species, endemic species, ecoregion(s), ecosystem(s) and habitats represented in the target project areas; ii) collection of existing data and information on the socio-economic conditions, including population size and structure, current land use, livelihoods, and poverty level, of the local communities that live in, and/or 6

use natural resources from, the project-targeted landscapes, and collate up-to-date socio- economic information including gender-disaggregated data and ethnic composition. Field visit: Field visits were made to consult with relevant officials (Park Managers, and CFOs) and local communities’ members to collect primary information on biodiversity and socio-economic conditions in the target areas, ascertain key threats, establish baselines, and identify indicators as well as offer recommendations to mitigate and adapt to these threats. This information was generated through focus group discussion (FGD) and key informant interviews using the questionnaire (Annexure 5). Focus group discussion was conducted at all the sampling locations on various issues, as appropriate; as gender issues and empowerment of women and marginalized groups, and linking these issues to improved natural resource management and governance of community-based organizations, community perceptions of climate adaptation and human- wildlife conflict mitigation alternatives, livelihood improvement, benefits of conservation and natural resource management, and conservation benefit sharing mechanisms - particularly how the poor who are excluded and marginalized benefited. It should be noted that topics for focus group discussions were built upon existing information for key project indicators. In addition, consultative meetings were also held with local officials at the district and local gewog offices.

Furthermore, consultations were carried out with concerned CFOs, PMs, BC coordinator (WCD), and their team to complete the biodiversity tracking forms and collection additional information as reflected in section 5 of the questionnaire. 3. Data Management and Analysis Data encoding manual was developed using Microsoft Excel and data encoded using double entry method, which involve data re-check by a second encoder. A complete database was cleaned and analyzed to extract information required for this assignment.

Outputs of the data analysis and literature review were then synthesized into a succinct quality report that details biodiversity and socioeconomic conditions with baselines for GEF biodiversity projects Tracking Tool.

4. Limitations The assessment was challenged by limited time and availability of responsible experts and focal officers in the field. Many park officials had pre-engagements and as such took a while to respond with the information requested off them. Limitations also included difficulties in mobilizing local people for the Focus Group Discussion(FGD) and respondent interview due to ongoing farming activities. In some instances, the gewog officials asked for DSA to be paid to the participants of the FGD and interviews. Additional time and resources have to be expended by the consultant to clear confusion regarding the Bhutan METT+ and gain access to information from PAs and WCD to complete the biodiversity tracking tools.

7

CHAPTER 3 ASSESSMENT OF BIODIVERSITY and SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF THE 3 LANDSCAPES

1. Introduction This chapter presents the findings from literature review, consultation with WCD and PAs staff, relevant agencies, and respondent interviews with farmers. Details on each of the three landscapes are provided in Annexures 1, 2, and 3.

Ecosystem and socio-economic conditions across much of the three landscapes are more or less similar. Within Landscape 1, JKSNR has the dominant representation of pristine temperate and alpine ecosystems in the country. Given the regional ecological connectivy through Manas, Landscape 2 represents very rich ecosystem diversity ranging from subtropical through warm and cool broadleaf to temperate forests of JSWNP. Similarly, Landscape 3 compirises of a rich ecosystem diversity. Livelihood activities of the farmers don’t significantly differ between villages across the three landscapes. However, alpine inhabitants withing the landscapes predominatly depeon on livestock grazing. This translates into similar threats posed to biodiversity conservation in all the three landscapes and therefore a common strategy can almost all the time work in all the places.

2. Status of Biodiversity Biologically, Bhutan is part of Eastern Himalayan biodiversity hot spot 1 with high ecsystem and species diversity. Bhutan’s biodiversity not only harbors high profile species such as tigers and snow leopards, but also continues to provide important global conservation functions. The biological diversity of the three landscapes is described below:

2.1 . Wild biodiversity 2.1.1. Ecoregions, ecosystems, and habitats Landscape 1 connects the Kanchenjunga landscape to Bhutan allowing continuity between conservation landscapes in Tibet, Nepal and India. Landscape 2 also plays a critical role in transboundary and national conservation efforts. Along with Royal Manas National Park, it allows connectivity to Indian Manas Park (which is a World Heritage Site) and facilitates wildlife movement from tropical India into the mountains of Bhutan and vice versa. Ecologically, Royal Manas and Indian Manas together constitute the source population of many species including tigers, which then moves to different parts of Bhutan. Biological Corridor 2, 4 and 8 provide the life line of biological connectivity to the rest of the PAs in Bhutan. Phobjikha valley in Landscape 2 is also a RAMSAR site and an important roosting site for the endangered Black Necked Cranes. Landscape 3 is a critical reserve harboring temperate habitats and species and providing west-east and south connectivity. BC 8 allows migration of species and genes between Landscape 2 and north eastern parts of the country. For detailed description of the importance of the landscapes at ecoregion, ecosystem, and habits level please refer to the annexures 1, 2 and 3. A synthesis of the three landscapes and their ecological significance is presented in the table 4.

1 Conservation International: http://www.conservation.org/How/Pages/Hotspots.aspx

8

Table 4. Ecological and habitat significance of the landscapes Landscape Ecosystem/habitat represented Ecological significance Landscape 1 Temperate, alpine, and glaciers Connects Bhutan to kanchenjunga JKSNR Part of Global Biodiversity Hot conservation landscapes traversing spot Bhutan, Nepal, India and Tibet allowing Part of Sacred Himalayan movement of species internationally Landscape Provides biological corridor for BC 1 Temperate, alpine movement of species between JKSNR and JDNP Landscape 2 JSWNP Subtropical, warm broadleaf, Contiguous with Royal Manas National cool broadleaf, mixed broadleaf Park and Indian Manas which is a world and conifer, mixed conifer, heritage site. Allow for species to move conifer through alpine meadows from the Indian plains to the higher to glaciers. mountains in Bhutan and across to China, Nepal, and Indian Mountains. Most pristine and undisturbed conifer forest found here. Source of water for Chendebji, BC2 & BC8 Mangdechu and Punatsangchu Warm broadleaf, chirpine habitat, hydropower schemes cool broadleaf, conifer and alpine BC 2 connects JSWNP to JDNP along the boundary between Thimphu and Punakha Wangdue Dzongkhags BC 8 composed of numerous smaller landscapes connects JSWNP to JDNP and WCNP Landscape 3 PNP Temperate, alpine, and glaciers Represents mid country temperate ecosystem and allows lateral connectivity to BWS to east and WCNP to the north BC 4 Subtropical, cool broadleaf, Important and only corridor that temperate conifer habitats connects JSWNP towards east through PNP.

2.1.2. Globally threatened and endemic species Mammals: Effectively representing all the ecosystems and habitats in Bhutan, the three landscapes also harbor almost all of the faunal species that are known to occur in Bhutan. Of these, species that are totally protected under FNCA 1995, IUCN/CITES are presented in the Table 5. Globally threatened species such as Snow leopard (Panthera uncia), Tiger (Panthera tigris) Red panda (Alirus fulgens), Golden Langur (Trachypithecus geei), etc are found in these landscapes along with good diversity of ungulates including Musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster), Serow (Capricornis sumatraensis), Takin (Buorcas taxicolor whitei), and Sambar (Cervus unicolor). The detailed protected species in individual landscapes are listed for further references under Annexures 1, 2, and 3.

Table 5. List of classified mammal species in the three landscapes and their status (2016) Sl. Name Scientific Name PA found in Status No FNCA 1995 IUCN CITES 9

1 Tiger Panthera tigris All Totally EN App-I protected 2 Clouded Neofelis JKSNR, BC1, Totally VU App-I leopard nebulosa JSWNP, BC8, protected PNP, BC4 3 Snow Leopard Pantheria uncial JKSNR, Totally EN App-I BC1,BC2,PNP protected 4 Common Panthera pardus All PAs Totally NT App-I leopard protected 5 Asiatic golden Pardofelis All PAs VU App-I cat, temminckii 6 Leopard cat Prionailurus All PAs Totally LC App-II bengalensis protected 7 Wild dog Cuon alpinus All PAs - EN App-I 8 Himalayan Selenarctos ALL PAs Totally VU App-I black Bear thibetanus protected 9 Takin Buorcas JKSNR, BC1, Totally VU App-I taxicolor whitei BC2, BC8 protected 10 Asian elephant Elephas maximus JKSNR, JSWNP Totally EN App-I protected 11 Gaur Bos gaurus JKSNR, JSWNP Totally VU App-I protected 12 Water buffalo Bubalus babulus JKSNR Totally EN App-III protected 13 Musk deer Moschus All PAs Totally EN App-I chrysogaster protected 14 Goral Nemorhaedus All PAs - NT App-I goral 15 Himalayan Capricornis All PAs Totally VU App-I serow sumatraensis protected 16 Chinese Manis JSWNP Totally EN App-II pangolin pentadactyla protected 17 Red panda Alirus fulgens JKSNR, BC1, Totally VU App-I JSWNP, BC2, protected BC8, PNP 18 Malaysian Ratufa bicolor JSWNP NT App-II giant squirrel. 19 Grey langur Presbytis entellus All PAs - NT App-I 20 Golden langur Trachypithecus JSWNP, BC4 Totally EN geei protected 21 Assamese Macaca All PAs - NT App-II macaque assamensis 22 Yellow Martes flavigula All PAs App-III throated marten EN = endangered, VU = vulnerable, NT = near threatened, App = appendix

Birds: Bhutan is rich in avifaunal diversity. An exhaustive list of bird species recorded in the country has been compiled and reviewed, based on which the most threatened species are listed below (Table 6) with locations where they are found in the landscapes. In particular, the critically endangered White bellied heron is found along Punatsangchu, 10

Mangdechu, and in Ada lake in landscape 2. In addition, up to 400 endangered Black – necked Cranes roost in Phobjikha valley in BC8.

Table 6. List of classified bird species in the three landscapes and their status (2016) Sl. Name Scientific Name Landscape found in Status No. FNCA IUCN CITE 1995 S 1 White bellied Ardea insignis BC2, BC4, JWSNP Totally CR App-I heron protected 2 Rufous- necked Aceros JSWNP, PNP, Totally VU App-I hornbill nipalensis JKSNR, BC1, BC2, protected BC4 3 Great hornbill Buceros JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, NT App-I bicornis BC1, BC2, BC4 4 Wood snipe Gallinago JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, VU nemoricola BC1, BC4 5 Satyr Tragopan Tragonpan JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, VU App-I satyra BC1, BC2, BC4 6 Tibetan Etraogallus JSWNP, PNP, - VU App-I snowcock tibetanus JKSNR, BC1, BC2, BC4 7 River lapwing Vanellus JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, NT - duvaucelii BC1, BC2, BC4 8 Grey crowned Prinia JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, VU prinia cinereocapilla BC1, BC2, BC4 9 Black-necked Grus nigricollis BC8, JSWNP, BC4, Totally VU Crane PNP protected 10 Blood pheasant Ithaginis JSWNP, PNP, Totally LC App-I cruentus JKSNR, BC1, BC2, protected 11 Snow partridge Lerwa lerwa JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, LC BC1, BC2 12 Hill partridge Arborophila JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, VU App-I torqueola BC1, BC2, BC4 13 Darjeeling Dendrocopos JSWNP, PNP, Totally NT - woodpecker darjellensis JKSNR, BC1, BC2, protected BC4 14 Spotted Prinia JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, VU laughing thrush cinereocapilla BC1, BC2, BC4 15 Yellow rumped Indicator JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, NT honeyguide xanthonotus BC1, BC2, BC4

16 Himalayan Lophophorus JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, NT monal impeganus BC1, BC2 17 Beautiful Sitta formosa JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, VU nuthatch BC1, BC2, BC4

11

18 Ward’s trogon Harpactes wardi JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, NT BC1, BC2, BC4 19 Red headed Harpactes JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, NT trogon erythrocephalus BC1, BC2, BC4 20 Himalayan Gyps JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, NT griffon himalayensis BC1, BC2, BC4 21 Brown wood Strix JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, NT owl leptogrammica BC1, BC2, BC4 22 Great parrot bill Conostoma JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, NT oemodium BC1, BC2, BC4 23 Fire tailed Myzornis JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, NT myzornis pyrrhoura BC1, BC2, BC4 24 Yellow rumped Indicator JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, NT honeyguide xanthonotus BC1, BC2, BC4 26 Hoary-throated Actinodura JSWNP, PNP, Totally VU App-I barwing nipalensis JKSNR, BC1, BC2, protected BC4 27 Tufted duck Avthya fuligula JSWNP, PNP, JKSNR, LC - BC1, BC2, BC4 CR= critically endangered EN = endangered, VU = vulnerable, NT = near threatened, App = appendix

Fish: There is limited studies on icthyic or aquatic diversity in Bhutan. Fish records available from National Cold Water Fishery in Haa and other experts are presented in Table 7. According to the information collected from Haa fishery, Dangmechhu, Mangchhu (Manas), Punatsangchhu (Sankosh), Wangchu (Raidak), and Amochhu (Toorsa) exhibit the highest diversity of fish species. In the higher elevations, these rivers support very low fish diversity due to their low productivity (Dubley, 1978).

Table 7. List of fish species and their status across the landscapes Sl. Name Scientific Name PA found in Status No. FNCA 1995 IUCN 1 Oreonectes Oreonectes BC8 Protected acridorsalis acridorsalis 2 Badis, Dwarf Badis badis BC8, JSWNP, Protected LC Chameleon Fish BC2 3 Devil Catfish Bagarius bargarius BC8, JSWNP, Protected NT BC2 4 Gray’s Stone Loach Balitora brucei BC2, JSWNP Protected NT 5 Kalabans Bangana dero BC8, BC2 Protected LC 6 Barna Baril Barilius barna BC8, BC2, Protected LC 7 Barilius bendelisis BC8, C4, BC2 Protected LC 8 Batasio batasio BC4 Protected LC 9 Queen Loach Botia Dario BC4 Protected LC 10 Catla Catla catla BC4 Protected LC 11 Dwarf Snakehead Channa gachua BC4 Protected LC 12

12 Snakehead Murrel Channa striata BC4, BC8 Protected LC 13 Mrigal carp Cirrhinus cirrhosus BC4, BC8 Protected VU 14 Gangetic latia Crossocheilus latius BC4, BC8, Protected LC JSWNP 15 Assamese kingfish Cyprinion semiplotum BC8, BC2 Protected VU 16 Wild Common Carp Cyprinus Carpio BC4, BC8 Protected VU 17 Olive Danio Danio dangila JSWNP, BC4, Protected LC BC2 18 Zebrafish Danio rerio BC4, BC2 Protected LC 19 Annandale garra Garra annandalei BC4, BC2, Protected LC BC8 20 Sucker Head Garra gotyla gotyla BC2, BC8 Protected LC 21 Gogangra viridescens BC4, BC8 Protected LC 22 Silver Carp Hypophthalmichthys BC2, BC8 Protected NT molitrix 23 Bighead Carp Hypophthalmichthys BC2, BC8 Protected DD nobilis 24 Kuria labeo Labeo dyocheilus BC2, BC4 Protected LC 25 Pangusia Labeo Labeo pangusia BC2, BC8 Protected NT 26 Tire Track Eel Mastacembelus BC2, BC4 Protected LC armatus 27 Mystus bleekeri BC2, BC4 Protected LC 28 Chola Barb Puntius chola BC2, BC4, Protected LC BC8 29 Spotfin Swamp Barb Puntius sophore BC8, BC4 Protected LC 30 Trout barb Raiamas bola BC4, BC2 Protected LC 31 Slender Barb Rasbora daniconius BC2, BC8 Protected LC 32 Brown Trout Salmo trutta BC1, JKSNR, Protected LC BC2, JSWNP 33 Striped Dwarf Catfish Mystus vittatus BC2, BC8 Protected LC 34 Katli Neolissochilus BC4, BC8, Protected NT hexagonolepis BC2, BC1 35 Blunt-nosed Schizothorax JSWNP, BC2, Protected DD Snowtrout molesworthi BC4 36 Dinnawah Snowtrout Schizothorax progastus BC1, BC2, Protected LC JKSNR, BC4 37 Putitor Mahseer Tor putitora BC4, BC8, Protected EN JSWNP, 38 Mahseer Tor tor BC4, BC8, Protected NT JSWNP, BC2 EN = endangered, VU = vulnerable, NT = near threatened, LC =Least Concern

Butterfly: A comprehensive inventory of Bhutan’s lepidopteran fauna is currently ongoing. None of the butterfly species reported from Bhutan are included in protected schedules of Forest and Nature Conservation Rules, 2006 of Bhutan except Ludlow’s Bhutan Glory. A selected list of butterflies found in the PAs are listed in Table 8.

13

Table 8. List of butterflies discovered and their conservation status Sl.no Common Name Scientific name PA Found in Conservation status 1 Great Blackvien Aporia agathon BC4, PNP Common 2 Common Albatross Appias albina JSWNP, BC2, Common BC8 3 Tibetan Blackvein Aporia (Mesapia) JKSNR, BC1 Rare peloria 4 Spot Puffin Appias lalage BC8, BC2, Common JSWNP 5 Striped Albatross Appias olferna BC8, BC2, Common JSWNP 6 Chocolate Albatross Appias lyncida BC8, BC2, Common JSWNP 7 Eastern Striped Appias olferna BC8, JSWNP Common Albatross 8 Red-Breast Jezebel Delias acalis BC2, BC8, Common JSWNP 9 Dark Jezebel Delias berinda BC8, BC2, Common JSWNP 10 Yellow Jezebel Delias agostina BC8 Common 11 Red-spot Jezebel Delias descombesi BC8, BC2, Common JSWNP 12 Painted Jezebel Delias hyparete JSWNP Common 13 Psyche Leptoisa nina BC8, BC2 Common 14 Yellow Orange-tip Lxias pyrene JSWNP Common familiaris 15 Large Cabbage Pieris brassicae BC2, PNP, BC8 Common White 16 Indian Cabbage Pieris canidia BC8, PNP Common White 17 Green-Veined Pieris napi BC8 Common White 18 Bath White Pontia daplidice BC8, PNP Common 19 Spotted Sawtooth Prioneris thestylis BC8 Common 20 Common Gull Cepora nerissa BC8, JSWNP Common 21 Pale Clouded Colias erate BC2, BC4, PNP Common Yellow 22 Dark Clouded Colias fieldii PNP, BC4 Common Yellow 23 Pale Wanderer Pareronia avatar PNP, BC4 Common 24 Lemon Emigrant Catopsilia pomona PNP, BC4 Common 25 Plain Sulphur Dercas Lycorias JSWNP, BC2, Rare BC8 26 Tailed Sulphur Dercas verhuelli BC8 Common 27 One-spot Grass Eurema andersonii PNP, BC4 Common Yellow 28 Three-spot Grass Eurema blanda PNP, BC4 Common Yellow 29 Small Grass Yellow Eurema brigitta JSWNP Common

14

30 Common Grass Eurema hecabe PNP, BC4, Common Yellow BC8, JSWNP 31 Spotless Grass Eurema laeta PNP, BC4 Common Yellow 32 Tree Yellow Gandaca Harina PNP, BC4 Common 33 Lesser Brimstone Gonepteryx Aspasia JSWNP, BC2 Common 34 Common Brimstone Gonepteryx rhamni JSWNP, BC2, Common BC4 35 Towband Plum Judy Abisara bifasciata JKSNR, BC1 Common 36 Plum Judy Abisara exherius JSWNP, BC2 Rare 37 Tailed Judy Abisara neophron JSWNP, BC2 Common 38 Striped Punch Dodona adonira JSWNP, BC2, Common BC4 39 Mixed Punch Dodona ouida PNP, BC4 Common 40 Punchinello Zemeros flegyas PNP, BC4 Common Note: since butterflies of Bhutan are not listed in the conservation status either in IUCN or CITES, the general conservation status was noted for the importance; C=Common, R=Rare.

Reptiles and amphibians: None of the PAs in the three study landscapes have carried out studies related to reptiles and amphibians.

Other Forest Genetic Resources other than timber with economic potential: Many farmers still depend heavily on non-timber forest products including mushroom, cane and bamboo, aromatic and medicinal plants, dye, etc for their daily livelihoods. Some of the important species are presented in annexure 3.

2.2. Agrobiodiversity Crop diversity: Bhutan is an agrarian country with over 69% of the country’s population depending directly on agriculture. Conservation of crop diversity is important for rural livelihoods. Most commonly cultivated cereal crops under the three landscapes are rice in the lower land and wheat in higher land. Important species of crop grown in the landscapes are presented in Table 9.

Table 9. List of cultivated crop found in the landscapes Sl. No Name Scientific Name PA found in 1 Rice Oryza sativa All 2 Maize Zea mays JSWNP, BC2, PNP, BC4, BC8 3 Finger Millet Eleusine coracana BC1, BC8 4 Foxtail Millet Setaria italica PNP, BC1, BC2, BC4, JKSNR, JSWNP 5 Common Millet Panicum miliaceum PNP, BC1, BC2, BC4, JKSNR, JSWNP 6 Barley Hordeum vilgare JKSNR, BC1, JSWNP, BC2, BC8, PNP, BC4 7 Sorghum Sorghum bicolor PNP, BC4, BC2 8 Wheat Triticum JKSNR, BC1, JSWNP, BC2, BC8 9 Sweet buckwheat Polygonum fagopyrum JKSNR, BC1, JSWNP, BC2, BC8, PNP, BC4 10 Bitter buckwheat Fagopyrum esculentum JKSNR, BC1, JSWNP, BC2, BC8, PNP, BC4 15

11 Amaranthus Amaranthus retroflexus PNP, BC4, JSWNP 12 Beans Phaseolus lunatus All 13 Pea Pisum sativum JKSNR, BC1 14 Cow pea Vigna unguiculata PNP, BC4 15 Soybean Glycine max PNP, BC4 16 Mustard Brassica JSWNP, BC2, BC8, PNP, BC4 17 Niger Guizotia abyssinica BC2, BC8 18 Groundnut Arachis hypogaea BC1, BC8, BC2

Livestock: Livestock farming is one of the key components of agriculture and thus a main source of livelihood for subsistence farmers in the rural areas of country. The various types of livestock are reared for food, fertilizers, raw materials for cloths, labor forces on farms, and transportation. As a result, livestock development forms an integral part of rural poverty reduction strategies (RNR statistics, 2015). The livestock diversity of Bhutan (Table 10) is not different from those commonly occurring elsewhere in the Himalayas. High landers rear vulnerable species like Yak (Bos gruniens) and low landers cattle species.

Table 10. Livestock diversity in the landscapes Sl.no Breed/type Scientific name PA found in Conservation status (IUCN) 1 Nublang Bos indicus All Native 2 Mithun Bos frontalis BC1, BC2, BC8 3 Jersey Bos Taurus All 4 Yak Poephagusgrunniens JKSNR, BC1, JSWNP, VU or Bos gruniens BC2, BC4, PNP 5 Horse Equus caballus All 6 Mule Equus asinus All 7 Donkey Equus africanus JKSNR, BC1, BC4, asinus BC2 8 Sheep Ovis aries JKSNR, BC1, BC2, BC8, BC4 9 Goat Capra hircus BC1, BC2, BC8, JSWNP 10 Pig Sus scrofa JKSNR, BC1, BC2, BC8, BC4, JSWNP 11 Chicken Gallus gallus BC1, BC2, BC4, BC8, domesticus BC4 JSWNP Source: National Biodiversity Center, MOAF 2016

2.3 Community awareness and perception on biodiversity and ecosystem 2.3.1. Community awareness level about biodiversity and ecosystem The level of awareness about biodiversity and ecosystem conservation is quite high across the landscape with over 90% of the respondents saying they are aware about biodiversity conservation (Figure 2). Respondents from landscape 1 are the most aware (96.7%) followed by landscape 3 (93.75%), and landscape 2 (89.3%). Although more number of men were less aware about biodiversity, analysis to ascertain differences in awareness levels by gender, education levels, and age were not significant. This could be attributed to more women attending local meetings and capacity building programs while men are away

16

working in the field or engaged in off farm works. Within landscape 1, although given that its management started recently the intensive social consultation for socio-economic survey with grant from ICIMOD may have contributed to dissemination of information in this area. Their proximity to the capital of the country must have played a role. While JSWNP and PNP are some of the older parks, their awareness levels probably got dampened due to lack of enough activities across large areas. Ethnicity also did not affect awareness levels.

Figure 2. Community awareness about biodiversity and ecosystem 120 100 80 60 40

20 Percent respondents Percent 0 Landscape 1 Landscape 2 Landscape 3

Yes No

2.3.2. Community awareness about the existence of the biological corridors High levels of awareness about biodiversity conservation across the landscapes delved deeper into respondent knowledge about the existence of biological corridors. Overall, over 88% of the respondents indicated they are aware about the existence of the biological corridors. Respondents (61%) also overwhelmingly confirmed that the biological corridors are established for nature conservation, while a smaller percentage (34%) said it’s for wildlife migration (Figure 4), which is the real scientific purpose of establishing the BCs. Quite a few respondents especially from landscape 3 (16.5%, composing of 8.8% males and 6.3% females) and 2 (10.7% composing of 8% men and 2.2% women) had no idea why the BCs were established providing opportunities to target future awareness campaigns. As in case of biodiversity awareness, more men are less aware about the existence of BCs.

Respondents also ranked park officials as the top source of information regarding BCs followed by local governments, dzongkhags, MoAF staff, and village elders.

17

Figure 3. Are you aware about the existance of biological corridors?

100 80 60 40

20 Percent respondents Percent 0 Landscape 1 Landscape 2 Landscape 3

Yes No

Figure 4. Reasons why biological corridors are established?

Landscape 3

Landscape 2

Landscape 1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Don’t know Wildlife migration Nature conservation

2.3.3. Community perception on status of biodiversity From Table 11, it is clear that there is no consistent trend in the status changes of biodiversity across the three landscapes as far as the respondents are concerned. Overall, the landscape is perceived to have improved in the last 5 years but significant number of respondents in landscape 2 and 3 also reported a need for improvement. Majority of the respondents from these landscapes also indicated the biodiversity of their landscapes are as good as 5 years ago due to conservation efforts. The respondents reasoned that environmental degradation from infrastructural development project such as roads and hydropower projects are mainly responsible for the degrading biodiversity status. This suggests that more attention is required to avoid and mitigate such impacts in the project landscapes.

18

Table 11. Farmer perception of biodiversity status (%) Condition of biodiversity 5 years ago Today Needs Excellent Good Fair Improved Stable improvement Landscapes Landscape 1 6.7 23.3 70 80 10 10 Landscape 2 14 46 40 38.7 48 12.7 Landscape 3 3.8 53.8 42.5 50.0 43.8 25.0

At a species level there are conflicting trends across the landscapes. Predator populations according to locals are decreasing in landscape 1 but increasing in landscape 2 with landscape 3 reporting increase for leopard and wild dog but a decrease for tiger (Table 12). This confers that overall, there is a decreasing perception of tiger population in the landscape, which is a serious concern. Perceived population of wild ungulates such as sambar and barking deer are reported to be decreasing in landscape 1 but increasing in landscape 2 and 3. However, wild pig and macaque populations are perceived to be increasing across all of the landscapes. Perceived reports on increasing predator and prey populations in the same locations are confounding and deserve scientific study to ascertain issues relating to consequences. One can speculate on cross border poaching and wildlife trade as a probable cause for decreasing perception on wildlife populations especially predators in landscape 1, but we don’t have empirical evidence from a population study to assert such a conclusion here. There was also no evidence of significant difference in the perception on biodiversity status between women and men. This could be attributable to the fact that both men and women interact with biodiversity in the field and in forests on an almost equal basis.

Table 12. Farmer perception of population status of key wildlife species (%)

Landscape 1 Landscape 2 Landscape 3

Key wildlife

Stable Stable

species Stable

Increasing Increasing Increasing

Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Tiger 0 56.7 43.3 44.0 28.0 28.0 18.8 52.5 28.8 Leopard 3.3 46.7 50 53.3 19.3 27.3 52.5 25.0 22.5 Wild dog 13.3 63.3 23.3 51.3 26.7 22.0 47.5 16.3 36.3 Sambar 50 43.3 6.7 85.3 12.0 2.7 66.3 20.0 13.8 Barking deer 46.7 70 3.3 96.7 0.0 3.3 83.8 2.5 13.8 Wild pig 90 10 0 98.7 0.0 1.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 Macaque 50 33.3 16.7 81.3 6.0 12.7 72.5 0.0 27.5

2.3.4. Community support for protection of wildlife and wildlife policy From the respondents, there is an overwhelming support (84%) to protect wildlife and support the wildlife conservation policy (Table 13). Their motivation stems from a variety

19

of factors including cultural and conservation significance of tiger, leopard (as precious and endangered species), and wild dog as predator for wild pig and sambar as prey for tiger and leopard. This is hugely impressive given that these same farmers are suffering livestock predation and crop damage from the same species. Respondent backgrounds such as ethnicity, gender, age, and education did not indicate a difference in their support for wildlife protection and policy.

Table 13. Support for wildlife conservation policy Yes No Landscapes Top three wildlife that % % Reasons should be protected Landscape 1 86.7 13.3 Tiger, leopard, wild dog Precious animal, endangered

Landscape 2 86.7 13.3 Tiger, leopard, wild dog Precious animal, endangered Landscape 3 82.5 17.5 Tiger, leopard, wild Tiger, leopard precious and dog, sambar endangered, sambar is important prey, wild dog predator for wild pig

3 Status of socio-economic conditions 3.1 Demographic characteristics Overall, 55.3% of the respondents were female and 44.7% male (Table 14). Females dominated the respondent population in landscape 1. 89.4% of the respondents are between the ages of 15-65 representing highly productive labor in the landscapes. In terms of education, large proportion of the respondents (70%) have no education of any sorts and only 7% having completed high school education. On the education front, the communities remain largely uneducated (70%) with only 7% of the respondents reproted to have completed high school.

Table 14. Demographic profile of respondents (%) from the landscapes

Landscape 1 Landscape 2 Landscape 3 Total Gender Female 70 46 50 55.3 Male 30 54 50 44.7 Age 15-65 90 90.7 87.5 89.4 >65 10 9.3 12.5 10.6 Education High school 6.7 9.3 6 7.3 Primary 10 13.3 12 11.8 NFE 13.3 3.3 15 10.5 None 70 74 67 70.3

20

3.2 Livelihood and income 3.2.1 Sources of livelihoods Like across much of Bhutan, agriculture (49.8%) and livestock (35.5%) are the top livelihood sources for majority of the farmers in the landscapes (Table 15). Off farm is more prevalent in landscape 2 while business and trade is popular in landscape 1. Any attempt to improve the livelihood of the households in the landscapes at least in the short run will need to focus on improving agriculture and livestock opportunities that could include diversification including farm businesses.

Table 15. Sources of livelihoods as reported by respondents (%)

Landscapes Sources of livelihoods Agriculture Livestock Trade/Business Off farm Landscape 1 50 34 8 6 Landscape 2 45.5 36.4 6.3 11.9 Landscape 3 54 36 5 4 Total (%) 49.8 35.5 6.4 7.3

3.2.2 Agriculture Development of agricultural schemes is very essential for the rural poverty alleviation across the landscapes. Majority of the rural population lives in poverty induced by lack of enough land to cultivate profitably (where inputs exceed outputs). Overall, 47% of the respondents reported owning no wet land in the landscapes (Table 16). Wetlands are precious property for growing staple food such as rice, wheat, etc. and has the potential to reduce farmers depending on forests including shifting cultivation.

Farmers in landscape 1 and 3 own less wetland compared to those in landscape 2. This has inflated the parentage of farmers owning wetland in general. Another factor that exacerbated low ownership of wetland is due to absence of wetlands in the high altitudes.

Table 16. Land holding pattern of households across the three landscapes (%) Landscape 1 Landscape 2 Landscape 3 Total Dryland Wetland Dryland Wetland Dryland Wetland Dryland Wetland No land 6.7 66.7 12 22.7 0 53.8 6.2 47.7 <1 acre 26.7 10 18 18 6.3 13.8 17 13.9 1-3 acres 43.3 23.3 49.3 44 60 26.3 50.9 31.2 3-5 acres 16.7 0 11.3 12.7 21.3 6.3 16.4 6.3 > 5 acres 6.7 0 9.3 2.7 12.5 0 9.5 0.9

In general, majority of the farmers (50.9% for dryland and 31.2% for wetland) who own land between 1-3 acres. Small land holders are more vulnerable to uncertainties related to weather, pest and disease or other calamities like fire (Table 16). To reduce risks from these uncertainties, agriculture must diversify through development of farm business, agricultural self-help groups, and improved access to markets.

21

3.2.3 Livestock Traditional Bhutanese agriculture and life on farm is not complete without livestock rearing. Livestock provides very important services including draught power to plough fields, milk, butter, and meat as well as manure. In higher altitudes yaks are the primary source of livelihood. Across the landscapes, 81.9% of the farmers reported owning herds of various sizes (Table 17). On average there is almost 1 cattle head for every individual in the landscapes.

Table 17. Livestock ownership patterns in the three landscapes (%) Landscape 1 Landscape 2 Landscape 3 Total Yes 63 92.7 90 81.9 No 37 7.3 10 18.1 Mean per capita livestock owned 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.7

At the moment about 48.7% of the respondents graze their herds in the forest as well as feed them in the stalls at night (Figure 5). This population of livestock in the forest is further compounded by another 14% of the respondents who purely graze their herds in the forest. Landscape 3 has a high percentage of respondents practicing stall feeding compared to other landscapes probably due to successful distribution of improved breeds in some of the gewogs.

Figure 5. Feeding preferences as reported by those 80 who own livestock (%)

60

40

20 Percent respondents Percent 0 Landscape 1 Landscape 2 Landscape 3 Total

Forest Stall Both forest and stall

Improved breeds are a good alternative but are unable to replace draught power and manure production and demands huge amounts of fodder. Government effort to mechanize agriculture is slowly gaining popularity but affordability remains a key constraint for many farmers. Decisions leading to reduction of livestock grazing in forest needs to understand the herd dynamics and economics in details including some of the constraints that are faced by the livestock owners. Currently, lack of enough grazing land is the key constraint with over 57% of the respondents saying they don’t have enough grazing land (Figure 6). If livestock is a primary source of livelihood and an inevitable part of agriculture, then one has to address the issues of insufficient grazing land to effectively address poverty. Highly subsidized (if not free) distribution of improved breeds coupled with herd management 22

training (targeted at stall feeding, fodder management, benefits of reduced grazing in forests) and fodder seeds are critical for alleviating this challenge.

Figure 6. Constraints faced by livestock owners (%)

Total

Landscape 3

Landscape 2

Landscape 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percent respondetns Pest and disease Insufficient grazing land Few extensionist Poor quality breeds Low milk yield Loss to predators

3.2.4 Major sources of cash income Agriculture (50.3%) and livestock (32.8%) are the top sources of cash income as reported by the respondents in the landscapes (Figure 7). Across all landscapes, business and off farm activity earnings are almost equal. On average households have earned about Nu. 81,887 per annum from various sources, with majority of it coming from agriculture (Nu. 48,296) and livestock (Nu. 17,902; Table 18). What is interesting is that despite few respondents reporting business and off farm activity as their sources of livelihood and cash incomes, the actual income is quite substantial especially from business. This is attributed to the fact that business can earn higher incomes compared to other sectors.

High potential to earn cash incomes from off farm and business enterprises, and the presence of self-help groups in the landscapes open up opportunities for value addition to the existing infrastructure as well as establishing farm based enterprises to diversify their source of cash incomes.

Figure 7. Sources of cash income (%) 60 55 51 50.3 50 45 40 36.4 31 31 32.8 30 20 11.9 8 10 8 8.1 8.6

10 6 6.2 Percent respondents Percent 0 Landscape 1 Landscape 2 Landscape 3 Total

Agri products Livestock products Trade/business Off farm

23

Table 18. Mean cash incomes from different sources in the landscapes Landscape 1 Landscape 2 Landscape 3 Average earning Sources Nu Nu Nu Nu Agri products 43000 50027 51862 48296.3 Livestock products 24633 15263 13812 17902.7 Trade/business 6333.3 9933 14612 10292.8 Off farm 4633.3 8527 3625 5595.1 Total mean earning 78599.6 83750 83911 81887

3.2.5. Food self sufficiency In terms of food security, landscape 3 came at the top with 100% of the respondents reporting they produce enough to last all year round. Landscape 1 follows closely, where 97% of the households responding they produce enough to eat throughout the year. Only one household reported food insecure as the household is landless and depends on food secured from exchange of labor. However, only 57% of the respondents in landscape 2 reporeted they produce enough to last through out the year, with 29% reporting their food security as just about enough, and 14% reporting low food security and having to borrow during lean seasons. Majority of the food insecure in this landscape live in Athang gewog with 50% of the respondents saying they are food insecure. Those reporting food insecurity mostly face food shortages in the months of June, July, and December. They cope with food insecurity by using livestock products and depends on remittances from their relatives in service.

3.3. Membership, gender and social inclusion Self-Help Groups (SHGs) are taking root in the communities across the landscapes with many joining these groups. The survey has captured over 13 different groups across the landscapes (Table 19). Largest group remains to be the community forest group wherein, 30% of the respondents are member of the group. This is encouraging as community forest can take away a lot of pressure on forest resource extraction including fuel wood. These groups are well established and are inclusive of gender and social status.

Compared to male (35.8%), more women (64.2%) were members of the SHGs indicating women playing an active role in community groups/organizations. In terms of gender aggregated roles, both male and female are encouraged to join the SHGs. In terms of some of the activities, females are involved in collection of fodder while male tend to be more involved in fuel wood transportation. Fuel wood collection, herding cows and collection of other forest products are done jointly by men and women.

Table 19. Membership in existing self-help groups in landscape 2 % respondents reporting membership in various groups in the landscapes Landscape 1 Landscape 2 Landscape 3 Total Community Forest 43.3 27.3 18.8 29.8 Agriculture 0.0 1.3 0 0.4

24

Livestock farm 0.0 1.3 0 0.4 Milk(Milk Processing Unit) 6.7 0 2.5 3.1 Fishery 0.0 10 0 3.3 Orchid 0.0 1.3 0 0.4 Water group 0.0 2 0 0.7 Community forest + (Milk 2.0 0 Processing Unit) 3.6 2.5 School management 3.3 0 0 1.1 Livestock + agriculture 0.0 0 10 3.3 Cane and bamboo 0.0 3 2.5 1.8 Green house 0.0 0 7.5 2.5 Vegetable 0.0 0 1.3 0.4

4. Key threats and root causes Key threats to the long term integrity of biodiversity conservation in Bhutan emerge from human wildlife conflicts, excessive grazing, unsustainable harvesting of forest products, poaching of forest and wildlife, forest fires, infrastructure development leading to land use changes for largescale development projects such as hydropower, and climate change. The root causes of these threats include a suite of complex interactions between human livelihoods and nature. Rugged terrain and topography limiting the amount of land available for agriculture (only about 2.9 % of the country is arable) (Bhutan Land Cover Assessment, 2010) coupled with fast growing population (about 3.1% annually), and the advent of a market economy are the main anthropogenic causes of threats to the long term integrity of biodiversity and ecosystems. Limited arable land means a stable agricultural production against increasing food and energy demands due to a growing population. In the long term, this imbalance will either increase demand for agricultural expansion resulting in land encroachment and land use changes or increase import of essential food items from other countries. These threats are compounded with excessive grazing by livestock, which is the backbone of subsistence agriculture providing draft energy, manure, milk, and meat. Parallel to this, the demand for other ecosystem services and natural resources including raw material for housing, edible products, aromatic and medicinal plants, etc., will increase, thus pushing the boundaries of sustainability. Current focus on construction of farm roads and hydropower plants will further exacerbate the existing threats to biodiversity conversation and ecosystem services management. Each of these threats are discussed below together with their immediate and underlying root causes.

4.1 Human wildlife conflicts Conflict between people and wildlife is a serious problem that must be addressed if conservation of biodiversity is to succeed and the government is to realize its national poverty alleviation goals. And, perversely, conservation success often leads to increased conflict as wildlife populations grow. The often-significant financial and labor (spent in guarding and building other protective measures) losses farmers and livestock owners endure at the hands of tigers, other predators, and prey species lead to revenge killing, and

25

antipathy toward wildlife, protected areas and their managers2. Yet the support of these same rural people is essential to making any conservation program work. If not addressed with speed and efficiency, human wildlife conflict can become a significant obstacle to enlisting and maintaining rural support for conservation3.

Bhutan’s conservation efforts is faced with serious human wildlife conflict in the form of crop damage (Figure 8) and livestock depredation (Figure 9) by wildlife, and retaliatory killing of wildlife by humans. It is also reported, 100% of the respondents suffered crop damage in the last year from wildlife including wild pig, sambar, barking deer, macaques, porcupine, monkeys, and birds (Table 20). Of these, respondents identified wild pig, barking deer, and sambar as the three top predators on crops. Respondents (98.9%) ranked wild pig as the top agent responsible for crop damage, followed by barking deer (66.1%), and sambar (39.7%). The extent of crop damage in the study sites are significantly higher than those reported in the RNR Census 2009, where only 55.7% of rural households reported crop damage.

Table 20. Households who experienced crop damage and livestock predation (%) Landscape 1 Landscape 2 Landscape 3 Total

Crop damage 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Livestock predation 20.0 88.0 77.5 61.8

About 61.8% of the respondents have reported livestock predation (Table 20). Least predation was reported form landscape 1 and the maximum from landscape 2. Respondents have suffered livestock predation from leopards, tigers, wild dogs, and Himalayan black bears (Figure 9). Of these farmers (51.5%) have ranked leopard as the top predator on livestock followed by wild dog, tiger, and Himalayan black bear. Records from parks indicate that at least 95 cattle, 9 horses, and 1 mule was killed by predators such as tiger, Himalayan black bear, leopard, and wild dog. It is important to note that predation by tiger is absent in landscape 1 and declining in landscape 2 and 3 where it use to be the top predator responsible for livestock kills, If the findings are true, then either the tiger population is on the decline or livestock is better herded. No tiger was detected by the National Tiger Survey in JKSNR. In addition, two tigers were killed in JSWNP and could have led towards reduced predation If tiger numbers are indeed declining, then it contradicts the findings of the National Tiger Inventory which indicated an net increase in tiger population. This contradiction could occur for several reasons. Firstly, there is no national baseline for tiger population to be compared against the results of recent national tiger inventory. Infact the recent national tiger inventory is the best baseline we have for Bhutan. Past tiger studies were patchy and presence absence based. Secondly, there could be localized threats to tiger populations in the parks. Either ways these findings demand further investigation.

2 Wang, S.W. and Macdonald, D.W. (2009). Feeding habits and niche partitioning in a predator guild composed of tigers, leopards and dholes in a temperate ecosystem in central Bhutan. Journal of Zoology (Lond.). 277: 275 3 Wang, S.W. (2008). From compensation to community based insurance program: a sustainable alternative 26

Figure 8. Key wildlife species responsible for crop damage (%) 120 100 80 60 40 20 Percent respondents Percent 0 Landscape 1 Landscape 2 Landscape 3 Total

Wild pig Sambar Barking deer

Figure 9. key wildlife species responsbile for livestock predation (%) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

Percent respondents Percent 10 0 Landscape 1 Landscape 2 Landscape 3 Total

Tiger Leopard Wild dog Himalayan bear

Escalating HWC has also been attributed to excessive grazing combined with unsustainable resource extraction that has outcompeted wild ungulates from deep forest to feed on crops and dwell in marginal habitats around human settlements (Wang and Macdonald, 2009). The extent and magnitude of these conflicts get amplified with increase in human population and developmental activities putting extra pressure on forest lands resulting in loss/shrinkage/disturbance to wildlife habitat.

4.2 Over-grazing In the landscapes under this assessment, livestock is maintained by farmers mainly for dairy products, draught power, and farm manure which are critical components of a successful farm life. Cattle is reared by farmers in mid and low altitudes while farmers in the high altitudinal areas of JKSNR, BC1, BC 8, and PNP, who practice a nomadic lifestyle keeping yaks. Catlle such as yaks compete for fodder especially with primary snow leopard prey such as blue sheep, which results into conflicts losing yeaks to snow leoaprds. In the lower altitudes, excessive grazing of cattle in forests lead to fragmentation of forest habitats and depletion of fodder resources thus pushing wild ungulates into marginal lands near agricultural fields (and get used to lush and nutritious agricultural crops and get used to it causing crop damage). 27

This assessment through field consultation, observation, and existing knowledge reveal that except for JKSNR and core zones of JSWNP and PNP, all other areas are under grazing threat. High percentage of farmers still grazing their livestock in deep forests or in alpine meadows. Nationally, livestock population has been holding steady over the last few years, putting increasing pressure on forest habitats especially alpine pastures. Poor herd management practices including stray grazing in deep forests and critical habitats including alpine meadows further compounds the existing threat to achieving biodiversity and ecosystem conservation goals. Realizing this, the government has and still is expending resources to reduce the livestock population through introduction of improved breeds, artificial insemination, and fodder cultivation. However, reduction of livestock population remains a daunting challenge for government agencies. As of 2014, there were 219,950 cattle and 44,993 yaks in the country4. With almost 4 % pasture land available in the country, which is equivalent to 1535.76 sq.km, its one sq.km pastureland for 228 cattle (including yaks), putting high pressure on both pasture and forest areas. This is indicated by over 80% of the respondents reporting insufficient grazing land as the top constraint facing the livestock sector. This is created in part by the government’s policy that nationalized all pastures.

4.3 Poaching and wildlife trade Although biodiversity in Bhutan enjoys the patronage of the Buddhist religion which regards taking of life as sin, poaching of wildlife species is becoming more evident for monetary gains. Wildlife species of high monetary values such as tiger, leopard, Himalayan black bear, and musk deer are being increasingly poached. Records from the landscape managers and DoFPS indicate that poaching is happening especially for musk deer, black bear, sambar, etc. (Table 21). The musk pods, and parts from tigers and leopards are being traded to the neighboring countries (both India and China) with increased value. According to the park managers, they are unable to apprehend poachers due to lack of skilled anti- poaching squad.

Table 21. Species poaching detected in the three landscapes Species poached Comments Tiger 2 killed in JSWNP Black bear 2 killed (1 each in JSWNP and PNP) Fish Common across all landscapes. Sambar 2 In agriculture field in JSWNP Musk Deer 5 musk deer killed in JSWNP Goral 2 killed in PNP Monal Pheasant 2 Monals killed Source: Park Management, DoFPS, Bhutan METT+ (this is not exhaustive as poaching not detected by forest officers are not included here)

4 RNR Census 2014 28

4.4 Over-exploitation and unsustainable use of natural resources Over-exploitation and unsustainable use of natural resources remains a major threat facing the landscapes (refer annexure 1, 2, and 3 for findings). These include timber resources especially timber for construction and roofing and non-timber resources such as fuelwood, medicinal and aromatic plants, mushrooms and other wild vegetables, cane and bamboo, plants barks and pulps for traditional paper and wood for handicrafts/furniture etc. Information compiled from the field indicate that all types of natural resources starting from stone, sand, timber, to medicinal plants are harvested illegally. Some of the most commonly extracted are also those that are required to meet the basic needs of the farmers including mushrooms, fern tops, and fodder.

Un-sustainable use of natural resources together with lack of sustainable harvesting measures are leading to over-exploitation and depletion of many of these important resources which are required for wildlife. Local extinctions are reported to be occurring in some places in the protected areas due to over-exploitation of resources. Reports from Bumdeling Wildlife Sanctuary (BWS) indicated that species like blue pine, which used to be found in Womaling area under Dungzam range in BWS, are no longer found now. And similarly many other species like daphne used for making traditional paper and wood burrs used for making wooden products once available in abundance have reduced drastically.

One of the issues with regard to sustainable resource use is also the timber subsidy given to rural communities by the government, which gets misused and ends up for commercial purposes. The royalties charged for subsidized timber and other natural resources is very negligible compared to the quantity of natural resources used from protected areas, which leads to over-exploitation and unsustainable use. Moreover, illegal use of forest resources both timber and non-timber resources due to lack of adequate human resources to monitor large and difficult areas in the protected areas adds to the problem. Collection and use of fuelwood is another major activity that contributes towards habitat fragmentation.

4.5. Land use change and conversion With only 2.9% arable land available for agriculture on which 69 % of rural population depends for their livelihoods, there is increasing pressure on the forest land for both agriculture and development. The loss of forest areas to developmental activities such as infrastructure, roads, transmission lines, and agriculture also takes place in the protected areas, leading to habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation.

Respondents in the field indicate that land use changes due to conversions are still ongoing especially for government approved projects including construction of roads, electric transmission lines, and hydropower infrastructure. Although there is a general agreement that forest cover has increased (Table 22) its evidence is limited to fast proliferation of community forests. National Forest Inventory is yet to release its final report which could confirm this perception. Respondents perceive that there is a corresponding increase in land uses under agriculture, shrub land, and settlement accompanied by decreasing grazing land, freshwater, and wetlands. For details of major ecosystem changes refer to the annexures 1 through 3.

29

Table 22. Respondent perception regarding changes in major ecosystem types (%) Perceived changes reported (%) Major Ecosystem types No change Increasing Decreasing No idea Forest 4.9 63.0 48.2 0.7 Agriculture 10.6 59.8 45.5 0.8 Grazing land 45.0 25.7 35.2 10.8 Shrub-land 48.6 29.3 6.3 35.8 Freshwater (river/steam) 31.9 23.6 54.6 6.5 Wetland 36.5 6.1 53.4 18.5 Settlement 28.2 60.7 22.6 8.6 Degraded or bare land 45.0 14.8 0.8 42.7

4.6 Forest Fires Forest fire is a major threat in the protected areas. Forest fires not only destroy critical habitats and kill wildlife but also expose top soil and make them vulnerable to soil erosion and landslides, thereby drastically reducing regeneration and changing the ecology of the area. Every year especially during the dry season in early spring and during autumn and winters, forest fires occur in different parts of the country. During the last 10 years, a total of 526 incidents of forest fires affecting 70,000 hectares of forest were recorded by the Social Forestry Division, Department of Forest and Park Services. The assessment also revealed that forest fires have occurred across all the landscapes. Significant number of fire incidents took place in the chirpine forest followed by mixed conifers, and broadleaf forest. Amongst the three landscapes maximum fires have occurred in landscape 2 destroying over 26,644 acres of forests, followed by landscape 3 that lost 3373 acres of forest to fire (Table 23). Overall in the last 5 years 30 incidences of recorded forest fires have damaged over 30,020 acres of forests with majority occurring in chirpine forest (25 of the 30 incidences). Uncontrolled burning of pastures or tseri land has been cited as the number one cause of fire followed by intentional fires for lemon grass oil production and grazing.

Table 23. Summary of forest fire frequencies, area damaged by forest type Area damaged Landscape Gewog Forest type Frequency Acres Year Sama 3 2015 Mixed conifer 1 Landscape 1 Tsento 0.04 2015 Blue pine 1 7765 2015 Chirpiness 3 Athang 6812 2013 Chirpine 2 200 2011 Chirpine/Broad leaf 1 1739 2015 Chripine 1 Daga 1743 2013 Chirpine 2 Landscape 2 142 2015 Blue pine 1 Phobji 600 2012 Blue pine 1 4.29 2015 Chirpine 1 Gasey Tsho Gom 2023 2013 Chirpine 3 Nysho 4900 2013 Chirpine 3 Langthel 600 2013 Chirpine 1 30

45 2012 Chirpine 1 Trong 71 2011 Chirpine/broadleaf 1 Metso 150 2015 Chirpine 1 462 2015 Chirpine 1 Gangzur 45 2014 Chirpine 1 Metsho 2000 2015 Chirpine 1 Landscape 3 600 2013 Chirpine 1 Langthel 45 2012 Chirpine 1 Trong 71 2011 Chirpine/broadleaf 1 Source: PAs and Fire Section/DoFPS.

4.7 Infrastructure and hydropower Road and hydropower construction continue to pose threat to not just conservation of biodiversity but socio-cultural elements of rural Bhutan. It is critical that agencies responsible for environmental and forestry monitoring implement environmental and social safeguard requirements with zero tolerance. In addition, policy directives must be issued to require wildlife friendly planning such as road structures incorporating safe crossings, etc. Landscape 2 located in the heart of Bhutan PA system serving as a conduit of species movement is surrounded by four mega hydropower project namely Puna Tsangchu I and II, Tansibji, and Mangdechu. Likewise, PNP has Kurichu and Chamkhar. The project must build innovative strategies including establishing a coordination mechanism between PA and Hydropower Authorities to identify and mitigate issues impacting biodiversity and social conditions in and around the PAs.

4.8 Climate Change Climate change is a universal challenge but the intensity of impacts varies. Fragile mountain ecosystems as represented in the three landscapes, with limited eco-zones and habitats are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Climate change impacts are already being felt varying levels by farmers and nature. These come in the form of flash floods, retreat of snow and glaciers, warmer winters with lesser snow, and changes in forest species composition on a tree line in mountain areas5. These findings are confirmed by this assessment with respondents enduring a variety of climate related impacts from drought, erratic rainfall patterns, wind/hailstorms, pest and diseases, etc. (Table 24). Of these, maximum number of respondents (75.8%) reported suffering from wind and hail storms that damaged crops, vegetables, and house roofs. Significant proportion of the respondents also reported suffering serious damage to their crops and vegetables from drought and erratic rainfall patterns.

5 Jianchu xu et al.(2009), The Melting Himalayas: Cascading Effects of Climate Change on Water, Biodiversity and Livelihood. 31

Table 24. Percent of respondents who experienced extreme weather events (%) Extreme weather Landscape Landscape Landscape events 1 2 3 Total Drought 36.7 58 40 44.9 Flood 30 2 6.3 12.8 Land slides 0 6.7 15 7.2 Soil erosion 0 8 27.5 11.8 Wind/hail storms 46.7 90 63.8 66.8 Forest fires 50 22.7 11.3 28.0 Early onset of rain 86.7 35.3 35 52.3 Delayed onset of rain 53.3 74.7 53.8 60.6 Prolonged rain 13.3 49.3 31.3 64.6 Pest and disease 50 87.3 90 75.8

On the biodiversity front, climate change would translate into an upslope movement of broadleaf and subalpine forests, with loss of most of the alpine and subalpine habitat. Loss of these important habitats will come at the cost of losing high altitude fauna putting the functionality of the ecosystem at high altitude. Some conifer and subalpine forests will remain in the northern regions of the landscape. This could increase the habitat for tigers with an equal if not more retreat of habitat for its sister cat, the snow leopard. The first to be impacted are the vulnerable species (species with low population, restricted home range, etc), which will be driven to extinction in the longer run. For instance, glacier melt and drying of wetlands will impact the breeding grounds of black necked cranes. Receding snow and glaciers will also reduce the habitat for snow leopards with tigers moving to higher grounds. Overall, combination of ecosystem changes will impede ecosystem services making life difficult for both nature and humans alike.

A perception study in BC16 inferred that the data on temperature, snowfall, rainfall, and other ecological responses indicated potential warming with plausible erratic rainfall pattern over the year could intensify the risk of drought and flood, monsoonal storms and floods incidences aggravating the occurrence of landslides. The study also reported that forest cover has decreased over the years with over 94.3% of the respondents observed changes in the forest composition. Likewise, the study also reported change in flowing time, change in bird migration patterns, presence of new species of weeds/plants, and increased presence of pests which are attributed to climate change.

These findings call for urgent strategies to be charted to enhance farmer resilience to better adapt to climate change impacts. Several of the respondents (68.4%) have already participated in some park programs on climate change mitigation and adaptation. Such programs must be carried out at full throttle to achieve adaptation goals.

6 Wangmo, S (undated) Understanding the perceived impact of climate change on biodiversity in the TSNR-JDNP corridor area and the coping/adaptations with the changing climate. WCD 32

5. Status of PA management effectiveness 5.1 Management plans and implementation Conservation management plans are under implementation for JKSNR, JSWNP, PNP, and BC1 (Table 25). Although the regulatory framework for biological corridors requires a management plan similar to the ones implemented in the parks, most BCs don’t have a plan. The reasons being: i) conservation management plans are based on extensive biophysical and socio-economic assessments and as such demands significant financial support; ii) lack of adequate number of highly qualified biologists (skilled in mammals, birds, plants etc) and social scientists that are required with adequate support staff to assess the baseline situation for writing plans; iii) unavailability of professional staff who are competent enough to synthesize field data and precipitate it into a practical workable plan. Despite lack of funds and human capacity the government is making efforts to develop plans for the biological corridors where funds are forthcoming. Currently, field surveys are in progress to develop management plans for BC4 (under Zhemgang Forest Division) and BC2 (under Wangdue Forest Division). There is no evidence of work to develop a plan for BC8, probably because that corridor needs to be reviewed as some parts were consumed into the WCNP.

Table 25. Summary of management plan for the landscapes Landscape Management plan status Remarks Landscape 1 JSKNR First management plan under The reason why plans was developed implementation for the period so late was due to relatively less of 2012 to 2017 perceived threats to the reserve due to absence of settements inside the park.

BC 1 First management plan was The plan was not reviewed. However, developed and implemented initiatives are underway to develop a from 2008-2013. second plan. The gap between the two plans however mean that some data and effectiveness will be lost in the intervening time period.

Landscape 2 JSWNP JSWNP park has so far The park was consistent in developing implemented 2 management and implementing management plans. plans Evidence indicate that the park has Current plan-2014-2018 also tested innovative interventions 1st plan 2001 – 2008 such as eco-tourism, ICDP, and researches which were later up-scaled Plan preparation is ongoing led to other parks. Corridor 2 by Wangdue Forest Division Field surveys are under process and the (To be completed by plan is expected December 2016. Corridor 8 December 2016) Review of BC8 in terms of area and No evidence of plan functionality as a result of WCNP is a preparation pre-requisite to being a plan

Landscape 3 PNP PNP is currently implementing PNP’s current plan is perhaps one of its third plan (2013-2018). the most practical plans focused on 33

2nd plan was implemented from addressing threats and challenges 2008-2013. rather than general conservation The first plan was issues. implemented between 2003 A review of the current plan will be and 2009. valuable in relation to other park plans. BC 4 Preparations are underway for writing the management plan Field surveys are being conducted and for BC 4 under the leadership a plan is expected 2017. of Zhemgang Forest Division. (To be completed by December 2016)

5.2. Policy and legal framework Conservation of biological diversity and ecosystem has always been a top priority for the Bhutanese people because Bhutanese way of life is highly interdependent on the health of its ecosystems. The evidence is very clear, our ancestors have handed to us a highly intact and functional ecosystem which have become a rare commodity elsewhere in the world. Bhutanese live, breath, and revere the environment and as such even a small imbalance in this interdependent relationship will demand drastic shift in our lifestyle which our country cannot afford. Realizing this importance, the government and the religious bodies have from very early on, mainstreamed environmental conservation into their main policies and strategies. These efforts are strongly reflected in the past and present policies of Bhutan. The most notable ones are: i) the constitution of the kingdom of Bhutan requiring that 60% of the county must be maintained under forest cover for all times to come; ii) Forest and Nature Conservation Act 1995; and iii) the National Environmental Protection Act 2007

Internationally, Bhutan has ratified both CBD and UNFCCC as well as committed to remain carbon neutral. Various steps were taken to translate the ideas of these Conventions into actions, such as establishing the Bhutan Trust Fund for Environment Conservation, the preparation and implementation of the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAPs). BAP provides a framework for conservation actions to be planned and implemented more coherently and productively to ensure conservation efforts are sustainable in a long run. Bhutan revised its latest Action Plan, National Bidiversity Strategies and Action Plan 2014 outlining 20 national targets in line with Global Aichi Targets.

Of the existing policies and acts, management of PAs derive their management and legal authority the Forest and Nature Conservation Act of 1995. This act specified different management tenures such as conservation areas, watershed protection forests, and production forests. The act recognizes creation of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries as a long-term strategy to protect the flora and fauna. This act has also given birth to several versions of Forest and Nature Conservation Rules (FNR) with the most recent being released in 2010. The recent FNR 2010 has provided an appropriate legal framework for implementing the management plan with a significant degree of decentralization and land-use planning. Additionally, Biological Corridor Rules (2007) has also been endorsed as an addendum to the FNC Rules 2006 and biological regulatory framework was based on this. Besides, there are numerous other national policies, strategies, laws and by-laws that are relevant to biodiversity conservations such as Environmental Assessment Act (2000), Biodiversity 34

Act of Bhutan (2003), National Environment Protection Act of Bhutan (2007), Land Act of Bhutan (2007) and other policy documents such as National Ecotourism Strategy (2001), and Vision and Strategy for the Nature Conservation Division (2003).

5.3. Institutional and technical capacity At the national level the Department of Forest and Park Services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests is the government institution in Bhutan that is responsible for the implementation of forest and nature conservation policy, laws, regulation of utilization and protection of natural resources and its restoration. The department consists of five divisions, namely the Wildlife Conservation Division, Forest Resources Management Division, Forest Protection and Utilization Division, Social Forest Division, Nature Recreation and Eco-tourism Division, Watershed Management Division. Technical support to the PAs are provided by Watershed Conservation Division. Institutionally, management of the three landscapes is well set up. Management of the parks is entrusted to the park management and BCs to the territorial forest management units. Each of these management units are headed by a chief forest officer supported by forest officers, forest rangers, and forest guards. JSWNP and PNP are the most well set in terms of infrastructure (see annexures 2 and 3). JKSNR is in the process of setting up the necessary infrastructure as it was operationalized only a few years ago. Despite continuous efforts to build human capacity by DoFPs, the field officers are still indicating that they are short staffed. This shortage is partly exacerbated by increasing conservation mandate over the years accompanied by increased activities such as road construction, increased mobility of people, growth in economic activities, etc. CFOs also defers their management and enforcement shortcomings to lack of enough staff. While this may be true, past experiences combined with RCSC’s desire for compact and efficient system of civil service, there is less optimism to increase the number of staff in the field. A strategic shift that could alleviate this constraint could be through improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the management and their staff through focused skills training and avoiding transfer of skilled staff elsewhere where that skill is not needed.

5.4. Financial sustainability Financial sustainability is a pre-requisite for effective and efficient management of the PAs. GEF biodiversity tracking tools indicate a need for US$ 2,521,483 for basic management and US$ 3,388,460.6 for optimal management of PAs. Given current funds, this translates into a financing gap of US$1834623.81 and US$2701601.41 for basic and optimal management respectively. Realizing this gap, the government is currently working on Bhutan for Life fund to support environmental conservation efforts in the country.

On a smaller scale, the PAs have also implemented self-sustaining programs which are showing positive results. For instance, the community based Naji trail- an eco-tourism venture is self-sustainable with additional income for the communities (JSWNP). This model is being up scaled to other parks but an evaluation of results is not available. Bhutan for Life has also plans to not only scale up such successful interventions but also initiate public private partnerships to test out concessioned eco-tourism programs.

35

5.5 Monitoring and evaluation Despite high ambitions to improve management efficiency and effectiveness, for unclear reasons, monitoring and evaluation has remained a new initiative for Bhutan. Past records indicate that evaluations were hardly ever carried out on PA projects and programs. Monitoring of park management either by projects or departments are not frequent and regular. Likewise, field monitoring of conservation activities by the park management are also not consistent and regular. Monitoring and evaluations in the PA are limited to monthly and/or quarterly meetings. The PA management bases this short coming on shortage of skilled staff. There is an urgent need to institute monitoring at regular intervals at different levels. Evaluation of programs and projects also needs to be mainstreamed in management plans.

36

CHAPTER 4 STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Strategy for Addressing HWC and Threats Bhutan National Human Wildlife Conflicts Management Strategy developed in 2008 exists and is being used as a reference to develop and kick off interventions. However, neither the impacts of these interventions have been evaluated (except for electric fencing), nor has the strategy been revised. Based on the analysis of findings in this assessment, we recommend the following strategies.

1.1 Strategy 1: Reduce grazing pressure, protect livestock from predation, and conserve predator species by preventing retaliatory killing Excessive grazing in forests has a tendency to outcompete wild ungulates who take to more lush and nutritious crops entering into conflicts with farmers through crop damage. This competition coupled with large population of livestock in deep forest habitat encourages predation by carnivores on livestock sparking anti-conservation sentiments and retaliatory killing of predators. These conflicts get serious when the predators involved are highly endangered species like snow leopard and tiger. Multipronged strategic interventions must be developed to address conflicts arising from excessive grazing, livestock predation, and retaliatory killing of wildlife species which are linked in a vicious circle. Some strategic interventions are suggested below: • Design and implement herd management plan to improve the current management which is susceptible to predation risks. This plan must discourage reducing stray grazing especially in remote predator habitats or hot spots and encourage a presence of a herder(s) with their livestock; • With agriculture and livestock development extension services, identify pastures for livestock grazing in buffer zones and in multiple use areas and educate farmers on consequences of overgrazing and its impact on ecosystem and sustainability of their livelihoods; • Provide subsidy to access improved cattle breeds and cultivation of improved fodder if possible using agroforestry models that has multiple ecosystem benefits including soil conservation; • Design and provide assistance to improve existing cattle sheds to make them predator proof. If possible with help from livestock department or other donors provide in kind or cash support to build predator proof sheds especially for herders; • Encourage farmers to stall feed their livestock to reduce vulnerability of free ranging cattle to wildlife depredation and the economic savings from not having to herd; • Currently, the livestock department is implementing subsidy for purchase of improved breeds and cattle shed construction materials. Help farmers to access these facilities. This facility will not only reduce grazing pressures and predation losses but also enhance cash incomes; • Introduce livestock insurance scheme to compensate for livestock killed by wildlife when herded in designated pastures and agricultural fields, or in cattle sheds. Improve on the existing community based insurance scheme by providing more seed funds. Stop compensation for free ranging cattle lost to wildlife depredation; • Study the grazing impacts to: assess the severity of impacts; identify grazing hotspots; study cattle migration trends; 37

• Investigate to confirm the decreasing trend in livestock predation by tigers and assess tiger population status to develop strategic interventions.

Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Parks Services, Department of Livestock, Department of Agriculture, Local Governments, Financial Institutions for insurance scheme, Druk Seed Corporation.

1.2 Strategy 2: Reduce crop damage, improve food security, and conserve wild ungulates Number one staple food is rice, followed by corn, potato, wheat and barley. These staple crops are constantly damaged by wildlife and other natural calamities induced by climate change. Ungulates such as elephant, sambar, barking deer, wild pig, and other smaller mammals like porcupine are frequently found to be raiding crops. Crop loss and economic losses incurred from having to guard crops continue to challenge the tolerance level of farmers and generate ill feelings towards conservation policy and wildlife. This indirectly leads to killing of these wild ungulates which form a key prey base of wild predators. Absence of these ungulates from the forest could exacerbate predation rates on livestock by the predators. The goal of a solution to this complex challenge must reduce crop damage, improve food security for families, and conserve wild ungulates. A solution packet aimed at achieving these goals is suggested below to create a win win situation: • Identify crop damage hotspots throughout the target landscape including dominant wildlife species responsible for damage; • Design and implement crop protection methods against key crop damaging wildlife species. Best practices such as electric fencing, sound and light alarm, must be scaled up across the PAs; • Initiate research to find a solution to reduce crop damage by monkeys and birds; • Pilot crop insurance scheme. Current community based insurance scheme must be developed further to make it effective before its acceptability falls.

Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Park Services, Department of Livestock, Department of Agriculture, Druk Seed Corporation, Financial Institution for insurance scheme.

1.3 Strategy 3. Eliminate poaching and illegal trade of wildlife and their parts Despite pro conservation lifestyle and strong conservation laws, and heavy penalties, wildlife and forest products are poached for illegal trade from Bhutan’s PAs. Poaching is triggered by poverty and increasing demand for these species in the international market fetching high prices. Wildlife species such as tiger, musk deer, leopard, and Himalayan black bear are top targets for poachers. Porous borders between Bhutan and its two neighbors and low capacity of PA staff results in poaching. Eliminating poaching and illegal trade is perhaps one of the biggest challenges conservation bodies are facing globally. For Bhutan’s part it will need international resources such as communication equipment and funding, cross boarder cooperation, and national coordination to reduce this threat. Some of the strategies to reduce poaching and illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife parts are mentioned below: • Form and train a core anti-poaching squad in each PA consisting of physically able park rangers and park guards; • Equip the anti-poaching squad with state of the art equipment including GPS,

38

communication tools, field gears, arms, etc. to effectively implement anti-poaching protocols; • Carry out rigorous anti-poaching exercises and implement anti-poaching and illegal trade rules; • Develop a robust intelligence network to detect illegal poaching and trade in forest products and wildlife and wildlife parts. Collaborate with other law enforcement agencies including Royal Bhutan Army (RBA), Royal Bhutan Police (RBP), Bhutan Agriculture and Food Regulatory Authority (BAFRA), etc to strengthen enforcement; • Provide awareness and education programs focused on anti-poaching, FNCA 1995, FNCR 2010 directed to the herders, and other farming communities in and around the landscape. • Carry out a transboundary study to document key trade routes, trading centres, source areas and species involved. This can then lead to regional law enforcement action plans developed with stakeholders.

Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Park Services, Bhutan Agriculture Food Regulatory Authority, Royal Bhutan Police, Community members, Local Governments, government of India.

1.4 Strategy 4: Reduce poaching and illegal trade in medicinal and aromatic species (MAPS) Illegal harvesting of medicinal and aromatic plants from high altitudes is degrading the quality of high altitude scrub and alpine habitats and ecosystems. High altitude MAP species such as Ophiocordyceps sinensis, Panaxpseudo ginseng, paris polyphylla, etc are frequently poached in JKSNR, BC8, and some parts of PNP. Following strategies are suggested to reduce poaching and illegal trade in MAPS. • Plan and implement regular patrolling especially inside the PAs and international boarders; • Seek collaboration from local residents such as Yak herders in intelligence gathering to detect poachers; • Form local MAPS associations composed of local farmers who have traditional rights to legal collection and train them to spot and apprehend illegal poachers; • Educate local collectors on sustainable collection techniques of MAP species.

Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Park Services, Bhutan Agriculture Food Regulatory Authority, Royal Bhutan Police, Community members, Local Governments, National Biodiversity Centre.

1.5 Strategy 5: Reduce unsustainable harvesting of forest products to reduce habitat degradation and competition for limited resources. Lifestyle and livelihood activities of the subsistence farmers demand heavy dependence on natural resources. Farmers and their livestock depend on forests for variety of ecosystem services including fodder, leaf litter, edible food items, fuelwood, grazing land, timber, etc. This dependence exerts pressure on natural resources thereby jeopardizing ecological integrity, which leads to decreased ecological services to the very same farmers and biodiversity. It is imperative then to expend efforts to develop strategies to reduce

39

excessive extraction of forest products without impacting livelihoods. Following strategies are suggested: • Strengthen the farmer’s capacities for community based natural resource management (CBNRM) through farmer trainings and educational programs; • Prospect, design, and implement community based eco-tourism programs. Nabji eco- tourism program can be scaled up to rest of the landscapes. Another best practice that can be scaled up is the homestays, local guides, and cooks as evidenced from Phobjikha (by RSPN) and Bumthang (by WCNP). This will not only earn extra cash income to offset losses associated with conservation restrictions, reduce their dependence on forests, but also earn support of the public towards conservation efforts; • Upscale community forestry in biological corridors and homestead forestry in the national parks (community forestry is not allowed in National Parks) to meet their forest product requirements; • Promote firewood saving technology including subsidized distribution of appliances for lighting, cooking, and heating in the landscape. Government must increase the present level of subsidy on rural electrification especially those who live in the PAs to both compensate for restrictions on natural resource use, crop and livestock losses, and to encourage alternatives to firewood.

Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Park Services, Department of Livestock, Department of Agriculture, Druk Seed Corporation, RSPN, TF, BAOWE

1.6 Strategy 6: Enhance resilience of farms and ecosystems from climate change induced impacts Climate change impacts are an emerging threat that damages livelihoods and ecosystems. An impact in the form of increased and unpredictable incidences of drought, flooding, windstorms, pest and diseases threatens livelihood, food security, and ecosystems. Increasing mean temperatures and changing precipitation patterns interfere with ecological processes and speciation driving some ecosystem and species to extinction. Management in the target PA landscapes must initiate proactive interventions to adapt to these climates related threats. Some strategies are suggested below: • Identify and protect/restore water sources such as wetlands, lakes, springs, streams, and glaciers; • Promote smart water harvesting and conservation technologies currently used by Tarayan Foundation across villages with acute water shortage; • Monitor to detect new incidences of pest and diseases and take preemptive actions to prevent costly outbreaks; • Promote climate resilient, high yielding, and bio friendly crop species, and livestock species; • Raise awareness amongst local communities on the cause of climate change and its impacts on humans and environment. Build capacities of local leaders to monitor climate change indicators and plan for adaptation strategies; • Introduce alternative livelihood initiatives and subsequent diversification of incomes that also have benefits for local wildlife species; • Identify and map critical wetlands, habitats, and fresh water resources and implement localized conservation actions to enhance ecological integrity.

40

Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Park Services, Department of Livestock, Department of Agriculture, NEC, Druk Seed Corporation, RSPN, TF.

2. Recommendation for enhancing management effectiveness Lack of adequate human resources, funds, and clarity in polices were the main constraints faced in implementing park management plans. With emerging pressures from human wildlife conflicts, climate change, and infrastructure development, it is critical that the PA management be strengthened and equipped with necessary resources protect Bhutan’s greatest wealth, its natural biodiversity. Following are suggested to enhance management effectiveness of PAs:

Strategy 1: Strengthen PA management effectiveness • To alleviate staff shortages and their low technical capacity, a master plan for developing capacities of PA staff must be developed and donor funds sought to implement it. The master plan must focus of producing highly competent biologists, human dimensions of wildlife specialists, management planners, GIS experts, as well as focus on building skills through professional development. Professional development shall focus on building needed skills in wildlife inventory, wildlife rescue, SMART patrolling, anti-poaching skills, etc.; • Policy directives must also be set up to avoid transfer of skilled staff to territorial or Dzongkhags; • Use WCD’s METT+ and recommendations to enhance effective PA management; • A long term financing mechanism must be developed (such as Bhutan for Life) to support the PAs.

Strategy 2: Project management Project implementation may be decentralized to PAs and local governments for enhancing efficiency and effectiveness. 90% of the local officials supported the idea of a decentralized project management arrangement for implementation. They justified their views saying that it reduces time in paper works and leads to more efficient and effective delivery of services.

41

ANNEXURE 1 ASSESSMENT OF BIODIVERSITY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF LANDSCAPE 1

1. Introduction: Landscape 1 Landscape 1 consists of Jigme Khesar Strict Nature Reserve (JKSNR) and Biological Corridor 1 (BC1) located in the western part of Bhutan (Figure A1). The landscape plays a key role in conservation of ecological landscapes at international level by connecting Bhutan’s Protected Area System (PAs) to the Kanchenjunga Landscape Conservation Area in Nepal, India, and China. JKSNR with an area of 609.5km2 was notified in 1995 (Table A1.1) but actual management only started in 2009 with appointment of park manager and establishment of interim office in Haa. JKSNR is composed of areas from Haa and Samtse dzongkhags.

Biological corridor 1 is the only corridor that connects JKSNR and western part of Bhutan to the rest of the PA system in the country. BC1 therefor serves as a critical link between Bhutan and conservation landscapes to the west of it.

Figure A1.1 Map of Landscape 1 in relation to PA map of Bhutan

Table A1.1 Biophysical and administrative statistics of landscape 1 Landscape Area Population Dzongkhags Gewogs (KM2) Landscape 1 758.5 9,558 Haa Sombay, Bjee, Sama JKSNR 609.5 Paro Tsento BC1 149

42

2 Status of Biodiversity

2.1 Wild biodiversity 2.1.1. Ecoregions, ecosystem, and habitats Landscape 1 is an important ecoregion of global value. It is part of the global biodiversity hotspot and part of the Sacred Himalayan Landscape (SHL) and Kanchenjunga Landscape both of which are critical areas for conservation in the Himalayas linking large protected areas in India, Nepal, Bhutan, and Tibet (China) together. From a national biodiversity conservation perspective this landscape protects the western frontier of temperate forests in Bhutan. The JKSNR being totally void of human settlement is the home of the most pristine temperate and alpine ecosystem in the entire Himalayas7. Regionally it connects the Hindukush Himalayan Region to India and China and is a safe bottleneck for migration of species and genetics not just latitudinal but also north and south.

With no human settlement inside the JKSNR, the ecosystem of Landscape 1 remains unaltered and consists of pristine mixed-conifer forests interspersed with grasslands and alpine meadows and has a strong representation of the pristine temperate and alpine ecosystems in the country.

Flora and fauna of landscape 1 is unique for temperate latitudes. Information from literatures on the landscapes revealed that over 427 species were identified and recorded; including, 137 species of trees, 68 shrub species, 182 herb species, 5 weed species, 10 orchid species, 8 grass species, 6 bamboo species and 10 fern species, belonging to 115 families. Of the 427, 208 species are also reported also in the BC1. Of these Taxus bacata; Cordyceps, Snow down Lily, Blue Poppy, Ginseng, Rhuem nobile, are classified as Schedule I plants protected under FNCA, 1995. Further, Viola bhutanica, Bhutanthera himalayana, Meconopsis superba (White Poppy) and Bryocarpum himalaicum are also listed as Appendix II species by CITES, and are endemic.

Chirpine forests: Chirpine forests occupy areas lying between 900-1899 m, that are dry with high exposure and minimal moisture. Pinus roxburghii, commonly known as chir pine is the dominant species interspersed with broadleaf species such as Quercus griffithii, Rhododendron spps., Indigofera dosua, Woodfordia fruticosa, and Phoenix loureiri. Chirpine forests are a good habitat for wildlife such common leopard (Panther pardus), Himalayan black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus) with ungulates such as barking deer (Mantiacus muntjac), sambar (Cervus unicolor), and wild pig (Sus scrofa) habit the chirpine habitat.

Cool Broadleaf forests: As the name suggest, this type of vegetation is composed of broadleaf trees in cooler parts of the landscape. Major species found in this forest type include, Quercus semicarpifolia, spruce (Picea spinulosa) and Blue pine (Pinus wallichiana) trees. Species such as Quercus griffithii, Betula utilis, Acer campbellii, A. sterculiaceum, Gamblea ciliata, Enkianthus deflexus, Sorbus cuspidata, Sorbus microphylla are normally present. Bamboo species such as Borinda grossa, and Yushania spp. are also found in some more mosit pockets of this forest. Wild ungulates as well for

7 DoFPS (2011) Toorsa Strict Nature Reserve Management Plan. Thimphu Bhutan. 43

the domestic cattle and yaks usually frequent these areas to feed on nutricious bamboo leaves. In addition, this forest type with bamboo undergrowth provides the primary habitat for Ailurus fulgens (Red Panda (Sherub, 2004).

Mixed conifer forest: A the names indicates, this forest type is composed of multiple confier species and are normally found between 2700m to 3200m. Dominant species found in this forest type consists of Rhododendron arboreum, Tsuga dumosa, and Abies densa with undergrowth of Rosa sericea, Vaccinium nummularia, Daphne bholua, and Lonicera acuminata. Some of the wildlife species present in this habitat include; tigers (Panthera tigris), dhole (Cuon alpinus), the Asiatic golden cat (Pardofelis temminckii), leopard cats (Prionailurus bengalensis), yellow throated marten (Martes flavigula), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), sambar (Cervus unicolor), red panda (Alirus fulgens), Himalayan black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus), etc.

Blue Pine forests: Blue pine (Pinus wallichiana), sometimes intermixed with spruce (Picea spinulosa), and larch (Larix griffithiana). Acer cappadocicum, Acer pectinatum, Rhododendron arboreum, Lyonia ovalifolia, Lindera heterophylla, Elaeagnus parviflora, Rosa serecia, Berberis aristata are the primary specis in a blue pine forest. Ground vegetation include variety of grasses which attracts ungulates such as barking deer and cattle to graze.

Fir forest: Abies densa and Tsuga dumosa are dominant canopy species in this forest type. Larix griffithiana and Picea spinulosa are also found but in small patches. Ground is oftern covered by Yushania species. Wildlife such as tigers (Panthera tigris), common leopards (Panthera pardus), dhole (Cuon alpinus), the Asiatic golden cat (Pardofelis temminckii), yellow throated marten (Martes flavigula), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), sambar (Cervus unicolor), red panda (Alirus fulgens), Himalayan black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus), musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster), etc. Important species of birds including the blood pheasant (Ithaginis cruentus), monal pheasant (Lophophorus impeganus), etc.are also present in the fir forest.

Juniper forest: Juniperus recurva and Juniperus pseudosabina are the dominant species found in this forest. Dwarf Rhododendron community composed of Rhododendron campylocarpum, R. nivale, R. lepidotum, and R. setosum ar commonly found interspersed with junipers. Willife species such as tigers (Panthera tigris), common leopards (Panthera pardus), dhole (Cuon alpinus), the Asiatic golden cat (Pardofelis temminckii), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), sambar (Cervus unicolor), red panda (Alirus fulgens), Himalayan black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus), etc. are known to occur in this forest type.

Alpine meadows and scrub: This type of vegetation is found over 4000m and is composed of Festuca spp., Agrostis spp. Poa spp., and Stipa spp. (Noltie, 2000), Potentilla microphylla, Aconitum hookeri, Pedicularis sp., Saussurea spp., Meconopsis spp., Anemone spp. etc. Pika is a common wildlife species here with frequent visits from tigers and leopards. This habitat forms a critical grazing land for Yak ranchers. High altitude mammals like pika are found in this habitat with occasional visits by tigers (Panthera tigris), common leopards (Panthera pardus).

44

2.1.2. Globally threatened and endemic species Resulting from high elevational diversity, this landscape exhibits high wildlife diversity. Available records indicate that landscape 1 could be harboring over 29 species of mammals, 161 species of birds, 64 species of butterfly, and 7 species of fish. Although species listing/inventory was based on variety of inventories and rapid assessments, no scientific efforts were expended to estimate population of fauna in Bhutan. So it is not possible to report population and density figures for different faunal species.

Mammals: This landscape is home to a number of high profile mammalian species (Table A1.2). Past surveys have revealed a total of 31 species in JKSNR and 18 species in BC1. All the 18 species reported in the BC1 are also found in JKSNR. Of the 31 species of mammals recorded so far, nine species are listed in Schedule I of FNCA, 1995, 18 in CITIES (ten species are listed in Appendix I, three in Appendix I/II, two in Appendix II, and three in Appendix III of CITES). The species of significant conservation values as indicate by their classsification by CITIES, IUCN, and FNCA 1995 are presented in Table A1.2. Flagship high altitude speices such as snow leopard and blue sheep are a critical indicator of Alpine ecosystem health.

Table A1.2 Status of mammal species of high conservation significance landscape 1 Sl. No. Name Scientific Name Status FNCA 1995 IUCN CITES 1 Tiger Panthera tigris Totally Protected EN App-I 2 Snow Leopard Pantheria uncia Totally Protected EN App-I 3 Clouded Leopard Neofelis nebulosa Totally Protected VU App-I 4 Common Leopard Panthera pardus Totally Protected NT App-I 5 Himalayan Black Selenarctos thibetanus Totally Protected NT App-I Bear 6 Musk Deer Moschus chrysogaster Totally Protected EN App-I/II 7 Red panda Alirus fulgens Totally Protected EN App-I 9 Asiatic elephant Elaphus mzimus Totally Protected EN App-I 10 Takin Buorcas taxicolor Totally Protected VU App-I whitei 11 Gaur Bos gaurus Totally Protected VU App-I 12 Water buffalo Bubalus babulus Totally Protected EN App-III 13 Goral Nemorhaedus goral - NT App-I 14 Grey Langur Presbytis entellus - NT App-I 15 Himalayan Serow Capricornis Totally Protected VU App-I sumatraensis 16 Pika Ochotona spp. - NT - 17 Wild dog Cuon alpinus - EN App-I 18 Yellow Throated Martes flavigula - - App-III Marteen 19 Macaca assamensis - NT - Assamese macaque 21 Asiatic golden cat Catopuma temminckii NT 22 Pigmy Hog Sus sylvanicus Totally Protected EN App-I

45

23 Spotted Dear Axis axis Totally Protected LC App-I EN = endangered, VU = vulnerable, NT = near threatened, App = appendix

Avi-fauna: Official survey and management plan indicate that of the 161 bird species in JKSNR and 108 species in BC1. A cross check of the inventory lists confirmed that all the 108 species of birds from BC 1 are also found in JKSNR, and if repeat survey for birds are carried out in BC1 the bird species list could get longer. Of these, two species are protected under the FNCA, 1995 (the Himalayan monal and Rufous necked hornbill). In addition, one restricted range species (Hoary-throated barwing) and the Tibetan snowcock are listed in Appendix I of CITES and one species in Appendix I/II of CITES, and categorized as vulnerable in the Red List of Threatened Species 2010 of the IUCN (Table A1.3).

Table A1.3 Status of birds of special conservation significance in landscape 1 Sl. No. Name Scientific Name Status FNCA 1995 IUCN CITES 1 Himalayan monal Lophophorus impejanus Totally protected EN App-I 2 Rufu-necked Aceros nipalensis Totally protected VU App-I hornbill 3 Hoary-throated Actinodura nipalensis Totally protected VU App-I barwing 4 Woodsnipe Gallinago nemoricola VU 5 Satyr Tragopan Tragonpan satyra VU App-I 6 Snow partridge Lerwa lerwa 7 Tibetan snowcok Tetraogallus tibetanus - VU App-I 8 Tufted duck Ythya fuligula - LC -

BC1 has two totally protected bird species of Schedule I of the Forest and Nature Conservation Act, 1995, are found in the corridor, viz. Lophophorus impejanus (Himalayan Monal) and Tetraogallus tibetanus (Tibetan Snowcock). Out of the 15 globally threatened species recorded in Bhutan two species are listed in the corridor, viz. Tragopan satyr (Satyr Tragopan) and Gallinago nemoricola (Wood Snipe). Gypaetus barbatus (Lammergeier) and Phoenicurus frontalise (Blue-fronted Redstart) were reported breeding as indicated by the presence of juveniles.

Other species: Records from the park management indicate 64 species of butterflies belonging to 15 families exists in JKSNR (Table A1.4). Some of the rare species found are: Lethe scandal, Prosotas nora airdates, Pontia daplidice moorei, Tirumala septentrionis, Euploea midamus rogenhoferi, Melitaea arcesia sikkimensis, Kuekenthaliella gemmata, Parnassius hardwickei, Albulina lehana, Choaspes benjaminii, Lethe sinorix, and Appias lalage.

Aside from butterfly survey in JKSNR, no records were available for reptiles, amphibians, and fish for both the JKSNR and BC1.

46

Table A1.4 List of butterfly identified under Landscape 1 Sl.no Common Name Scientific name Conservation status 1 Tibetan Blackvein Aporia (Mesapia) peloria Rare 2 Large Cabbage White Pieris brassicae - 3 Indian Cabbage White Pieris canidia - 4 Bath White Pontia daplidice - 5 Pale Clouded Yellow Colias erate - 6 Dark Clouded Yellow Colias fieldii - 7 Pale Wanderer Pareronia avatar - 8 Lemon Emigrant Catopsilia pomona - 9 One-spot Grass Yellow Eurema andersonii - 10 Three-spot Grass Yellow Eurema blanda - 11 Common Grass Yellow Eurema hecabe - 12 Spotless Grass Yellow Eurema laeta - 13 Tree Yellow Gandaca Harina - 14 Towband Plum Judy Abisara bifasciata Rare 15 Mixed Punch Dodona ouida - 16 Punchinello Zemeros flegyas -

2.2. Agrobiodiversity 2.2.1. Crop diversity Landscape 1 grows a variety of crops depending on altitude and tradition of the communities. Rice (Oryza sativa) in the lower area and Wheat (Triticum) is most common in higher altitude. Some of the key crop species grown in landscape 1 is given in Table A1.5.

Table A1.5 List of key crop species in landscape 1 Sl No. Common name Scientific name 1 Rice Oryza sativa 2 Maize Zea mays 3 Finger Millet Eleusine coracana 4 Foxtail Millet Setaria italica 5 Common Millet Panicum miliaceum 6 Barley Hordeum vilgare 7 Sorghum Sorghum bicolor 8 Wheat Triticum 9 Sweet buckwheat Polygonum fagopyrum 10 Bitter buckwheat Fagopyrum esculentum 12 Beans Phaseolus lunatus 13 Pea Pisum sativum 18 Groundnut Arachis hypogaea

2.2.2. Livestock diversity Landscape 1 is the original home of Nublang (Bos indicus) some native cattle breed in Bhutan. Nublang is believed to have originated from Sombay gewog in Haa dzongkhag signifying a tradition of the community depending on the livestock. Nublang is endemic to

47

landscape 1. In addition, farmers in landscape 1 rear various species of livestock species for agriculture, meat, draught power, etc. Yaks (Poephagusgrunniens) which is classified as vulnerable by IUCN is reared by highlanders.

TableA1.6 List of livestock under the landscape 1 Sl.no Breed/type Scientific name Conservation status 1 Nublang Bos indicus Native 2 Mithun Bos frontalis 3 Jersey Bos Taurus 4 Yak Bos grunniens VU 6 Horse Equus caballus 7 Mule Equus asinus 8 Donkey Equus africanus asinus 9 Sheep Ovis aries 10 Goat Capra hircus 11 Pig Sus scrofa 12 Chicken Gallus gallus domesticus

2.3 Community awareness and perception on biodiversity and ecosystem 2.3.1 Community awareness level about biodiversity and ecosystem Communities in landscape seem to be incredibly aware about biodiversity and ecosystem indicating the current strategy to get communities informed is working well. Overall, 96.7% of the respondents reported that they are aware about biodiversity and ecosystem in their community with 100% of the respondent reporting aware in Tsento gewog (Figure A1.2). All those who reported they are aware about biodiversity and ecosystem also mentioned that the communities have adopted community forestry as a step towards conserving biodiversity and ecosystem. There is no significant difference in the awareness level by gender, age, and education in landscape 1.

Figure A1.2 Are you aware of the biodiversity and ecosystem of your community? 150.0 93.3 100 96.7 100.0

50.0 6.7 0 3.3 0.0 Percent respondent Percent Bji Tsento Total Gewogs

Yes No

48

2.3.2 Community awareness about the existence of biological corridors Community awareness about biodiversity conservation is well translated into their awareness level about biological corridors. Over 93% of the respondents reported that they are aware about the existence of biological corridors (Figure A1.3). There is no significant difference in awareness levels about biological corridors by gender, age and education. Of these, respondents from Tsento gewogs indicated 100% awareness. Forest staff in the field have also confirmed that they have continuously debriefed the communities regarding biodiversity and existence of biological corridors at every opportunity including GYTs. Communities also ranked nature conservation (80%) as the top reason for establishing biological corridor followed by for wildlife migration (13%), and don’t know (7%; Figure A1.4).

When asked to rank their top sources of information regarding biological corridors, respondents cited forest officers as the top source of information followed by local governments, dzongkhags, village elders, and officials from the ministry. Figure A1.3 Are you aware about the existence of biological corridors? No 7%

Yes 93%

Figure A1.4 Reasons why biological corridors are established

Don’t know 7%

Wildlife migration 13%

Nature cosnervation 80%

49

2.3.3 Community perception on status of biodiversity Overall, 80% of the respondents reported that the condition of biodiversity has improved (compared to 70% who reported biodiversity condition as fair five years ago) since the last five years (Table A1.7), with large majority of this report (93.3%) coming from Tsento compared to Bji (66.7%). 20% of the respondents in Bji also reported that the biodiversity condition needs improvement. Comparatively this signals that biodiversity in Tsento has significantly improved since the last five years (86.7% of Tsento respondents reported biodiversity status as fair five years ago). What is sticking about their response with the confidence with which they confirm and reconfirm their responses.

Table A1.7 Farmer perception of biodiversity status (%) Condition of biodiversity 5 years ago Today Gewog Needs Excellent Good Fair Improved improvement Stable Bji 6.7 40.0 53.3 66.7 20.0 13.3 Tsento 6.7 6.7 86.7 93.3 0.0 6.7 Total 6.7 23.3 70.0 80.0 10.0 10.0

At a species level farmers reported a decreasing population trend for predators like tiger, leopard, and wild dog, while an increasing population is reported for ungulates such as wild pig, sambar, and barking deer (Table A1.8). While they supported their perception with sightings and signs evidence, there could not confirm what’s decreasing the population of precious predators. The National Tiger Inventory has also indicated no capture of tigers on their camera traps from landscape 1. On the other hand, farmers unanimously said government policy coupled with high penalty for killing wildlife have allowed the population of ungulates to thrive. This perception demand urgent scientific studies to empirically assess the population of these large but endangered carnivores.

Table A1.8 Farmer perception of population status of key wildlife species (%) Gewogs

Bji Tsento Total

Key wildlife

species

Decreasing Stable Increasing Decreasing Stable Increasing Decreasing Stable Increasing Tiger 0 13.3 86.7 0 100 0 0 56.7 43.3 Leopard 6.7 13.3 80 0 80 20 3.3 46.7 50 Wild dog 26.7 33.3 40 0 93.3 6.7 13.3 63.3 23.3 Sambar 60 33.3 6.7 40 53.3 6.7 50 43.3 6.7 Barking deer 53.3 40 6.7 40 100 0 46.7 70 3.3 Wild pig 93.3 6.7 0 86.7 13.3 0 90 10 0 Macaque 60 13.3 26.7 40 53.3 6.7 50 33.3 16.7 50

2.3.4. Community support for protection of wildlife and wildlife policy Wildlife conservation is in good hands with 86.7% of the respondents voicing their support for protection of wildlife (Table A1.9). Irrespective of the awareness levels, communities from both the gewogs exhibit overwhelming support (86.7% support) for wildlife protection. Farmers also ranked tiger, leopard, and wild dog as their top three wildlife species for protection. They based their choice on the premise that these animals are precious and endangered. 13% of the respondents who did not support wildlife protection reasoned that wildlife predates on livestock, damages crop, and is a nuisance.

Table A1.9 Respondent support for wildlife protection Yes No Top three wildlife that should Gewogs % % be protected Reasons Bji 86.7 13.3 Tiger, leopard, wild dog Precious animal, endangered Tsento 86.7 13.3 Tiger, leopard, wild dog Precious animal, endangered Total 86.7 13.3

Similarly, respondents also agreed with the current wildlife protection policy saying that it monitors illegal extraction of forest and wildlife resources (66.7%) which improves availability for local consumption, and protects wildlife (23%; Table A1.10)

Table A1.10 Support for wildlife protection policy Bji Tsento Total Reasons (%) (%) (%) Protects wildlife 6.7 40.0 23.3 Monitors illegal extraction of forest and wildlife resources 93.3 40.0 66.7 Sustainable availability of natural resources for domestic consumption 0.0 20.0 10.0

3. Status of socio-economic conditions JKSNR is the only PA with no residents inside the reserve. However along with BC it is surrounded by farmers from north to south who depend on agriculture with herding of livestock in lower lands and yaks in higher altitudes for their livelihoods.

3.1 Demographic characteristics Demographically, landscape 1 harbors about 9,558 people who are predominantly farmers depending on agriculture and livestock. 70% of the samples were women and others men indicating a dominance of female headed households which is characteristic of Ngalops in western Bhutan where inheritance is maternal. Age wise distribution of samples reflects that 90% of the total samples constitute working age group (15-59 years) reflecting high productive capacity of the communities (Table A1.11). Majority (70%) have not received any form of education indicating low formal education literacy. There are slightly more NFE graduate compared to primary and high school graduates.

51

Table A1.11 Demographic profile of the respondents from landscape 1 (%) Gewogs Bji Tsento Total Gender N % N % N % Female 9 60.0 12 80.0 21 70.0 Male 6 40.0 3 20.0 9 30.0 Age 15-65 14 93.3 13 86.7 27 90.0 >65 1 6.7 2 13.3 3 10.0 Education High School 0 0.0 2 13.3 2 6.7 Primary 2 13.3 1 6.7 3 10.0 NFE 2 13.3 2 13.3 4 13.3 None 11 73.3 10 66.7 21 70.0

3.2 Livelihood and income 3.2.1 Sources of livelihood As is the general case in the country, local people of Bji and Tsento are simple farmers who depend mainly on agriculture and livestock for their livelihood. Agriculture (50%) by large is the top source of livelihood for the communities in landscape 1 (Figure A1.5). This is followed by livestock (34%), trade/business (8%), and off farm labor (6%). Relatively, less respondents from Bji gewog reported agriculture, livestock, and trade/business compared to the respondents from Tsento gewog. However, off farm labor is being practiced by the communities in Bji gewog. This confirms the traditional practice of people from Bji and Sombay gewogs working as off farm laborers in the fields of Paro and Thimphu mostly working on the wetlands as they don’t have their own.

60.0 55 Figure A1.5 Sources of livelihood in landscape 1 50.0 50.0 46.7

40.0 33.3 35 34.0 30.0

20.0 10 10.0 Percent respondents Percent 8.0 10.0 6.7 6.0 0 0.0 Agriculture Livestock Trade/business Off farm Livelihood sources

Bji Tsento Total

52

3.2.2 Agriculture Almost all the households have some land for cultivation and the land holding size varies according to their social status with the richer farmers having higher land holdings compared to the medium and poorer farmers. Table A1.12 below provides the percentage of households by agriculture land holding category size. Landholding distribution pattern in the study sites is representative of the country in general, with fewer people owning larger proportion of land. In the study sites, wetland (paddy fields) ownership is more skewed than that for the dry land. For dry land, large majority of the households (43.3%) own 1 to 3 acres with 16.7% owning land over 3 to 5 acres. However, a significant number of households own less than 1 acre of dry land with 6.7% owning over 5 acres on the other hand.

Land distribution is quite interesting at gewogs levels. On average households in Bji gewog own about 2.3 acres of dry land with no one owning wetland. Bji gewog is too high for cultivation of paddy and hence the absence of wetland. Farmers here grow vegetables such as turnips, radish, potatoes, etc. On the other hand, mean ownership of dryland and wetland in Tsento gewog are 1.3.and 0.9 acres respectively. Farmers in Tsento grow rice and also vegetables both on wetland during off season and on drylands. As with other parts of the country large majority of the farmers are small land holders.

Table A1.12 Landholding pattern of households in landscape 1(%) Landtype Bji Tsento Total Dryland Wetland Dryland Wetland Dryland Wetland No land 0 100 13.3 33.3 6.7 66.7 <1 acre 26.7 0 26.7 20.0 26.7 10.0 1-3 acres 40.0 0 46.7 46.7 43.3 23.3 3-5 acres 20.0 0 13.3 0.0 16.7 0.0 > 5 acres 13.3 0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0

Of the total land owned by the respondents about 78% of the dryland and 96% of the wetland are being used in the last 2.5. years. Major constraints faced in agriculture are lack of irrigation water especially in Bji followed by wildlife damages, and other pests and their inabilities to deal with these threats.

3.2.3 livestock Due to the interdependence of agriculture and livestock in tradition Bhutanese agriculture, livestock is the second most popular source of livelihood in landscape 1. Although if we take only the high altitude farmers then livestock especially yak herding will be their first source of livelihood. Overall, 63% of the respondents owned livestock with higher percentage ownership (80%) in Bji gewog as compared to Tsento gewog (53%; Table A1.13). This is attributable to the fact that traditionally communities in Bji gewog depend on livestock and dryland farming, while Tsentops depend more on wetland farming.

53

Table A1.13 Livestock ownership pattern in landscape 1 (%) Gewogs

Do you own Total livestock? Bji Tsento N % N % N % Yes 12 80 8 53 20 63 No 3 20 7 47 10 37 Total 15 100 15 100 30 100

Since livestock form an important source of income for Bji farmers, pasture land or Tsamdrog is an important issue. More than 90 percent of the gewog is under native or natural alpine pasture land use, the highest compared to other land use types which clearly signifies the importance of livestock rearing in the gewog. These high altitude alpine pastures are grazed by Yaks and the lower ones around the villages by Cattle. The high altitude pastures are usually one to three days walk from the villages. Higher number of livestock must be putting extra pressure on biodiversity and land use changes as respondents from Bji gewog reported relatively higher need for biodiversity improvement need in their communities as reported elsewhere in this report.

Figure A1.6 Feeding preferences as reported by those who owned livestock

Stall feeding 16%

Forest grazing 16% Both stall and forest 68%

In terms of feeding preferences, large majority of the households (68%) practice both forest grazing and stall feeding followed by forest grazing and stall feeding alone (Figure A1.6). This indicated the potential to encourage farmers to stall feed their cattle as they seem to have the knowledge and practice already.

Livestock is a prized commodity as they cost a lot to procure and therefore is an indication of social status in the communities. Livestock rearing is constrained by loss to predators, low milk yield, and poor quality breeds (Figure A1.7). Overall, lack of adequate grazing land is the top constraint with 62% of the households reporting insufficient grazing land. This constraint is more serious for households in Tsento then in Bji probably due to availability of alpine pastures in Bji. Farmers in Tsento also faces more predation by wildlife with twice as many farmers reporting predation losses.

54

Figure A1.7 Constraints faced by livestock owners in the gewogs of landscape 1

80 75 70 62.5 56.25 60 50 40 30 25 16.7 18.75 20 12.5 12.5 12.5 8.3 10 0 0

Percent respondents respondents Percent 0 Loss to predators Low milk Poor quality breeds Insufficient grazing land Constraints

Bji Tsento Total

3.2.4 Major income sources Agriculture is not only the top source of livelihood but also that of cash incomes followed by its greatest ally livestock (Figure A1.8). At gewog levels, trade/business is the second source of cash incomes probably owning to proximity to roads and lack of enough grazing lands. Households in Tsento also do not earn cash from off farm labors.

Mean earning are highest from sale of agriculture at Nu. 43,000, followed by livestock products (24,633), Trade/business (Nu6,333.3), and off farm (Nu. 4,633.3). Overall, households in landscape 1 earn over Nu78,000, which is over the national poverty line, indicating that the households in Bji and Tsento are not as cash starved compared to other parts of the county.

Figure A1.8 Sources of cash income in the landscape Off farm Trade/business 6% 8%

Sale of agri Livestock products products 55% 31%

55

3.2.5 Food self sufficiency Income gains also means greater purchasing power enhancing food security of the respondent communities. Today 97% of the households enjoy complete food security and have enough to eat throughout the year. Only one household reported food insecure as the household is landless and depends on food secured from exchange of labor.

3.3 Membership, gender and social inclusion Social vitality is high with over 56.7% of the respondents indicating that they are members of either community forest group, milk cooperative, or other forms of location organization (Table A1.14). Of this, 88% of the members are composed of women indicating that women are more active in community organizations and are hence more engaged establishing social cohesion and sharing of support. Members of community organizations seem to exhibit contentment with their participation partly because of the economic benefits they draw. Members indicated that multiple benefit such as capacity building in the form of farmer study tours, availability of fire wood, ease of getting credits from financial institutions, and financial incomes.

Fire wood collection is almost all the time done by men while fodder collection is done by women. Men and women are equally engaged in agriculture and livestock herding.

Table A1.14 Membership in existing self-help groups in landscape 2 Membership Bji Tsento Male Female Community Forest 53.3 33.3 6.7 36.7 Community forest +milk coop 0.0 6.7 0.0 3.3 Milk 13.3 0.0 6.7 School management 0.0 6.7 3.3 None 33.3 53.3 23.3 20.0

4. Key threats and root causes 4.1 Human Wildlife Conflict Although, there are no human settlements in JKSNR, there are famers living around it and in BC1. Agriculture is the primary livelihood of these farmers who also depend heavily on forest resources. Farmers not only graze their livestock and collect fuel wood from the forest but also extract a variety of non-wood forest products including medicinal and aromatic plants. These activities compete for limited but shared resources with wildlife sparking conflicts. Human wildlife conflicts exists in the form of crop damage, livestock predation, and retaliatory killings. As per the threats identified by the WCD under JKSNR, 5-10 cases of livestock depredation by snow leopard, Himalayan Black Bear, leopard, and wild dogs were reported as annual trend in increasing the HWC. SMART patrolling by the park management has removed snares from 7 different locations in the buffer zone and 11 sites from inside the reserve.

In this landscape, livestock herding is a top agricultural activity and an important source of cash income. Residents of Haa are traditional herders migrating between lowlands and high 56

lands during winter and summer seasons. Unmanaged stray grazing of yaks especially in the northern parts of the landscape continues to put intense grazing pressure especially during summer when herds return to high land pastures. While no official study was carried out to ascertain the impact of grazing on biodiversity, field observations, expert opinions from park staff, and existing literature indicate that overgrazing is detrimental to biodiversity. In particular, it sets off human wildlife conflicts by reducing fodder for wild ungulates, which then turn to agricultural crops8. In the absence of low wild prey density, predators turn to domestic livestock and enter into direct conflict with herders, who may in return execute these keystone species.

Information from the field indicates that 100% of the households were affected by crop damage while only 20% suffered livestock predation (Table A1.15). Compared to Tsento (6.7%) more households in Bji reported livestock losses (33.3%). This is attributable to the remoteness of Bji, larger herd size coupled with stray grazing in forest and alpine meadows where chances of encounter with predators are high.

Table A1.15 Percent respondents reporting crop damage and predation on livestock Gewogs Wildlife damage Bji Tsento Total Type Yes No Yes No Yes No Crop damage 100 0 100 0 100 0 Livestock predation 33.3 66.7 6.7 93.3 20 80

With almost 98% of the households reporting, crop damage by wild pig tops the list of species responsible for crop damage followed by barking deer, and sambar (Figure A1.10). In terms of predation on livestock, farmers ranked Himalayan black bear (20%) as number one predator followed by leopards (7%). It is encouraging to see that there is no predation by tigers although it could also mean that tiger numbers may have declined. The National Tiger Survey, has also confirmed zero evidence of tigers in the reserve.

Figure A1.10 key wildlife responsible for crop damage 120.0

100.0

80.0

60.0

40.0

crop damage crop 20.0

0.0 Wildpig Barkind deer Sambar Percent respondents reporting reporting respondents Percent Key wildlife species

8 Wang (2010) Estimating ungulate densities and biomass in temperate forests of Bhutan. Oryx 44 57

4.2 Poaching and illegal trade in wildlife and their parts Although a Buddhist country, poaching and illegal trade in wildlife and forest and their parts are evident in Bhutan. Infact some sections of the Bhutanese society have traditionally thrived on hunting. Records from landscape 1, indicate that poaching of high profile mammalian species such as snow leopard, tiger, and musk deer are present. Chief forest officer of JKSNR reported that poaching and illegal trades are taking place in landscape 1, but they have not been able to apprehend culprits due to lack of staff and remoteness of the area. Awareness programs on acts and rules of forestry and regular patrolling are being undertaken to curb poaching.

According to the park management, floral species of high timber values such as walnut (Juglans regia), Taxus bacata and aromatic and medicinal plants such as Cordyceps, Fritillaria, Saussurea, Picrororhiza and other high altitude medicinal plants are frequent poached by poachers from both within and from Tibet. Poverty and economic gains are the top causes cited by the park management. The park management for JKSNR is currently challenged in their anti-poaching efforts due to the remoteness of the reserve, hostile weather, and lack of enough forest staff.

4.3 Excessive grazing Residents around JKSNR and BC1 are highly dependent on livestock for their livelihoods including rearing of yaks in high altitudes. This exhibits a plausible threat to the habitat integrity in both JKSNR and BC1 especially due to development of farm economy pivoted around livestock products which could lead to increasing number of livestock and associated need for grazing lands, fodder, and leaf beddings.

According to the JKSNR and BC1 mangement, BC1 remains under severe grazing pressure from Yaks. The high alpine plants stop its vegetative growth in severe winters and resume in short warm summers, wherein the Yak herds return from the lower pastures to the highlands and graze on the growing shrubs. This could have adverse ecological ramifications for high alpine vegetation.

4.4 Over-exploitation and unsustainable use of natural resources Collection of forest products for self-consumption and sale if not managed properly can also harm the pristine habitat in landscape 1. The local community’s dependence on forests for collection of timber for constructional and roofing purposes and for firewood remains a concern in parts of the corridor. Farmers reported collection of fodder, leaf litter, fuel wood, and other non-wood forest products including medicinal plants for self-consumption as well as for sale to supplement cash incomes. 85.2% of the total respondents had the opinion that the forest resources are being over harvested owing to increase in number of populations and illegal activities while 12.5% of the respondents observed no change in the use of forest resources and 2.3% of the respondents were uncertain. Increasing pressure from farmers to collect these products especially for commercial purposes can lead to the tragedy of the commons. Records issued by the CFO JKSNR indicate that putishing, dochu, orchids and mushrooms are commonly poached for sale (Table A1.16). Other resources poached are cordyceps and ginseng but its poaching incidences are reported rare probably due to inabilities to detect such incidences.

58

Table A1.16 Illegal or excessive exploitation of forest products Resource type Illegal incidence frequency Comments Ophiocordycepsinensis Rare Mainly from Tibet Ginseng Rare Collected to be traded to Tibet. (Panaxpseudoginseng So far caught one culprit Putishing Common -do- (Picrorhizakurroa) Gastrodiaelata (orchid) Common -do- Paris polyphylla (Dochu) Very common -do- SangyeShamu (Mushroom) Common For internal market SissiShamu (Mushroom) Very common Collected to be traded to Tibet. So far caught one culprit Source: CFO, JKSNR, 2016.

Fuel wood collection continue to present a significant cause of threat to biodiversity in landscape 1. Households spend about 19 days a year with 93% of the households reporting they collect fuelwood from the forests (Table A1.17). Although fuel wood is traditionally transported by human’s recent data show that this is changing with over 70% of the respondents saying they use trucks or tractors. Both of these are not only environmentally destructive and but can exacerbate the use of fire wood due to the ease of transportation. A backload of fuel wood takes about 3 hours to collect and last about 2 days on average.

Table A1. 17 Fire wood collection and utilization Gewogs Bji Tsento Total Mean number of days spend collecting firewood/year 33.3 3.9 18.6 Collected by Male 13.3 100.0 56.7 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 Both male and female 86.7 0.0 43.3 Mean transportation time (hours/backload or trips) 2 2.7 2.35 Means of transportation (%) Man 60.0 0.0 30.0 Truck 33.3 0.0 16.7 Tractor 6.7 100.0 53.3 Fuel wood sources (%) Forests 86.7 100.0 93.3 Village and sokshing 66.7 13.3 40.0 Tseri 20.0 6.7 13.3

4.5 Forest fires Forest fire continues to present a threat to biodiversity in landscape 1 especially in the Temperate Dry Conifer Ecosystem. Temperate coniferous tree species like blue pine,

59

spruce, larch, etc., are highly susceptible to forest fire and their regeneration is seriously affected. Habitat degradation as a result of forest fires have a spinoff impact on the diversity of avi-fauna.

Table A1.18 Frequency of forest fire and magnitude of damage in landscape 1 Gewog Area damaged Forest type Frequency Sama 3 acres in 2015 Mixed conifer 1 Tsento 0.04 acres in 2015 Blue pine 1

Report from the park management and fire section of DoFPS indicate that two forest fires occurred in Sama and Tsento gewogs in 2015 destroying about 3.04 acres (Table A1.18). Both the fires occurred in conifer forests confirming the susceptibility of conifer forest to fire and the need to focus fire management on conifer forests.

4.6 Land use and land use changes In a Bhutanese context habitat degradation and ecosystem service disruption emerges from forest conversion to agriculture, pasture, tseri, or other developmental area. There are no mega projects in landscape 1 and as such significant threats are not expected. In addition, farmers also don’t practice shifting cultivation in landscape 1 which is one of major cause of land conversion and encroachment especially in central and eastern part of the country.

Farmers are of the perception that major ecosystems types are improving with majority of the household reporting an increase or no change in forest, agriculture, freshwater, and wetland ecosystems (Table A1.19). Few have reported decrease in pastureland in Bji gewog.

Table A1.19 Respondent perception regarding changes in major ecosystem types (%) Bji Tsento Major Ecosystem No No No No types change Increasing Decreasing idea change Increasing Decreasing idea Forest 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Agriculture 0.0 73.3 26.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Grazing land 53.3 6.7 40.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shrub-land 60.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Freshwater (river/steam) 40.0 53.3 6.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Wetland 60.0 6.7 6.7 13.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Settlement 20.0 60.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Degraded or bare land 40.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

60

4.7 Climate change risks Climate change is a universal challenge but the intensity of impacts varies. Fragile mountain ecosystems as represented in landscape 1, with limited eco-zones and habitats are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Climate change impacts are already being felt in landscape 1. These come in the form of flash floods, retreat of snow and glaciers, warmer winters with much snow, and changes in forest species composition on a tree line in mountain areas9. These will force species to abandon their homes and move along with the moving eco-zones and habitats thus impacting their genetics and evolution. The first to be impacted are the vulnerable species which will be driven to extinction in the longer run. Overall, combination of ecosystem changes will impede ecosystem services making life difficult for both nature and humans alike.

A perception study in BC110 inferred that the data on temperature, snowfall, rainfall, and other ecological responses indicated potential warming with plausible erratic rainfall pattern over the year could intensify the risk of drought and flood, monsoonal storms and floods incidences aggravating the occurrence of landslides.

This study confirms that climate change is an emerging threat to sustainability of ecosystem and human. 100% respondents from both the gewogs reported that their vulnerability to the impacts of climate change has increased. When asked if the cause of climate change was human or natural, overwhelming 100%, 80% of the respondents from Tsento and Bji gewogs respectively attributed the cause of climate change to humans. Respondents (87%) also reported environmental pollution as the top cause of climate change followed by forest fire (57%). Overall, about 56% of the respondents said they attended an awareness campaign on climate change (Figure A1.11). However, this figure is not consistent amongst the two gewogs. 100% of the respondents from Tsento gewog reported that they attended an awareness campaign while 86.6% of the Bji respondents have not attended any campaigns. High level of awareness in Bji gewog is there for confounding.

Figure A1.11 Did you attend awareness campaigns on climate change?

Yes, Bji, 13.3

Yes, Tsento, 100

9 Jianchu xu et al. (2009), The Melting Himalayas: Cascading Effects of Climate Change on Water, Biodiversity and Livelihood. 10 Wangmo, S (undated) Understanding the perceived impact of climate change on biodiversity in the TSNR-JDNP corridor area and the coping/adaptations with the changing climate. WCD 61

In the last five years, landscape 1 experienced extreme weather events in the form of drought, flooding, pest and diseases etc., as reported by the farmers (Table A1.20). However, generally, Bji households experienced more frequent and diverse weather events compared to household in Tsento gewog. Forest fire was only experienced in Tsento, while drought, flood, wind/hail storm and pest and disease events were experienced only in Bji. In all the incidences, losses were incurred especially from crop losses. All respondents also reported they would like to have adaptation strategy to deal with climate related impacts especially in the form of awareness workshops and knowledge.

Table A1.20 Percent of respondents who experienced extreme weather events and associated loses. Gewogs Extreme weather events Bji Tsento Total experienced % Losses % Losses % Drought 73.3 Impacts 0 36.7 Reduced incomes from Flood 60.0 crop losses 0 30.0 Land slides 0.0 no loss 0 0.0 Soil erosion 0.0 0 0.0 Wind/hail Reduced incomes from storms 93.3 crop losses 0 46.7 Forest fires 0.0 100 No losses 50.0 Early onset of Reduced incomes from Reduced income rain 73.3 crop losses 100 from crop loss 86.7 Delayed onset Reduced incomes from Reduced income of rain 6.7 crop losses 100 from crop loss 53.3 Prolonged rain Reduced incomes from Reduced income 126.7 crop losses 100 from crop loss 113.3 Pest and Reduced incomes from disease 100.0 crop and vegetable losses 0 50.0

5. Status of PA management effectiveness 5.1 Development and implementation of management plans Jigme Khesar Strict Nature Reserve has its management plan developed much later than its sister parks due to absence of people living inside the reserve and therefore the perception that the threat to its integrity is low. The first management plan was developed in 2012 and is now under implementation. Early indications show that despite low human capacity, plan is being implemented effectively. Park management has indicated that although there are no residents inside the reserve, the pressure from livestock grazing and poaching due to low intensity of patrolling by reserve staff coupled with remoteness of the reserve are emerging threats.

62

Biological corridor 1 is one the first corridor to have a management plan which has been under implementation since 2008. However, the plan has expired in 2013 and preparations for a second plan has been underway for the last 2 years with no sign of a plan emerging. A second plan must be urgently put in place so as to avoid losing the benefits accrued from implementing the first plan.

5.2 Institutional and technical capacity JKSNR has it interim head office in Ha from where the management launches its activities. The reserve is yet to put necessary infrastructure including range offices in place. Aside from being short staffed, current staff lack adequate skills in SMART patrolling and general conservation skills. There is an urgent need to build skills and recrit additional staff.

5.3 Financial sustainability Financially sustainability is not achieved so far. The management of landscape 1 is dependent on the government for funds.

The reserve has also not tested any innovative interventions to enhance financial sustainability. An eco-tourism plan is in place but it is not clear how this will bring financial sustainability to the landscape management.

5.4 Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring and evaluation is still weak with few staff that is trained in monitoring. Staffs are not aware and knowledgeable about evaluation. Several projects were implemented in landscape 1 but no evaluation of any sort (mid-term or terminal) has been executed.

To improve the efficiency, transparency, and re-route feed backs for adaptive management, evaluation must be instituted.

6. Brief strategy for Addressing HWC A strategy to reduce human wildlife conflicts by highlighting the value of biodiversity for human survival is a pre-requisite for successful management of biodiversity. Such strategies must be based on credible empirical findings from robust understanding of the fundamental drivers of human wildlife conflicts. For landscape 1, the key drivers of human wildlife conflicts are excessive and unmanaged grazing, unsustainable collection of forest products, poaching of keystone species, crop damage, livestock predation, poverty and lack of alternative income. Below we present some strategies to address human wildlife conflicts:

Strategy 1: Decrease grazing pressures, reduce livestock predation, and prevent retaliatory killing of wildlife species Strategic Interventions: • Design and implement herd management schemes aimed at reducing stray grazing especially in remote predator habitats and alpine meadows. Herders must be made to always accompany their livestock; • Assist local farmers to access improved cattle breeds and encourage them to stall feed their livestock to reduce vulnerability of free ranging cattle to wildlife depredation. Currently, the livestock department is implementing subsidy for purchase of improved

63

breeds and cattle shed construction materials. Help farmers to access these facilities. This facility will not only reduce grazing pressures and predation losses but also enhance cash incomes; • Design and improve existing cattle housing sheds to make the predator proof. If possible with help from livestock department or other donors provide in kind or cash support to build predator proof sheds especially for herders; • With agriculture and livestock development extension services, identify and allocate pastures for livestock grazing in buffer zones and in multiple use areas; • Introduce livestock insurance scheme to compensate for livestock killed by wildlife in designated pastures, agricultural fields, or in cattle sheds. Improve on the existing community based insurance scheme by providing more seed funds. Stop compensation for free ranging cattle lost to wildlife depredation • Study the grazing impacts to: assess the severity of impacts; identify grazing hotspots; study cattle migration trends; Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Parks, Department of livestock, Department of Agriculture, Local Governments, Financial Institutions for insurance scheme, Druk Seed Corporation

Strategy 2: Reduce unsustainable harvesting of forest products to reduce habitat degradation and competition for limited resources. Strategic Interventions: • Strengthen the farmer capacities for Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM); • Upscale community based Nabji eco-tourism program model to the planned eco- tourism ventures in landscape 1. This will not only earn extra cash income to offset losses associated with conservation restrictions, reduce their dependence on forests, but also earn support of the public towards conservation efforts; • Upscale community forestry in biological corridor 1 to meet their forest product requirements; • Promote firewood saving technology including subsidized distribution of appliances for lighting, cooking, and heating in the landscape. Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Parks, Department of livestock, Department of Agriculture, Druk Seed Corporation, RSPN, TF, BAOWE

Strategy 3: Reduce crop damage and improve food production Strategic Interventions: • Identify and map crop damage hotspots throughout the landscape and upscale electric fencing to protect crops from wildlife damage; • Where possible assist farmers to build wildlife proof fencing around their fields; • Upscale the use of sound and light systems to ward off wild life from fields at night; • Research to find solutions to reduce crop damage by monkeys and birds; • Pilot crop insurance scheme. Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Parks, Department of livestock, Department of Agriculture, Druk Seed Corporation, Financial Institution for insurance scheme.

64

Strategy 4: Stop poaching and illegal trade of forest and wildlife and their products. Strategic Interventions: • Form and train a core anti-poaching team consisting of physically able park rangers and park guards; • Equip the anti-poaching squad with state of the art tools such as high frequency long range radio, arms and ammunition, etc to effectively carryout anti-poaching exercises; • Carry out rigorous anti-poaching exercises and implement anti-poaching and illegal trade rules with zero tolerance; • Develop a robust intelligence network to detect illegal poaching and trade in forest products and wildlife and wildlife parts. Collaborate with other law enforcement agencies including Royal Bhutan Army (RBA), Royal Bhutan Police (RBP), BAFRA, etc to strengthen enforcement; • Provide awareness and education programs focused on anti-poaching, FNCA 1995, FNCR 2010 directed to the herders, and other farming communities in and around the landscape. • Initiate transboundary research into poaching, illegal trade, and identify poaching networks to inform decision makers to develop strategies in addressing transboundary poaching issues. Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Parks, Bhutan Agriculture Food Regulatory Authority, Royal Bhutan Police, Community members, Local Governments, Government of India.

65

ANNEXURE 2 ASSESSMENT OF BIODIVERSITY AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF LANDSCAPE 2

1. Introduction to Landscape Landscape 2 is comprised of Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park (JSWNP), Biological Corridor 2 (BC2) and Biological Corridor 8 (BC8). Regionally, the landscape 2 represents the best example of the middle Himalayan ecosystems which is becoming rare in the region. It is also a contiguous extension of the Indian Manas national park which is a UNESCO world heritage site. Bhutan’s Royal Manas National Park (RMNP) has been proposed as a world heritage site as well.

JSWNP previously known as the Black Mountain National Park was formally established as national park in 1995. The park is located in central Bhutan and encloses an area of 17302 km. The eco-system ranges from subtropical forests at 100m in Tingtibi, through temperate forests, pastures, alpine meadows to permeant ice peak of Dhurshing la at 4,925m. The Park is inhabited by over 6000 households of diverse ethnicity spread over 10 gewogs in 5 dzongkhags. About 440 species of plants, 40 species of mammals and 391 species of birds have been recorded in the park. Some of the charismatic species in the park include red panda, golden langur which is endemic to Bhutan, common langur, sambar, musk deer, Himalayan black bear, tiger, leopard, and elephant. The Phobjikha valley, which lies in biological corridor 8, is an important habitat of black necked cranes, one of the highly endangered birds in the world. Over 260 cranes visit to this valley every winter. The first conservation management plan was prepared and implemented from 2002-2008 and currently the 2nd management plan (2014-2018) is under implementation. The park head office is located in Tshangkha under Trongsa district with park range offices located in Chendebji, Langthel, Nabji, Tingtibi, Taksha, Adha, and Phobjikha. JSWNP has successfully piloted community based nature tourism program called “Nabji trail” which is a six-day low altitude trek and it has been opened for visitation since November 2006. This is now used as a model for developing community based eco-tourism in other parts of Bhutan.

Biological Corridor 2 connects JSWNP to Jigme Dorji National Park (JDNP) and is the only corridor on the west side of Puna Tsangchu. This serves as a critical corridor especially for those species for whom the river and Gasa-Tsirang high way serves as a barrier to movement and migration. Although narrow this corridor hosts a suite of floral and faunal species of high conservation significance including the rufus necked hornbill (Aceros nipalensis), tigers (Panthera tigris), leopard, etc. The northern portion of the corridor especially in Toepisa and Kabjisa gewogs is a critical habitat for breeding tigresses.

Biological Corridor 8 connects JSWNP to JDNP and Wangchuck Centennial National Park (WCNP) and is also a habitat of tigers with few resident tigers present. It serves as a critical corridor for movement of wildlife between JSWNP and its sister parks in the north.

With a combined area of 2,844 km2, landscape 2 is the largest of the three landscapes covering areas in 7 dzongkhags and 23 gewogs. These 23 gewogs have a total population of 49,959 with at least 8000 people who live either inside the landscape or in the buffer 66

zones, and are directly dependent on the resources from the landscape. Given it size, the landscape represents huge ethnic and cultural diversity including indigenous tribes like the ‘Monpas’ in Jangbi and retey (Korphu gewog) and ‘Oleps’ in Rukha (Athang gewog). These tribes are known for their skills to produce cane and bamboo products. The park managent has initiated community based can and bamboo magement through formation of community groups. Additional support in the form of training to develop their skills further and assistance in marketing their prodcuts will be an added advantage in alleviatin poverty in these communities.

Ecologically, landscape 2 is represents all the Eco floristic zones present in Bhutan and is a repository of biological diversity. Of the 10 cat species, only the snow leopard is not present here. It is part of the larger Manas national park (Royal Manas and Indian Manas) which is a world heritage site and forms a very important ecoregion. Phobjikha valley is the wintering home of the endangered black necked cranes (Grus nigricollis) and is a RAMSAR site. In addition, the landscape also boasts of harboring the critically endangered white bellied heron.

Figure A2.1 Map of landscape 2 in relation to protected area system of Bhutan (source WCD)

Table A2.1 Biophysical and administrative statistics of landscape 2 Landscape Area Population Dzongkhags Gewogs (KM2) Landscape 2 2,844 49,959 Wangdue Athang, Bjena, Daga, Dangchu, JSWNP 1730 Gase tso gom, Gangte, Phobji, BC2 275 Nysho, Kazhi, Nahi, Sephu BC8 839 Trongsa Korphu, Langthel, Nubi, Tangsibji. Zhemgang, Trong Sarpang, Chhudzom, Jigmecholing Tsirang Phuentenchu Punakha Kabjisa, Toepisa Thimphu Chang

67

2 Status of Biodiversity Biologically, landscape 2 is one of the most diverse and occupies a strategic position in the PA system of Bhutan. It is the most important link between RMNP and the rest of the PAs in the country. Landscape 2 floral and faunal diversity is one of the richest not only in Bhutan but also in the region.

2.1 Wild biodiversity 2.1.1. Ecoregions, ecosystem, and habitats Regionally, landscape 2 plays a very important ecological role by connecting Manas landscape (Indian Manas is UNESCO world heritage site, and Bhutan Manas has been proposed), to the other PAs. JSWNP is located at the heart of Bhutan’s PA system and with BC2, BC 8, and BC 4, it forms the heart of biodiversity conservation providing critical connectivity between RMNP (sources population landscape) to the rest of the country towards north (WCP), West (JDNP), and east (PNP). The landscape has high biological diversity due to its diverse habitats from subtropical (at 100m above mean sea level) through warm and cool broadleaf temperate forests in the Middle-Himalayas to alpine, and snow (4,925m). All the 14 ecosystem types that are described for Bhutan are available in this landscape. In particular, one of the untouched primary conifer forest highly threatened elsewhere in the Himalayas is located in the JSWNP. The major habitat types represented in the park ranges from permanent ice cap at the peak of Dorshingla (4925m) to alpine meadows, scrub, and lakes, to subalpine conifer forests, cool and warm broadleaf forests to subtropical broadleaf forests in the south, adjacent to Royal Manas National Park. Over 5000 species of vascular plants have been identified/recorded in the park, representing the range of forests types.

The Phobjikha valley, a critical watershed and a wintering habitat for the globally threatened black necked cranes is a RAMSAR site. Major forest habitats and key species of conservation significance found in these habitats are described below:

Subtropical broadleaf forests: Spread between 200m and 1000m, this forest type is composed mainly by Ostodes paniculata, Mangifera sylvatica, Persea odoratissima, Castanopsis hystrix, Syzygium cumini, Litsea albescens, and Alnus nepalensis, with species such as Rhaphidophora hookeri, R. calophylla, Psilanthus bengalensis, Psychotria denticulata, Cissus rapanda, Piper betalloides, P. pedicullatum, and P. spnew in the shrub understory.

Subtropical broadleaf forests provide habitats for important wildlife species such as tigers (Panthera tigris), clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosi), common leopards (Panthera pardus), dhole (Cuon alpinus), the Asiatic golden cat (Pardofelis temminckii), jungle cat (Felis chaus), and leopard cats (Prionailurus bengalensis), gaur (Bos gaurus), elephants (Elaphus maximus), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), and sambar (Cervus unicolor), Golden langurs (Trachypithecus geei), and Malaysian giant squirrels (Ratufa bicolor).

Chirpine forests: This forest type occupies dry and h ighlyexposed sites between 900 to 1900m. Dominant species found in this forest are, Pinus roxburghii, Quercus griffithii. Due to poor site conditions, understory vegetation consists of sparsely distributed Dohaldia cappa, Indigofera dosua, I. autopuperea, I. decora, Woodfordia fruticosa, and Phoenix

68

loureiri. Barking deer (Mantiacus muntjac), sambar (Cervus unicolor), serow (Capricornis sumatraensis), and wild pig (Sus scrofa) frequent this forest type. Despite low diversity, it is important to note here that Chirpine forests near Berti village (under Trong gewog) and Ada village (Athang gewog) hosts breeding population of the critically endangered white bellied heron (Ardea insignis).

Warm Broadleaf forests: This forest type ranges between 1000m and 2000m across the landscape. Species commonly found in this area include; Schima wallachii, Castanopsis tribuloides, Lyonia ovalifolia, Rhododendron arboretum, Myrsine semiserrata, Ostodes paniculata, Castanopsis hystrix, Neocinnamomum caudatum, and Elaeocarpus sikkimensis, with Ardisia solanaceae, Centella asiatica, Piper suipigua, P. mellesua, P. peepuloides, Smilax lanceifolia, Brugmansia sauveolens, Barleria cristata, Boehmeria glomerulifera, and Dendrocni desinua. Due to its floral diversity this forest habitat attract a large variety of wildlife species such as: tigers (Panthera tigris), clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosi), common leopards (Panthera pardus), dhole (Cuon alpinus), the Asiatic golden cat (Pardofelis temminckii), jungle cat (Felis chaus), leopard cats (Prionailurus bengalensis), yellow throated marten (Martes flavigula), gaur (Bos gaurus), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), sambar (Cervus unicolor), Golden langurs (Trachypithecus geei), etc.

Cool Broadleaf forests: This forest type is present between 2000m and 2900 m, such as in Chendebji village located in BC 8. Common species in this forest include; Rhododendron arboreum, R. kesangiae, Lyonia ovalifolia, Enkianthus deflexus, and some Tsuga dumosa. The common understory species include Holboellia latifolia, Elaeagnus parvifolia, Berberis aristata, and Daphne bholua. Common wildlife species that habitat this forest type include; tigers (Panthera tigris), clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosi), common leopards (Panthera pardus), dhole (Cuon alpinus), the Asiatic golden cat (Pardofelis temminckii), jungle cat (Felis chaus), leopard cats (Prionailurus bengalensis), yellow throated marten (Martes flavigula), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), sambar (Cervus unicolor), red panda (Alirus fulgens), Himalayan black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus), etc.

Mixed conifer forest: These forest habitats are found between 2700m to 3200m with major species such as Rhododendron arboreum, Tsuga dumosa, and Abies densa dominating the tree community and Rosa sericea, Smilax ferox, Vaccinium nummularia, Daphne bholua, and Lonicera acuminata as dominant shrubs. Tigers (Panthera tigris), clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosi), dhole (Cuon alpinus), the Asiatic golden cat (Pardofelis temminckii), leopard cats (Prionailurus bengalensis), yellow throated marten (Martes flavigula), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), sambar (Cervus unicolor), red panda (Alirus fulgens), Himalayan black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus), pika (Ochotona princeps), etc. can be commonly found in this forest type.

Blue Pine forests: Blue pine forest habitats are found between 2100m and 3000 m. As the name indicates, this forest type is dominated by stands of Pinus wallichiana, with Elaeagnus parvifolia, Parthenocis sussemicordata, Rubia manjit, and Berberis aristata in the understory. Barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), Yellow throated marten (Martes flavigula), Himalayan black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus), common leopards (Panthera pardus), etc. can commonly be found in this forest.

69

Fir forest: Lying between 3200m and 4000m fir forests are dominanted Fir (Abies densa) with some junipers (Juniperus recurva) and Acer campbellii, with Berberis griffithiana and Rubus calycinus in the understory. Wildlife such as: tigers (Panthera tigris), common leopards (Panthera pardus), dhole (Cuon alpinus), the Asiatic golden cat (Pardofelis temminckii), yellow throated marten (Martes flavigula), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), sambar (Cervus unicolor), red panda (Alirus fulgens), Himalayan black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus), musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster), pika (Ochotona princeps), etc. are found in this forest. In addition, blood pheasant (Ithaginis cruentus), and monal pheasant (Lophophorus impeganus), are common but important species that inhabit this forest type.

Juniper forest: Found between 3800m to 4000m on slopes with high humidity, this forest type is dominated by juniper with Berberis praecipua, Smilax ferox, and Daphne bholua as understory species. Wildlife species including; tigers (Panthera tigris), common leopards (Panthera pardus), dhole (Cuon alpinus), the Asiatic golden cat (Pardofelis temminckii), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), sambar (Cervus unicolor), red panda (Alirus fulgens), Himalayan black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus)), pika (Ochotona princeps), etc. have been recorded in the juniper forest.

Alpine meadows and scrub: Located mostly above 4000m, records indicate that this habitat consist of herbaceous plants with grasses (Gramineae and Poaceae) forming a dense mat, with a diverse herb community consisting of interalia, Potentilla, Pedicularis, Aconitum, Sassurea, Meconopsis, Anemone, Epilobium, Swertia, Rheum, Gernaium, Festuca, Juncus, Poa, Aconogonum, Swertia, Cotoneaster, Primula species. Many of these plants have medicinal values. Species such as Rhododendron and Salix, occasionally mixed with Juniperus spp. are known to dominate in the drier sites. High altitude mammals like pika are found in this habitat with occasional visits by tigers (Panthera tigris), common leopards (Panthera pardus), and snow leopards (Uncia uncia), pika (Ochotona princeps), etc.

2.1.2. Globally threatened, and endemic species Owing to its rich habitat types and elevational gradient, this landscape is endowed with very high wildlife diversity. Overall, 40 species of mammals and over 391 species of birds have been confirmed in the park.

Mammals: The landscape harbors important populations of some of globally threatened keystone and Asia’s most charismatic species, including the tiger, golden langur, musk deer, red panda, clouded leopard, Himalayan black bear, leopard, golden cat, and wild dogs. TableA2.2 lists species of important conservation significance and their global and national conservation status. 9 species are listed as endangered by the IUCN, and 12 species listed under Bhutan’s FNCA 1995.

Table A2.2 Status of globally threatened and endemic species in landscape 2 Sl. Name Scientific Name Status No. FNCA 1995 IUCN CITES 1 Tiger Panthera tigris Totally protected EN App-I 2 Clouded leopard Neofelis nebulosa Totally protected VU App-I 3 Common leopard Panthera pardus Totally protected NT App-I

70

4 Himalayan black Selenarctos thibetanus Totally protected VU App-I Bear 5 Musk deer Moschus chrysogaster Totally protected EN App-I 6 Goral Nemorhaedus goral - NT App-I 7 Grey langur Presbytis entellus - NT App-I 8 Golden langur Trachypithecus geei Totally protected EN 9 Himalayan serow Capricornis sumatraensis Totally protected VU App-I 10 Wild dog Cuon alpinus - EN App-I 11 Assamese macaque Macaca assamensis - NT App-II 12 Asiatic golden cat, Pardofelis temminckii VU App-I 13 Chinese pangolin Manis pentadactyla Totally protected EN App-II 14 Asian elephant Elaphus maximus Totally protected EN App-I 15 Gaur Bos gaurus Totally protected VU App-I 16 Leopard cat Prionailurus bengalensis Totally protected LC App-II 17 Red panda Alirus fulgens Totally protected VU App-I 18 Malaysian giant Ratufa bicolor NT App-II squirrel. 19 Yellow throated Martes flavigula App-III marten

Birds: This landscape has one of the highest bird diversity in Bhutan. Of the over 391 bird species, eight are globally threatened; four are protected under FNCA 1995. Phobjikha valley’s wetland is a RAMSAR site and is the winter home of the endangered black necked cranes. The landscape also supports Bhutan’s population of critically endangered white bellied heron. The rufous necked hornbill is found in the matured broadleaved forests. List of globally threatened birds are presented in Table A2.3.

Table A2.3 Current statuses of globally threatened and endemic birds in landscape 2 Sl. No. Name Scientific Name Status FNCA 1995 IUCN CITES 1 White bellied heron Ardea insignis Totally CR App-I protected 2 Rufous necked Aceros nipalensis Totally VU App-I hornbill protected 3 Great hornbill Buceros bicornis ----- NT App-I 4 Wood snipe Gallinago nemoricola VU 5 Satyr Tragopan Tragonpan satyra VU App-I 6 Snow partridge Lerwa lerwa 7 Tibetan snowcok Etraogallus tibetanus - VU App-I 8 River lapwing Vanellus duvaucelii --- NT - 9 Grey crowned prinia Prinia cinereocapilla VU 10 Yellow rumped Indicator xanthonotus NT honeyguide 11 Himalayan monal Lophophorus impeganus Totally E protected 12 Beautiful nuthatch Sitta Formosa VU 13 Black necked crane Grus nigricolos Totally protected 71

Other species: There are about 139 species of butterfly species recorded in the landscape. Records on other mammalian groups such as fish, reptiles and amphibians are not available at the time of this assignment.

2.2. Agrobiodiversity 2.2.1. Crop diversity Rice (Oryza sativa) main crop in the area. High landers cultivate Wheat (Triticum), Barley (Hordeum vilgare), and millet for sources livelihoods. Traditionally, the Oleps in Rukha and Monpas in Jangbi and Retay lived on tubers and other forest products. Recently, they have taken up permeant system of agriculture such as growing rice, wheat, mustard, etc. However, they are still continuing to use their traditional cane and bamboo skills to weave diversity of products to earn cash incomes.

TableA2.4 List of the livestock under the landscape 2 Sl. No. Name Scientific Name

1 Rice Oryza sativa 2 Maize Zea mays 3 Finger Millet Eleusine coracana 4 Foxtail Millet Setaria italica 5 Common Millet Panicum miliaceum 6 Barley Hordeum vilgare 7 Sorghum Sorghum bicolor 8 Wheat Triticum 9 Sweet buckwheat Polygonum fagopyrum 10 Bitter buckwheat Fagopyrum esculentum 11 Amaranthus Amaranthus retroflexus 12 Beans Phaseolus lunatus 16 Mustard Brassica 18 Groundnut Arachis hypogaea

2.2.3. Livestock diversity Farmers in landscape 2 reared a variety of livestock species (Table A2.5), which is representative of general livestock diversity across the country. Cattle is reared by most farmers across low and mid altitudes while yaks are reared by high landers. Horses, donkeys, and mule are kept for transportation while sheep, goat, pig and chicken are kept for meat, milk, fur, etc. Improved breeds such as jersey and other cross breeds are being encouraged to reduce grazing pressure and increase productivity.

TableA2.5 List of the livestock from the landscape 2 Sl.no Breed/type Scientific name Conservation status (IUCN) 1 Nublang Bos indicus Native 2 Mithun Bos frontalis 3 Jersey Bos Taurus 4 Yak Poephagusgrunniens or Bos gruniens VU

72

5 Horse Equus caballus 6 Mule Equus asinus 7 Donkey Equus africanus asinus 8 Sheep Ovis aries 9 Goat Capra hircus 10 Pig Sus scrofa 11 Chicken Gallus gallus domesticus

2.3 Community awareness and perception on biodiversity and ecosystem 2.3.1 Community awareness level about biodiversity and ecosystem Overall, findings indicate a high level of awareness in landscape 2 with 89.3% of the respondents reporting they are aware about biodiversity conservation. Amongst the gewogs, respondents from Toepisa, Langthel, Daga, Jigmecholing, Gangtey, and Trong gewogs displayed higher level of awareness. A closer look at the tribal groups in the park revealed that the Monpas under langthel gewogs are more aware about biodiversity and ecosystem conservation compared to their counterparts in Rukha. This is probably due to the long history of engaging Monpas in conservation efforts by JWNP and the establishment of can and bamboo management committee. Compared to landscape 1, respondents in landscape 2 displayed a lower level of awareness about biodiversity and ecosystem with only 89.3% of the respondents reporting they are aware about biodiversity (Figure A2.2). This slightly lower level of awareness is attributed to its large area with people living in much more remote especially those in remote Dangchu, Athang, and Korphu gewogs. Respondents have reported that they have or they would like to take up community forest as a step towards conserving biodiversity.

Figure A2.2 Community awareness about biodiversity and ecosystem 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0

0.0 Percent respondents Percent

Gewogs

Yes No

2.3.2 Community awareness about the existence of biological corridors Overall, 87% of the respondents reported that they are aware about the existence of biological corridors (Figure A2.3). This is an indication of successful strategy for creating awareness about the corridors and must be scaled up. According to the respondents, their top source of this information is from park officers, followed by local government, 73

dzongkhags, and officials from the ministry. Oleps from Rukha are less aware about the existence of biological corridors compared to the Monpas in Langthel gewog who exhibited awareness levels equal to those from other gewogs.

Respondents ranked nature conservation (54%) as the top reason for establishing the biological corridors with another 13% of the respondents who attributed it to wildlife migration (Figure A2.4). About 13% of the respondents said they don’t know why the BCs were created.

Figure A2.3 Are you aware about the existance of biological corridors? No 13%

Yes 87%

Figure A2.4 Reasons why biological corridors are establsihed? Don’t know 13%

Nature cosnervatio wildlife n migration 54% 33%

2.3.3 Community perception on status of biodiversity According to the findings in Table A2.6 biodiversity in landscape 2 has undergone some level of deterioration with 48% of the respondents saying biodiversity needs improvement against 46% who reported that biodiversity was good five years ago. The bit of good news is that 38% of the respondents also feel that biodiversity has improved in the last 5 years. These improvements were especially reported from Gangtey, Dangchu, Korphu, and Daga 74

gewogs. There is no significant difference in the perception on biodiversity status between different age groups, gender, and education.

Table A2.6 Farmer perception of biodiversity status (%) Condition of biodiversity 5 years ago Today Gewogs Needs Excellent Good Fair Improved improvement Stable Toepisa 6.7 46.7 46.7 46.7 33.3 20.0 Dangchu 13.3 33.3 53.3 60.0 40.0 0.0 Tangsibji 73.3 26.7 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 Langthel 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 93.3 0.0 Daga 0.0 53.3 46.7 53.3 46.7 0.0 Athang 0.0 80.0 20.0 60.0 0.0 40.0 Jigmecholing 0.0 40.0 60.0 6.7 93.3 0.0 Gangtey 0.0 46.7 53.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 Trong 0.0 40.0 60.0 6.7 93.3 0.0 Korphu 46.7 53.3 0.0 53.3 0.0 46.7 Total 14.0 46.0 40.0 38.7 48.0 12.7

Respondents in these gewogs attributed this improvement to community forests, government effort for protection of biodiversity, and community participation. On the other hand, reasons cited for needing improvement in biodiversity include human wildlife conflict, increase in human population, and hydropower especially in Tangsibji and Langthel gewogs.

In contrast to the large majority reporting the need for biodiversity improvement, respondents have consistently reported an increasing trend in the population of both predator and prey species (Figure A2.5). The reported increase is higher for prey as compared to predators such as tiger and leopard probably due to less sightings of either live animals or their signs thereof as they live further away in the forest while prey species hang around settlements for feeding on agricultural crops. Overall, these findings indicate that while habitat quality is degenerating, population of both the predators and prey are increasing. Ideally if we have a healthy population of predators and prey, then we should not be experiencing crop and livestock damages then predation and crop damage should be low. But the findings indicate that they are also on the increase, this situation as pointed out in annexure 1, demands serious scientific investigation.

75

Figure A2.5 Farmer perception of population status of key wildlife species (%) 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 Percent respondents Percent 0.0 Tiger Leopard Wild Sambar Barking Wid pig Macaque dog deer

Wildlife species Increasing Decreasing Stable

2.3.4 Community support for protection of wildlife and wildlife policy Over 73% of the respondents are in favor of wildlife protection citing predators such as tiger and leopard are culturally precious and endangered (Table A2.7). Farmer support for sambar which is a key crop damaging wildlife comes from the understanding that it’s a key prey for predators who kills their livestock. This is an admirable understanding exhibited by farmers across landscape 2. Those who do not support wildlife protection based their arguments on damages to their crops, livestock, and consider wildlife as a threat to their livelihood. There is also no significant evidence of difference amongst the tribal groups and wider population in their support for wildlife and wildlife policy.

Table A2.7 Support for wildlife protection Should wildlife be protected? Top three wildlife to Top three reasons why and Gewogs Yes No be protected why not? % % Toepisa 100.0 0.0 Tiger, leopard, sambar Dangchu 86.7 13.3 Tiger, leopard, sambar For protection reasons (Yes) Tangsibji 80.0 20.0 Tiger, leopard, sambar Precious predators, endangered, and key prey Langthel 100.0 0.0 Tiger, leopard, sambar Daga 100.0 0.0 Tiger, leopard, sambar Athang 86.7 13.3 Tiger, leopard, sambar Jigmecholing 80.0 20.0 Tiger, leopard, sambar Against protection (No) Gangtey 86.7 13.3 Tiger, leopard, sambar Pest, causing loss, and it’s a threat. Trong 80.0 20.0 Tiger, leopard, sambar Korphu 66.7 33.3 Tiger, leopard, sambar

76

Respondents also generally support the existing wildlife conservation policy saying that it is good to have wildlife policy. 41% reasoned their support as the policy allow for monitoring of illegal activities which increases their access to forest resources and 16% said it protects wildlife which is precious.

4 Status of socio-economic conditions Due to its large size, landscape two is the most diverse of the three landscapes under this study. The landscape is not just biologically diverse, but also is a repository of socio- cultural and economic diversity.

4.1 Demographic Characteristics As with size, landscape 2 has a large population of about 49,959 farmers who live both within and around the landscape. 46% of the respondents were women compared to 54% men (Table A2.8). Significantly large majority of the respondents are between the ages of 15 to 65 indicating high productive human workforce in the communities. Over 74% of the respondents have also not received any form of education reflecting a low level of education in landscape 2. Ethnically, the landscape hosts farmers of Ngalop, Mangdeb, Kheng, Lhotsamp, and Oleps.

Table A2.8 Demographic profile of respondents from landscape 2 (%)

Gewogs

choli

Total

Toepisa Dangchu Tangsibji Langthel Daga Athang Jigme ng Gangtey Trong Korphu

Gender Female 33.3 33.3 40.0 40.0 46.7 33.3 40.0 86.7 66.7 40.0 46.0 Male 66.7 66.7 60.0 60.0 53.3 66.7 60.0 13.3 33.3 60.0 54.0 Age 15 - 65 86.7 86.7 100.0 80.0 86.7 93.3 93.3 86.7 93.3 100.0 90.7 >65 13.3 13.3 0.0 20.0 13.3 6.7 6.7 13.3 6.7 0.0 9.3 Education High School 33.3 0.0 33.3 0.0 13.3 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 6.7 9.3 Primary 13.3 26.7 13.3 13.3 20.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 20.0 20.0 13.3 NFE 6.7 0.0 13.3 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 None 46.7 73.3 40.0 73.3 66.7 100.0 86.7 100.0 80.0 73.3 74.0

3.2 Livelihood and income 3.2.1 Sources of livelihoods Agriculture and livestock herding are the major sources of livelihood for farmers across the landscape 2. Very few people practice business and trade in landscape 2, while about 12% also reported off farm activities as a source of livelihood (Figure A2.6). While agriculture is the dominant source across the gewogs, livestock is more popular in 77

Jigmecholing, Athang, and Gangtey gewogs. While Oleps and Monpas were traditionally dependent on forests for livelihood and possessed traditional skills to weave various products from cane and bamboo, they have now fully taken up permeant system of agriculture similar to other groups. In addition, their skills to work with cane and bamboo have been improved with training and modern equipment, thus producing improved and diversified products.

Figure A2.6 Sources of livelihood in landscape 2 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0

Percent respondents Percent 0.0

Gewogs

Agriculture Livestock Trade/business Off farm

3.2.2 Agriculture Agriculture is the main stay of livelihood on farms for which land is a pre-requisite. Total of 323 acres of dryland and 243 acres of wetland are owned by the respondents from the landscape 2. Of these 282 acres of dryland and 223 acres of wetland are currently being used for agriculture. Agricultural land holdings pattern as reported by respondents from the 10 gewogs in landscape 2 are presented in table A2.9. Bhutanese farmers are by tradition small land holders practicing subsistence agriculture. Size of the farm often signify richness and social status in the society. If stands true today, then all framers are very poor. Although by law one cannot own more than 5 acres of land there are exceptions and this is also indicated by the findings in this study with (9% and 2.7% of respondents reporting they own over 5 acres of dryland and wetland respectively.

Over all large majority of the respondents reported (49% for dryland and 44% for wetland) that they own between 1 to 3 acres of dry and wet land. In general, respondents from higher altitude areas such as Dangchu and Gangtey own more dry land compared to their peers who live in lower altitudes and who own wetland for paddy cultivation. Farmers in Jigmecholing although live in rice growing zone has higher percent ownership of dryland as cardamom orchards. Respondents in Langthel and Trong also has substantial amount of dry land for tseri and orchard purposes. Like elsewhere, there are few respondents who are landless in landscape two who totally source their livelihood by working for their neighbors.

78

High mean land ownership as reported by the respondents is for Korphu (4.1 acres) and Jigmecholing (3.6 acres) is due to larger number of households owning land over 5 acres (Figure A2.7). Similarly, Daga gewog also show high mean land ownership (3.8acreas) exacerbated by 13% of the respondents owning land in excess of 5 acres. In general, farmers owned about 2.2 acres of dryland and 1.6 acres of wetland which is not significantly different from mean ownership in landscape 1 especially for wetland.

Figure A2.7 Mean land ownership in landscape 2

All gewog mean Korphu Trong Gangtey Jigmecholing Athang

Gewogs Daga Langthel Tangsibji Dangchu Toepisa 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Mean land holding (Acres) Wetland Dryland

Table A2.9 Land holding pattern of households in landscape 2 (%) Gewogs > 5 Land type No land < 1 acre 1 - 3 acres >3 - 5 acres acres Toepisa Dryland 26.7 46.7 26.7 0.0 0.0 wetland 20.0 20.0 46.7 13.3 0.0 Dangchu 0.0 13.3 73.3 6.7 6.7 Dryland Wetland 80.0 13.3 6.7 0.0 0.0 Tangsibji Dryland 6.7 6.7 46.7 33.3 6.7 Wetland 6.7 20.0 53.3 20.0 0.0 Langthel Dryland 0.0 6.7 80.0 13.3 0.0 Wetland 20.0 26.7 40.0 13.3 0.0 Daga Dryland 13.3 40.0 33.3 6.7 6.7 Wetland 0.0 0.0 40.0 46.7 13.3

79

Athang Dryland 53.3 26.7 20.0 0.0 0.0 Wetland 0.0 13.3 73.3 6.7 6.7 Jigmecholing Dryland 13.3 6.7 40.0 13.3 26.7 Wetland 20.0 20.0 46.7 13.3 0.0 Gangtey Dryland 6.7 20.0 53.3 13.3 6.7 Wetland 80.0 13.3 6.7 0.0 0.0 Trong Dryland 0.0 13.3 66.7 13.3 6.7 Wetland 0.0 33.3 60.0 6.7 0.0 Korphu Dryland 0.0 0.0 53.3 13.3 33.3 Wetland 0.0 20.0 66.7 6.7 6.7 Total dryland 12.0 18.0 49.3 11.3 9.3 Total wetland 22.7 18.0 44.0 12.7 2.7

3.2.3 Livestock Traditional Bhutanese agriculture and life on farm is not complete especially when you are small land holder with low cash income. Livestock are sources of draught power to plough fields, milk, butter, and meat as well as manure for enriching soil and increasing the yield of crops. This importance is reflected by almost all the respondents (92.7%) saying they own livestock (Table A2.10). 100% of the respondents from Dangchu, Daga, Jigmecholing, Gangtey, and Trong gewogs reported owning livestock. Excluding horses, goat, and sheep, figure from gewog administrations showed that a total of 13,139 livestock are owned by people in the 10 gewogs with an average ownership of at least 1 cattle head for 2 farmers.

Table A2.10 Livestock ownership pattern in landscape 2 (%) Gewogs Do you own livestock? Yes No Toepisa 80.0 20.0 Dangchu 100.0 0.0 Tangsibji 80.0 20.0 Langthel 80.0 20.0 Daga 100.0 0.0 Athang 93.3 6.7 Jigmecholing 100.0 0.0 Gangtey 100.0 0.0 Trong 100.0 0.0 Korphu 93.3 6.7 Total 92.7 7.3

80

Agricultural industry will collapse if livestock sector fails and as such it is important to understand herd management dynamics and develop innovative strategies to keep this inevitable sector alive without hurting biodiversity significantly. One of the down side of livestock when it comes to biodiversity conservation is the threat it presents through grazing especially in deep forests where it not only competes with key prey species but also encounter with predators. Feeding preferences in landscape indicate that this threat is significant with over 50% of the respondents reporting that their livestock are both stall fed and forest grazed (Figure A2.8). However, it also present high potential for scaling up stall feeding as 46% also reported that they practice stall feeding which indicates they know the methodology for stall feeding already. In addition, only 4% practice 100% forest grazing.

Figure A2.8 Feeding preferences as reported by those who owned livestock

Stall Both stall feeding and forest 46% 50%

Forest grazig 4%

If livestock ownership is the backbone of agriculture, then it is important to understand the constraints it faces to develop mitigation strategies. Top constraint faced by livestock sectors is reported to be the lack of sufficient grazing land (56%; Figure A2.9). This constraint is further exacerbated by nationalizing all pastures in the country a few years ago. If farm economy is to progress, then this policy of the government needs a serious review. Second most serious constraint is the predation by wildlife and this is of special interest as it not only invokes retaliatory killing of high profile predators such as tiger and leopard, but also generates anti-conservation sentiments amongst the otherwise god fearing nature loving farmers.

81

Figure A2.9 Constraints faced by livestock owners in landscape 2 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 Loss to low milk Poor Few Insufficient Pest and Percent respondents respondents Percent predators yield quality extensionist grazing disease breeds

Constraints

Toepisa Dangchu Tangsibji Langthel Daga Athang Jigmecholing Gangtey Trong

3.2.4 Major sources of cash income Agriculture and livestock, the inseparable duo, are the top sources of cash income for farmers in landscape 2. Overall, 45.5% of the respondents indicated agriculture as their top source of income followed by 36.3% pointing out livestock (Figure A2.10). A gewog wise investigation of sources of cash income indicates a very interesting trend especially with business and off farm. Korphu gewog which is totally inside the park but makes a lot of cash from off farm is a positive strategy for reducing dependence on livestock. A closer look at their income sources revealed that this rise is contributed by a combination of diverse off farm activities including the community based eco-tourism program where farmers are engaged for pottering, entertainment, camp site fees, and sale of local products including vegetables. Likewise, farmers from Athang are earning cash incomes from farm fishery and cane and bamboo products (which are clubbed under off farm for the purpose of this study). Similarly, Tangsibji farmers are earning a substantial amount of income from orchid cultivation and vegetables. These best practices can be scaled up into other areas to diversity cash income sources and reduce dependence on livestock and forest products. Figure A2.10 . Sources of cash income in landscape 2 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0

0.0 Percent respondents Percent

Gewogs

Agriculture Livestock Trade/business Off farm

82

Table A2.11 Cash incomes from different sources Sources of cash income Gewogs Agriculture Livestock Business/Trade Off farm Total Nu Nu Nu Nu Nu Toepisa 634,000 269,000 620,00 60,000 1,583,000 Dangchu 878,000 258,000 170,000 0 1,306,000 Tangsibji 611,000 373,000 310,000 50,000 1,344,000 Langthel 1,115,000 176,000 210,000 0 1,501,000 Daga 448,000 72,000 0 170,000 690,000 Athang 262,000 211,4000 0 76,000 549,400 Jigmecholing 485,000 170,000 95,000 275,000 1,025,000 Gangtey 770,000 475,000 85,000 0 1,330,000 Trong 441,000 168,000 0 70,000 679,000 Korphu 1,860,000 117,000 0 578,000 2,555,000 Total 7,504,000 2,289,400 1,490,000 1,279,000 12,562,400 Mean income 50,027 15,263 9,933 8,527 83,749

An analysis of cash incomes reported by the respondents indicated that the mean earning in landscape 2 is about Nu. 83,749.00 (Table A2.11). A gewog wise assessment show that Korphu has the highest amount of cash income contributed in part by the diversified income sources including eco-tourism. Trong, Daga, and Athang are the poorest earners of cash and this has also been reported in the national poverty incidence report as well as the GNHCs’ REAP report.

3.2.5 Food self sufficiency 57% of the respondents said their food security is good, followed by medium (29%), and low (14%). Over 50% of the respondents in Athang gewogs are food insecure. Those reporting food insecure said they face food shortages in the months of June, July, and December. They cope with food insecurity by using livestock products and depending on remittances from their relatives in service.

More than 50% of the respondents also said that their ability to enhance food security is good if they had more land, diversified incomes sources, and proper irrigation facilities.

3.3 Membership, gender, and social inclusion 41% of the households responded that they are members of one of the self-help groups in the gewog (Table A2.12). 44% of the respondents also vouched that there is gender parity in these groups. This is evidenced from the finding that members to the various groups were composed of 57% male and 43% females. More females are involved in collection of fern tops with fodder collection exclusively done by females. Fuel wood collection is more or less a joint effort by females and males, but more males are involved in transportation. Respondents are motivated to become members of various self-help groups in the communities due to expected benefits in the form of cash incomes from fishery and orchids, farm tours, fuel wood and timber from community forest, and water source protection. Community forest is the most popular group and has the potential to grow.

83

Table A2.12 Membership in existing self-help groups in landscape 2

% respondents reporting membership in various groups by

gewogs

cho

Groups

Dangchu Tangsibji Langthel Daga Athang Jigme ling Gangtey Trong Korphu Toepisa Total Community Forest 33.3 0.0 40.0 20.0 46.7 6.7 66.7 0.0 0.0 60.0 27.3 Agriculture 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Water group 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Livestock farm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 1.3 Fishery 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 10.0 Cane and bamboo 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Orchid 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3

4. Key threats and root causes Like in many other parks and biological corridors, key threats in landscape 2 include crop damage, livestock predation, habitat degradation and loss, excessive grazing, unsustainable collection of forest products, poaching and trade, forest fires, and land use. Of these habitat loss and degradation is of serious concern in landscape 2 due to excessive grazing, unsustainable harvesting of forest products, land use conversion, and developmental activities especially farm roads.

Habitat conversion inside the park is not as big a concern as degradation. The major sources of current habitat degradation are from free-ranging livestock grazing in forests, frequent wild fires that are often set off by people, and unsustainable collection of non-wood forest products by a growing population to meet commercial market demands.

4.1 Human Wildlife Conflict Human wildlife conflict is a traditional and universal issue that continues to daunt conservation efforts. Human wildlife conflicts come in the form of livestock predation, crop damage, property loss or retaliatory killing of wildlife or illegal harvesting of natural resources.

About 72 cattle, 1 mule killed by tiger, 12 cattle killed by Himalayan Black Bear and also there will be many unreported cases by other wildlife (WCD, METT+). Most animals killed in retaliation are leopard, bear, wild pig, sambar, and barking deer. Records available with WCD indicate that 2 tigers, 4 sambar deer, 1 wild pig, and 1 Himalayan black bear were killed in retaliation in landscape 2. According to the park authority, Athang in Wangdue Dzongkhag and Langthel and Korphu areas in Trongsa have the most frequent incidents. Villagers here are also known to hunt in the forests, and some reported retaliatory killing may actually be from hunting activities. 84

Recent cases of cattle depredation by tigers occurred in Korphu, Lanthel, Tangsibji and Tama areas, and the rangers are vigilant against retaliatory killings. About 88% of the farmers in this study indicated that they are facing livestock predation which is a very significant number of households (Table A2.13). Given that livestock is highly costed compared their small cash incomes that could anger farmers to kill predators in retaliation, it is critical to continue to implement innovative programs to reduce this conflicts either through stall feeding, or diversified income sources.

Table A2.13 Percent respondents reporting crop damage and livestock predation (%)

Respondents reporting crop damage and livestock loss (%)

cho

Damage

type orphu

Dangchu Tangsibji Langthel Daga Athang Jigme ling Gangtey Trong K Toepisa Total Crop damage 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Livestock predation 93.3 100.0 86.7 86.7 93.3 100.0 80.0 100.0 60.0 80.0 88.0

Crop damage is a perennial problem across the parks and are increasing partly because the system of reporting is getting efficient and also due to perceived increase in wildlife populations, and proximity of farms to forest areas. 100% of the respondents from across the 10 gewogs have reported crop losses (Table A211). Every year about 20-30% of the communities’ report or complain crop loss by wildlife as indicated in the threats under the JSWNP. Given that these farmers own small plots of land and are poor these losses are significant. Overall, wild pig, sambar, and barking deer remains to be the main culprit. In addition, crop damage by smaller animals such as porcupine is also on the rise. Crop damage by monkeys and birds are also reported and is the most difficult to deal with as fences don’t make sense for them.

As with past studies and findings, wild pig maintains its status as the number one predator on crops (100%) followed by barking deer (67.3%) and sambar (52.7%). All these species are key prey species for high profile predators like tiger, leopard, and wild dog and their protection from retaliatory killing must be sought at all costs. A failure to achieve this would unleash the wrath of predation from the big predators, which will be catastrophic.

Respondents also ranked common leopard as the number 1 predator, followed by wild dog and tiger (Figure A2.12). Retaliatory killings have also been reported by the park officials. Tigers taking a third place as livestock predator is a serious finding as tigers were the number one predators in landscape 2 during past studies and also landscape 2 is a tiger hotspot. A serious population study of tiger must be undertaken to confirm this report.

85

Figure A2.11 Key widlife responsible for corp damage 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 Wild pig Barking deer Sambar

Figure A2.12 Kye wildlife responsbile for livestock predation in landscape 2 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0

Percent respondents respondents Percent 0.0 Tiger Leopard Wild dog Key predators

4.2 Poaching and illegal trade in wildlife and forest and their parts Forest officials from landscape 2 report that the main species targeted for poaching are leopard (for skin), musk deer, red panda, and bear. Tigers are killed only very rarely, but because of their rarity, even these kills are significant. Musk deer are poached by people living along the northern border who set traps in the high altitude areas of the national park. The park rangers patrol the area, but because of the vast area and small staff numbers, it is difficult to apprehend poachers. A summary of recent cases of illegal poaching in JSWNP is given in Table A2.14. This is not an exhaustive list, but represents what was available from the DOFPS headquarters and JSWNP at the time of this study.

Table A2.14 Frequency and type of wildlife poaching in landscape 2 Species poached Detection frequency Comments Illegal fishing 6 Rivers and streams in the park Sambar 1 In agriculture field Musk Deer 1 3 musk deer killed. Monal Pheasant 1 2 Monals killed Note: Wildlife killed in retaliation are not included here.

86

4.3 Excessive Grazing Although there are no existing studies to confirm the threat of grazing to biodiversity conservation, it is established that forest grazing especially when done in excess degenerates habitat quality, compete with wild herbivores, and enters into conflict with wild predators. Past surveys have reported stray grazing of livestock even in the remote forest of JSWNP. Given the subsistence nature of life on farm, farmers in landscape 2 keep substantial number of livestock and large numbers are grazed in forests. Forest grazing must be reduced in order to reduce habitat fragmentation by excessive grazing and avoid encounters with wild predators to reduce predation and retaliatory killings.

4.4 Over-exploitation and unsustainable use of natural resources Non-wood forest products harvested from JSWNP and the biological corridors are mainly cane, bamboo, edible fruits, and wild orchids. Some medicinal plants and mushrooms are also collected, but the quantities are not monitored and are not determined. Both cane and bamboo are woven into mats and handicrafts and sold to tourist mule porters, and are thus important sources of income for people. Traditional baskets are used to transport goods by horse, and are important, especially for people of Adha-Rukha area who sell the baskets to mule owners. Excessive and unsustainable collection of these NWFPs results in forest degradation. Findings from the study indicate that farmers collect mushroom, fern tops, and fodder almost on a daily basis during their season (Table A2.15). Both male and female are almost equally involved in collection of mushrooms; collection of fern top is largely done by females (56%) with fodder collection restricted to just women (100%). Of the products collected, 50% of mushroom and 40% of fern tops are sold to earn extra cash incomes annually.

Table A2.15 Type, amount, and gender roles in collection of forest products Collected by Type of forest product Female Male collected Total collected % % Mushroom (Kgs) 326 45.8 54.2 Fern tops (bundles) 1085 56.1 43.9 Fodder (backloads) 200 100.0 0.0

Fuel wood collection is also a major cause of habitat defragmentation and hence a threat to biodiversity. Almost all the respondents in all the gewogs reported collection fuelwood. On average they spend about 7 days a year collection fuel wood mainly from forest (93%, Table A2.16). Most of the collection is carried out by both female and male (62%) while more males are involved in transportation.

87

Table A2.16 Collection and use of fuelwood in landscape 2

Gewogs

Dangchu Tangsibji Langthel Daga Athang Jigmechol ing Gangtey Trong korphu Toepisa Total Mean number of days lasted by 1 backload of fuelwood 1.6 2.2 1.5 2.6 1.9 2.9 2.6 1.5 2.6 2.0 2.1 Mean number of days spent collecting firewood/year 1.5 5.1 10.4 12.1 2.1 8.4 12.1 4.2 12.1 2.8 7.1 Collected by (%) Male 86.7 53.3 26.7 0.0 0.0 53.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 Female 13.3 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 6.7 13.3 0.0 13.3 0.0 6.0 Both male and female 0.0 46.7 73.3 86.7 100.0 40.0 86.7 0.0 86.7 100.0 62.0 Mean transportation time (hours/backload or trips) 3.8 3.1 5.1 3.1 1.3 1.7 6.1 4.3 4.3 4.5 3.7 Means of transportation (%) Man 0.0 40.0 40.0 86.7 100.0 100.0 86.7 0.0 86.7 0.0 54.0 Truck 100.0 60.0 60.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 13.3 100.0 13.3 100.0 46.0 Fuel wood sources (%) 100. Forests 80.0 80.0 86.7 100.0 100 93.3 100.0 100.0 0 93.3 93.3 Village and sokshing 20.0 20.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 6.7 Tseri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.5 Forest fires Forest fires continue to present uncertain threats to biodiversity. Available records indicate that a total of 26,644.29 acres of forest have been damaged by forest fires in the last 5 years (Table A2.17). 99% of these fires are suspected to be started by humans and are mostly in chirpine forests with maximum occurring in Athang gewog. Forest fire although bring new grasses for livestock and ungulates, kill wildlife, destroy their habitat, and loosen soil making them susceptible for landslides and erosion.

Table A2.17 Frequency of forest fire and magnitude of damage Gewog Area damaged Forest type Frequency Athang 7765 acres in 2015 Chirpiness 3 6812 acres in 2013 Chirpine 2 200 acres in 2011 Chirpine + Broad leaf 1

88

Daga 1739 acres in 2015 Chripine 1 1743 acres in 2013 Chirpine 2 Phobji 142 acres in 2015 Blue pine 1 600 acres in 2012 Blue pine 1

Gasey Tsho Gom 4.29 acres in 2015 Chirpine 1 2023 acres in 2013 Chirpine 3 Nysho 4900 acres in 2013 Chirpine 3 Langthel 600 acres in 2013 Chirpine 1 45 acres in 2012 Chirpine 1 Trong 71 acres in 20111 Chirpine/broadleaf 1 Source: DOFPS, 2016

4.6 Land-use and land-use change Due to strict land laws and encroachment penalties prescribed in the FNCA 1995, land encroachment and conversion are not a significant issue in landscape 2. Slight threat from agricultural land conversion especially where they practice traditional tseri cultivation exists. Abandoned tseri lands and cash crop plantations, and subsequent conversion to other land uses, especially to intensive agriculture could potentially result in extensive loss of habitats, forest fragmentation, and degradation. Records indicate a lone land encroachment case in Korphu gewog in 2013.

Table A2.18 Respondent perception regarding changes in major ecosystem types (%) Major Ecosystem Perceived changes types No change Increasing Decreasing No idea Forest 12.1 61.1 26.2 0.7 Agriculture 21.8 49.7 28.6 0.0 Grazing land 44.1 11.7 33.1 11.0 Shrub-land 51.9 3.0 9.0 36.1 Freshwater (river/steam) 20.8 8.7 59.7 10.7 Wetland 22.7 5.3 59.8 12.1 Settlement 35.8 59.5 4.1 0.7 Degraded or bare land 55.0 1.8 0.0 43.1

An assessment of farmer perception on major ecosystem type and changes revealed an increasing trend for forest, agriculture, and settlement (Table A2.18). Respondents attributed these increases to support for biodiversity conservation/community forests, support for agriculture, and infrastructure development. On the other hand, they confirmed a decreasing area of grazing land, freshwater, and wetland. Government policy to nationalize pastures, large hydropower plants, and government infrastructures such as farm roads are blamed for these decreases.

89

4.7 Infrastructure and hydropower Infrastructure development will also inevitably result in forest loss and fragmentation, especially during the building phase. Subsequent ribbon settlements along roads will increase loss of ecological connectivity.

Significant threat is presented by the presence of 3 mega hydropower projects which are under construction. Already primary broadleaf and mixed conifer forests that have taken millions of years to establish a complex functional ecosystem has been cleared to give way for construction of dams, housing colonies, power house and road networks. The presence and continued development of the hydropower plants will intensify forest loss and fragmentation, especially during the building phase. Subsequent ribbon settlements along roads will increase loss of ecological connectivity.

The temperate and subtropical forests are particularly at risk from these threats. Loss and fragmentation of these forests will affect several conservation target species in JSWNP and the biological corridors, including tiger, clouded leopard, golden langur, wild dogs, White- bellied herons, and hornbills.

4.8 Climate change risks An assessment of the potential impacts of climate change on the biodiversity, human livelihoods, and water resources in the landscape based on interviews and literature review revealed that that impacts are being felt across the landscape.

On the biodiversity front, climate change would translate into an upslope movement of broadleaf and subalpine forests, with loss of most of the alpine and subalpine habitat. Loss of these important habitats will come at the cost of losing high altitude fauna putting the functionality of the ecosystem at high altitude. Some conifer and subalpine forests will remain in the northern regions of the landscape. This could increase the habitat for tigers with an equal if not more retreat of habitat for its sister cat, the snow leopard.

Socially, about 81% of the respondents reported that they observed an annual temperature shift, with an overall increase in temperature in the summer with zero reporting a decrease in temperature leading to drought (Table A2.17). People of Korphu indicated that the coldest month in their gewog has shifted from November, December, and January to December and January indicating an overall shift in temperature with warmer Decembers. Similarly, the hottest months of the year used to be July and August, but this has now extended into September. Likewise, respondents from Athang gewog reported the shift of the coldest months from October to January, November and December. People in the higher altitudes also experienced warming with decrease in coldest period from five months (November through March) to three months (November, December and January). The hottest period in the highlands now runs from May to August, while earlier it only lasted from July to August. These findings indicate that overall, warmer periods have increased with decrease in cold months.

Onset of rainy seasons has also shifted with over 74.4% of the respondents reporting delayed rainfall. They reported that the rainfall patterns have become unpredictable with either no rains when needed or too much rains when not needed. People across the

90

landscape were seriously concerned about decreasing water quantity and drying water sources impacting agricultural activities and productivity. They communicated that water shortage is the greatest threat to their food security. Similar observations are also reported from higher altitudes with receding occurrences of snowfall and frost.

Incidences of pest and disease have also impacted farm economy with 87% of the respondents reporting crop and vegetable loss to pest and disease.

Figure A2.13 Did you attent awareness campaigns on climate change?

120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0

0.0 Percent respondents respondents Percent

Gewogs Yes No

Overall 70% of the respondents reported that they experienced some form of extreme weather events in the last 5 years (Table A2.19). Drought, wind and hail storms, delayed rains, and pest and diseases are the major extreme weather events that farmers experienced leading to loss of crop yield, vegetables, and lifting of roof.

A perception study also revealed that farmers need awareness training on climate change impacts and adaptation strategies as only 8% of the respondents have received such opportunity in the past (Figure A2.13).

Table A2.19 Percent of respondents who experienced extreme weather events and associated loses.

Gewogs

ng Daga

Extreme Total

Trong

Athang korphu

Toepisa

Gangtey

Dangchu Langthel

weather events Tangsibji Losses Jigmecholi Drought 100 0 0 80 100 100 100 60 6.7 33 58 Crops Flood 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 2 Land + crops Land slides 0 0 0 0 13.3 53 0 0 0 0 6.7 land + crops Soil erosion 46.7 0 13.3 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 8 land + crops Wind/hail storms 73.3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 27 90 Crops + roof Forest fires 46.7 0 80 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 23 none 91

Early onset of rain 73.3 26.7 46.7 40 13.3 0 0 100 47 6.7 35 crops Delayed onset crops + of rain 46.7 46.7 53.3 60 100 100 80 93 87 80 75 vegetables Crops + Prolonged rain 46.7 0 13.3 20 100 80 20 60 73 80 49 vegetables Crops + Pest and disease 100 100 6.7 100 100 100 100 73 100 93 87 vegetables

5. Status of PA management effectiveness 5.1 Development and implementation of management plans Management plan for JSWNP from 2014-2018 under implementation. The first park management plan was implemented from 2001 through 2005.

Management plans during the early part of parks life focused a lot on information collection and integrated development plans to secure the trust, confidence, and support of local people who form such vital component of our ecosystems. JSWNP piloted the ICDP and the community based ecotourism programs which are now fully being scaled up across the country. The park management has been also able to secure external donor funds and efficiently implement the management plans. However, the current plan 2014 lacks adequate funding. This project in addition to Bhutan for Life will hopefully fill the gap.

Although the regulatory framework for Bhutan biological corridors (2010) specified that all BCs will have a management plan. BC 2 and 8 are still without management plans. The good news is that the background work for preparing a management plan for BC2 underway by Wangdue forest division with technical and financial support from JSWNP. In the absence of management plans, forest resources are managed according to FNCA 1995, and FNC Rules 2010.

5.2 Policy and legal framework Forest and Nature Conservation Act 1995 is the mother document for deriving conservation policy and legal framework. Based on this FNC Rules have been developed and revised to suit the changing dynamics of forest management in the country. The park management plans are then guided by the policies and legal provisions prescribed in the act and rules. At the field level, the plans are implemented in combination with the act and rules.

5.3 Institutional and technical capacity Institutionally, JSWNP is perhaps the most well set of all the parks in Bhutan. It has a lovely headquarters in Tsangkha along the east west high way which attracts a lot of publicity and visitors which is what is exactly needed to magnify conservation efforts and create awareness. The view of the parks highest peak Jo Dhurshing la from the parks head office is simply breathtaking. The park head office is supported by about 8 field range offices located in Langthel, Nabji, Phentenchu, Taksha, Adha, Phobjikha, and Chendebji. In addition, the park also houses the nature study center at Khabeythang. These offices are strategically located at major entry and exit points giving the park staff impressive monitoring advantage. In addition, the park has also built farm roads, ecofriendly bridges, and the famous Nabji trail with camp sites. 92

Technically, all these offices are maned by well experienced park staff. However, blanket transfer rules drawing staff with wildlife backgrounds to other areas remains an eminent challenge to maintaining well qualified staff in the parks. In addition, the park is short staffed making anti-poaching and monitoring visits difficult.

5.4 Financial sustainability Financially the park is not self-sustainable. The current cost like in any other parks is borne by the government with capital works almost all the time requiring dedicated external donor funding. Some of the park interventions such as the Nabji community ecotourism trail is financially sustainable with additional incomes to the park residents. In general people in Bhutan are poor and do not have funds to support conservation programs and therefore conservation is not a priority of the general public

To manage protected areas on financially sustainable basis is a long term target, a financing mechanism must be institutionalized. Although Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation was initially instituted for this purpose, it has today broadened its scope stretching its limited financial resources thinly, thereby not being able to support the parks fully. The present government initiative to launch the Bhutan for Life is expected to ease the financial constraints facing the park management.

5.5 Monitoring and evaluation The monitoring systems are put in places; however, practical monitoring is still a challenge with shortage of staff that is knowledgeable about monitoring. Evaluations of the park management or its projects have not been undertaken so far.

There is an urgent need to roll out the monitoring program and set up an evaluation process to assess efficiency and effectiveness of the programs and projects of the park.

6. Brief strategy for Addressing HWC

Strategy 1: Decrease grazing pressures, reduce livestock predation, and prevent retaliatory killing of wildlife species Strategic Interventions: • Design and implement herd management schemes aimed at reducing stray grazing especially in remote predator habitats and alpine meadows including the RAMSAR site in Phobjikha. Herders must be required to always accompany their livestock; • Assist local farmers to access improved cattle breeds and encourage them to stall feed their livestock to reduce vulnerability of free ranging cattle to wildlife depredation. Currently, the livestock department is implementing subsidy for purchase of improved breeds and cattle shed construction materials. Help farmers to access these facilities. This facility will not only reduce grazing pressures and predation losses but also enhance cash incomes; • Design and improve existing cattle housing sheds to make the predator proof. If possible with help from livestock department or other donors provide in kind or cash support to build predator proof sheds especially for herders;

93

• With agriculture and livestock development extension services, identify and allocate pastures for livestock grazing in buffer zones and in multiple use areas; • Introduce livestock insurance scheme to compensate for livestock killed by wildlife in designated pastures, agricultural fields, or in cattle sheds. Improve on the existing community based insurance scheme by providing more seed funds. Stop compensation for free ranging cattle lost to wildlife depredation; • Study the grazing impacts to: assess the severity of impacts; identify grazing hotspots; study cattle migration trends; Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Parks, Department of livestock, Department of Agriculture, Local Governments, Financial Institutions for insurance scheme, Druk Seed Corporation

Strategy 2: Reduce unsustainable harvesting of forest products to reduce habitat degradation and competition for limited resources. • Strengthen the farmer capacities for community based natural resource management (CBNRM); • Upscale community based Nabji eco-tourism model to rest of the landscape, especially in places like Ada, Phobjikha, and Dangchu where tourists are already visiting. This will not only earn extra cash income to offset losses associated with conservation restrictions, reduce their dependence on forests, but also earn support of the public towards conservation efforts; • Upscale community forestry in biological corridor 2 and 8, and private forestry in JSWNP (community forestry is not allowed in National Parks) to meet their forest product requirements; • Promote firewood saving technology including subsidized distribution of appliances for lighting, cooking, and heating in the landscape. Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Parks, Department of livestock, Department of Agriculture, Druk Seed Corporation, RSPN, TF, BAOWE

Strategy 3: Reduce crop damage and improve food production • Identify crop damage hotspots throughout the landscape and upscale electric fencing to protect crops from wildlife damage; • Where possible assist farmers to build wildlife proof fencing around their fields; • Upscale the use of sound and light systems to ward off wild life from fields at night; • Research to find a solution to reduce crop damage by monkeys; • Pilot crop insurance scheme. Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Parks, Department of livestock, Department of Agriculture, Druk Seed Corporation, Financial Institution for insurance scheme.

Strategy 4: Stop poaching and illegal trade of forest and forest products and wildlife and wildlife parts • Form and train a core anti-poaching team consisting of physically able park rangers and park guards; • Equip the anti-poaching squad with state of the art tools including GPS, communication technology, arms, etc.; • Carry out rigorous anti-poaching exercises and implement anti-poaching and illegal

94

trade rules with zero tolerance; • Develop a robust intelligence network to detect illegal poaching and trade in forest products and wildlife and wildlife parts. Collaborate with other law enforcement agencies including Royal Bhutan Army (RBA), Royal Bhutan Police (RBP), BAFRA, etc. to strengthen enforcement; • Provide awareness and education programs focused on anti-poaching, FNCA 1995, FNCR 2010 directed to the herders, and other farming communities in and around the landscape. Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Parks, Bhutan Agriculture Food Regulatory Authority, Royal Bhutan Police, Community members, Local Governments.

95

ANNEXURE 3 ASSESSMENT OF BIODIVERSITY and SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF LANDSCAPE 3

1. Introduction Landscape 3 is comprised of Phrumsengla National Park (PNP) and Biological Corridor 4 (BC4; Figure A3.1; Table A3.1). The landscape is adorned with spectacular mountain landscapes and rich cultural and biological diversity. It particularly forms as the center for the contiguous distribution of the Bengal tiger population, which is identified as indicator species of the overall health of the temperate ecoregion. The center of the ecoregion, the Phrumsengla National Park with an area of 905 km2, represents all the different vegetation zones of Bhutan: sub-tropical, chir pine, warm broadleaf, cool broadleaf, conifer, and alpine forest zones, though broadleaf forest covers substantial part of territory. The park management was established in 1998 covering areas from four dzongkhags of Bumthang, Mongar, lhuentse, and Zhemgang (Table A3.1). The park is head quartered at Ura with range offices in Autsho, Lingmithang, Gangzur, Ura, Tsamang, and Sengor. The parks first conservation management plan was developed in 2002 and later updated in 2009.

Figure A3.1. Map of landscape 3 in relation to PA map of Bhutan

Biological corridor 4 is an important link from JSWNP to PNP and to the rest of the reserves in the east. It provides much needed corridor for subtropical and temperate species to move between the more southern habitats and northern temperate regions of the PA system. BC4 is predominantly broad leaved forests with extensive grazing by herders of Bumthang and Zhemgang. It is a habitat for important species such as tiger (Panther tigris), sambar deer (Cervus unicolor), golden langur (Trachypithicus geei), rufous necked horn

96

bill (Acero nepalensis), etc. A survey in BC411 indicated over 23 species of mammals and over 224 species of birds indicating high species richness.

Table A3.1 Biophysical and administrative statistics of landscape 3 Landscape Area Population Dzongkhags Gewogs (KM2) Landscape 3 1,406 28,820 Bumthang Chumey, Tang, Ura PNP 905 Lhuentse Gangzur, Jarey, Metsho BC4 501 Mongar Tsamang, Saleng Zhemgang Nangkhor, Shingkhar Trongsa Langthel

2 Status of Biodiversity Landscape 3 represents an important link between JSWNP which are internationally connected to Indian Manas and the northern PAs in Bhutan. It is rich in biodiversity with keystone and flagship species such as tigers present at high altitude temperate forests.

2.1. Wild biodiversity 2.1.1Ecoregions, ecosystem, and habitats Landscape 3 is an important temperate ecoregion in the eastern Himalayas and forms a very important habitat for high profile wildlife species. Ecologically the landscape rises from over 300m in BC4 through to 4530m above mean sea level. The landscape has one of the richest temperate forests in the eastern Himalayas with fir forests as old as 400 years’ old which form contiguous habitat for tiger distribution in Bhutan. Due to its wide altitudinal range, the landscape represents all the forest habitats types of Bhutan from sub-tropical, chirpine, warm broadleaf, cool broadleaf, conifer, and alpine forest zones, though broadleaf forest covers substantial part of territory. Records indicate over 622 species of plants belonging to 140 families are found in the landscape including 152 species with medicinal values. There are 22 species of rhododendrons found growing in natural habitat, which is now protected as the “Rhododendron Garden” established in 2002. Records also confirm that the PNP alone has 21 species that are endemic to Bhutan including Lobelia nubigena. The globally threatened Rhododendron dalhousiae Hook. f. rhabtotum is also recorded in the park. Subtropical broadleaf forests: Located between 200 and 1000m above mean sea level, broadleaf forests exhibit the high species diversity. Quercus glauca, Quercus lamelosa, Symplocus spp, Acer campbelii, Lithocarpus elegans, Betula utilis and Magnolia campbeli are the dominant species. Wildlife species such as; tigers (Panthera tigris), clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosi), common leopards (Panthera pardus), dhole (Cuon alpinus), the Asiatic golden cat (Pardofelis temminckii), sambar deer (Cervus unicolor), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), wild pig Sus scrofa) and arboreal species such as Golden langurs (Trachypithecus geei) inhabit this forest habitat.

Chirpine forests: locate between 900-1800 m chirpine forests are dominated by Pinus roxburghii, commonly called chir pine. Few broadleaf species such as Quercus griffithii with sparse understory of Rhododendron spps., Indigofera dosua, Woodfordia fruticosa,

11 TNP (2006) Rapid Biological Assessment. TNP 97

and Phoenix loureiri are also present in a chirpine forest. Chirpine forst is mostly found in south eastern part of PNP such as Lingmithang and in the BC 4 especially in Langthel gewog. Commond wildlife found in chirpine forest include; leopard (Panther pardus), Himalayan black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus) with ungulates such as barking deer (Mantiacus muntjac), sambar (Cervus unicolor), and wild pig (Sus scrofa).

Warm Broadleaf forests: This type of forest is commonly found between 1000m and 2000m across the landscape. Species such as Schima wallachii, Castanopsis tribuloides, Lyonia ovalifolia, Rhododendron arboretum, Myrsine semiserrata, Ostodes paniculata, Castanopsis hystrix, Neocinnamomum caudatum, and Elaeocarpus sikkimensis dominate this forest type. The forest also harbors a good diversity of wildlife such as; tiger (Panthera tigris), common leopards (Panthera pardus), dhole (Cuon alpinus), leopard cats (Prionailurus bengalensis), yellow throated marten (Martes flavigula), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), sambar (Cervus unicolor), etc.

Cool Broadleaf forests: Elevationally, this forest type is present between 2000m and 2900 m. This forest type is dominated by Rhododendron arboreum, R. kesangiae, Lyonia ovalifolia, Enkianthus deflexus, and some Tsuga dumosa. Important mammal species that frequent this habitat include; tigers (Panthera tigris), common leopards (Panthera pardus), dhole (Cuon alpinus), the Asiatic golden cat (Pardofelis temminckii), yellow throated marten (Martes flavigula), Himalayan black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), sambar (Cervus unicolor), etc.

Mixed conifer forest (2700m to 3200m): Major species such as Rhododendron arboreum, Tsuga dumosa, and Abies densa form this forest with Rosa sericea, Vaccinium nummularia, Daphne bholua, and Lonicera acuminata as understory shrubs. Key wildlife species present in this habitat include; tigers (Panthera tigris), dhole (Cuon alpinus), the Asiatic golden cat (Pardofelis temminckii), leopard cats (Prionailurus bengalensis), yellow throated marten (Martes flavigula), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), sambar (Cervus unicolor), red panda (Alirus fulgens), Himalayan black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus), etc.

Blue Pine forests: This forest type is found between 2100m and 3000m and is dominated by Pinus wallichiana, with Elaeagnus parvifolia, Parthenocis sussemicordata, Rubia manjit, and Berberis aristata as the understory growths. Wildlife species such as barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), Yellow throated marten (Martes flavigula), Himalayan black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus), common leopards (Panthera pardus), etc. are found in this forest type.

Fir forest (3200m and 4000m): This forest type is composed predominantly by Fir (Abies densa), with scattered junipers (Juniperus recurva) and Acer campbellii. Berberis griffithiana and Rubus calycinus are common understory plants. Important wildlife species that inhabit this forest type include; tigers (Panthera tigris), common leopards (Panthera pardus), dhole (Cuon alpinus), the Asiatic golden cat (Pardofelis temminckii), yellow throated marten (Martes flavigula), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), sambar (Cervus unicolor), red panda (Alirus fulgens), Himalayan black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus), musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster), etc. Important birds including the blood pheasant (Ithaginis cruentus) and monal pheasant (Lophophorus impeganus), are also found in the fir forests.

98

Juniper forest: Forest forests are found between 3800m to 4000m above mean sea level and is dominated by J. recurva, with scattered Rhododendron spp. The shrub layer consists mostly of Berberis praecipua, Smilax ferox, and Daphne bholua. Important wildlife species such as; tigers (Panthera tigris), common leopards (Panthera pardus), dhole (Cuon alpinus), the Asiatic golden cat (Pardofelis temminckii), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjac), sambar (Cervus unicolor), red panda (Alirus fulgens), Himalayan black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus), etc. are recorded from this forest type.

Alpine meadows and scrub: The alpine meadows and scrub in the landscape are found above 4000m. This habitat consists of herbaceous plants with grasses (Gramineae and Poaceae) forming a dense mat, with a diverse herb community consisting of interalia, Potentilla, Pedicularis, Aconitum, Sassurea, Meconopsis, Anemone, Epilobium, Swertia, Rheum, Gernaium, Festuca, Juncus, Poa, Aconogonum, Swertia, Cotoneaster, Rubus paniculata, Agepetas smithiana species. Many of these plants have medicinal values. High altitude mammals like pika are found in this habitat with occasional visits by tigers (Panthera tigris), common leopards (Panthera pardus).

2.1.2. Globally threatened, and endemic species Biologically, this landscape exhibits high species diversity with well over 68 mammals, and 360 species of birds.

Mammals: Of the larger predators, tiger (Panthera tigris) occurs in the northern section in and beyond the park between the altitudes of 2840-4110m - the highest altitude for tiger habitat in the world. Other rare mammals such as the leopard cat (Felis bengalensis), red panda (Ailurus fulgens), musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster) giant squirrel (Ratufa bicolor), variable squirrel (Callosciurus finlaysoni) are also frequently found in and around the park. Records also indicate that some cervids were found, which were in the truest form of a sambar deer (Cervus unicolor). Globally threatened list of mammals found in landscape 3 are presented in Table A3.2.

Table A3.2 List of globally threatened mammals in landscape 3 Sl. Name Scientific Name Status No. FNCA 1995 IUCN CITES 1 Tiger Panthera tigris Totally protected EN App-I 2 Common leopard Panthera pardus Totally protected NT App-I 3 Himalayan black Selenarctos thibetanus Totally protected VU App-I Bear 4 Musk deer Moschus chrysogaster Totally protected EN App-I 5 Goral Nemorhaedus goral - NT App-I 6 Grey langur Trachypithecus geei Totally protected EN App-I 7 Golden langur Trachypithecus geei Totally protected EN App-I 8 Himalayan serow Capricornis sumatraensis Totally protected VU App-I 9 Wild dog Cuon alpinus - EN App-I 10 Assamese macaque Macaca assamensis - NT App-II 11 Asiatic golden cat, Catopuma temminckii VU App-II

99

12 Leopard cat Prionailurus bengalensis Totally protected LC 13 Red panda Alirus fulgens Totally protected VU App-I 14 Capped langur Trahypithecus pileatus VU App-I 15 Yellow throated Martes flavigula App-III marten

Birds: The landscape has over 362 bird species identified so far. Of this, some of them are globally threatened, restricted ranges and rare (Table A3.3). Of those, 269 species are particularly found in the warm and cool broadleaf forest areas, which recognize the significant value of the broadleaf forest. Moreover, eight out of eleven bird species recorded in Bhutan, which are identified as having restricted world breeding ranges, occur in and around the park, including the chestnut-breasted partridge (Arborophila mandellii) and Ward’s trogon (Harpactes wardi). Other rare species such as the blue-napped pitta (Pitta nipalensis), brown wood owl (Strix leptogrammica), and booted eagle (Hieraaetus pennatus) are also found in the area. A brief butterfly survey has also resulted in finding 39 species in the broadleaf and chir-pine forests in PNP. Among them, 6 were rare and 4 were uncommon species.

Table A3.3 List of Globally threatened birds in landscape 3 Sl. No. Name Scientific Name Status FNCA 1995 IUCN CITES 1 Blood pheasant Ithaginis cruentus Totally CR App-I protected 2 Rufous necked Aceros nipalensis Totally E App-I hornbill protected 3 Great hornbill Buceros bicornis Totally NT App-I protected 4 Wood snipe Gallinago nemoricola VU 5 Satyr Tragopan Tragonpan satyra NT App-I 6 Snow partridge Lerwa lerwa 7 Hill patridge Arborophila torqueola - VU App-I 8 Darjeeling Dendrocopos darjellensis Totally NT - woodpecker protected 9 Spotted laughing Prinia cinereocapilla VU thrush 10 Yellow rumped Indicator xanthonotus NT honeyguide 11 Himalayan monal Lophophorus impeganus NT 12 Beautiful nuthatch Sitta Formosa E 13 Wards tragon Harpactes wardi E 14 Red teaded trogon Harpactes erythrocephalus NT 15 Himalayan griffon Gyps himalayensis NT 16 Brown wood owl Strix leptogrammica NT 17 Great parrot bill Conostoma oemodium NT 18 Fire tailed myzornis Myzornis pyrrhoura NT

100

2.2. Agrobiodiversity 2.2.1. Crop diversity Varieties of crops grown in landscape 3 are presented in Table A3.4. Landscape 3 grow important crop species from rice at low lands to barley and buckwheat at higher altitudes.

TableA3.4 Crops diversity in landscape 3 Sl No. Name Scientific name 1 Rice Oryza sativa 2 Maize Zea mays 3 Finger Millet Eleusine coracana 4 Foxtail Millet Setaria italica 5 Common Millet Panicum miliaceum 6 Barley Hordeum vilgare 7 Sorghum Sorghum bicolor 8 Wheat Triticum 9 Sweet buckwheat Polygonum fagopyrum 10 Bitter buckwheat Fagopyrum esculentum 11 Amaranthus Amaranthus retroflexus 12 Beans Phaseolus lunatus 13 Pea Pisum sativum 14 Cow pea Vigna unguiculata 15 Soybean Glycine max 16 Mustard Brassica 17 Niger Guizotia abyssinica

2.2.2. Livestock diversity Farmers in and around PNP and BC4 are traditionally dependent on livestock with large number of them migrating from north to as far south as Jigmecholing gewog. Yak herders also migrate between alpine pastures and lowlands seasonally. Different species of livestock reared in the landscape are presented in Table A3.5.

TableA3.5 Livestock diversity in landscape 3 Sl.no Breed/type Scientific name Conservation status (IUCN) 1 Nublang Bos indicus 2 Mithun Bos frontalis 3 Jersey Bos Taurus 4 Yak Bos gruniens VU 5 Horse Equus caballus 6 Mule Equus asinus 7 Donkey Equus africanus asinus 8 Sheep Ovis aries 9 Pig Sus scrofa 10 Chicken Gallus gallus domesticus Source: National Biodiversity Center, MOAF 2016

101

2.3 Community awareness and perception on biodiversity and ecosystem 2.3.1 Community awareness level about biodiversity and ecosystem A very high percentage (93.7%) of respondents from landscape 3 said they are aware about biodiversity and ecosystem (Figure A3.2). With 2 females and 3 males reporting they are now aware about biodiversity, no significant difference in awareness about biodiversity and ecosystem can be attributed to gender differences. Similarly, there is no difference in awareness levels by education, age, and ethnic groups. This high level of awareness is attributed to effective awareness campaigns PNP and Zhemgang forest division undertook. Tsamang is the only gewog where only 50% of the respondents reported that they are aware about biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. Except for two households in Tsamang all the hhouseholds reported community forest as a step towards conserving biodiversity. These two households are also part of the respondents who reported they are not aware of biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. Tsamang forms an important portion of PNP connecting to BWS and it is urgent to implement some awareness events in this gewog.

Figure A3.2 Are you aware of the biodiversity and ecosystem of your community? 120 100 80 60 40

20 Percent respondents Percent 0 Chumey Ura Gangzur Langthel Metsho Tsamang Total Gewgos Yes No

2.3.2 Community awareness about the existence of biological corridors Following the high level of awareness about biodiversity and households (82%) in landscape 3 are also adequately aware about the existence of biological corridors (Figure A3.3). Few of respondents from Chumey, Metsho, and Tsamang are not aware about the existence of BCs. With 8.8% of male and 6.3% of females reporting now aware about the existence of biological corridors, there is no significant gender influence on awareness levels. Similarly, education levels, ethnic groups, and age influence the respondent’s awareness level significantly. Top sources of information about the biological corridors in landscape 3, according to the respondents are from forest staff followed by Dzongkhag and local governments, and village elders. Few have indicated media and ministry staff as well.

Findings also indicate that despite 50% of the respondents ranking nature conservation as the primary reasons for creating the BCs, 28% are still not sure of the reasons why BCs exists (Figure A3.4). This calls for targeted awareness campaigns about the BCs.

102

Figure A3.3 Are you aware about the existence of biological corridors?

No 18%

Yes 82%

Yes No

Figure A3.4 Reasons why biological corridors are established

Don’t know 28% Nature conservatio n 50% Wildlife migration 22%

2.3.3 Community perception on status of biodiversity Reports (50%) indicate that the condition of biodiversity in general has improved in the last five years (Table A3.6). This positive achievement is attributed to establishment of community forests and government support for conservation. Despite this, 43% of the respondents still feel that biodiversity is in need of improvement. This figure is largely bloated by over 93% of the respondents from Langthel gewog confirming that biodiversity in their gewog needs improvement. They reasoned out that the activities related with Mangdechu hydropower project has significantly damaged their biodiversity including fresh water ecosystems and as such there is a need to recuperate biodiversity in their area.

As with other landscapes, respondents have confirmed an increasing population for wild ungulates such as barking deer, sambar, wild pig, and macaques (Figure A3.5). More respondents have reported a decrease in tiger population, which is a serious indicator of an ecosystem in stress demanding empirical studies to confirm this perception.

103

Table A3.6 Farmer perception of biodiversity status (%) 5 years ago Today

Needs Excellent Good Fair Improved Stable improvement Gewog Chumey 13.3 20.0 66.7 66.7 13.3 20.0 Ura 0.0 46.7 53.3 100.0 53.3 46.7 Gangzur 6.7 46.7 46.7 46.7 33.3 20.0 Langthel 0.0 40.0 60.0 6.7 93.3 0.0 Metsho 0.0 100.0 0.0 50.0 20.0 30.0 Tsamang 0.0 100.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 Total 3.8 53.8 42.5 50.0 43.8 25.0

Figure A3.5 Farmer peceptino of population status of key wildlife species (%) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Tiger Leopard Wild Sambar Barking Wild pig Macaque dog deer Increasing Decreasing Stable

2.3.4 Community support for protection of wildlife and wildlife policy In line with high levels of awareness about biodiversity and ecosystem conservation, 80% of the respondents also pledged their support for protection of wildlife (Table A3.7). Top three wildlife species identified for protection are tiger, leopard, wild dog, and sambar. They attributed their selection of tiger, and leopard being endangered and precious, and that sambar is their key prey. Wild dog needs protection as it is a predator for wild pig which is a top pest for crops. Respondents who said no to wildlife protection reasoned that wildlife is a pest destroying their crops, livestock, and peace.

Findings also indicate that 82.5% of the respondents support wildlife conservation policy with 87% of the respondents reporting that wildlife policy allows for strict monitoring if illegal extraction of forest resources, protects wildlife thereby enhancing ecosystem health and also improving their own access to these resources.

104

Table A3.7 Support for wildlife Should wildlife be protected? Yes No Top three wildlife to be % % protected Top three reasons Chumey 86.7 13.3 Tiger, leopard, sambar Endangered, sambar important prey for tiger and leopard. Ura 86.7 13.3 Tiger, leopard, wild dog Gangzur 86.7 13.3 Tiger, leopard, wild dog Tiger and leopard important and Langthel 100.0 0.0 Tiger, leopard, sambar protected by government rules.

Metsho 100.0 0.0 Tiger, wild dog, leopard Tiger is precious, wild dog is Tsamang 80.0 20.0 Tiger, wild dog, leopard predator for wild pig

3. Status of socio-economic conditions Landscape 3 is most representative of temperate ecosystem with diverse socio-cultural and ethnic groups.

3.1 Demographic characteristics Demographically, the landscape hosts a population of about 28,82012 farmers, who own about 13196 heads of livestock 13 . Farmers who live in and around landscape 3 are predominantly agriculturist practicing subsistence agriculture and livestock herding. Overall, we had equal representation of female and male respondents from landscape 3 (50% each; Table A3.8). Age wise, again, over 87% of the population are in the productive age range of 15-65 years representing a growing and productive population. From an education perspective, 68% of the respondents have no education at all, with 15% who attended NFE.

Ethnically, the landscape is quite diverse with Bumthaps (in Ura and Chumey gewogs), Kurtoeps (in Gangzur gewog), Mangdips (Langthel gewog), and Sharchops (in Metsho and Tsamang gewogs). This diversity however exists only at inter gewog levels and that communities within the gewogs are largely homogenous. Livelihood strategies are homogenous across ethnicities.

Table A3.8 Demographic profile of respondents from landscape 3 (%) Gewogs Chumey Ura Gangzur langthel Metsho Tsamang Total Gender Female 46.7 40.0 73.3 40.0 70.0 30.0 50.0 Male 53.3 60.0 26.7 60.0 30.0 70.0 50.0 Age 15 - 65 80.0 86.7 86.7 80.0 100.0 100.0 87.5 >65 20.0 13.3 13.3 20.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 Education 0.0

12 PPG team presentation (2016) 13 Records from local governments collected during field meetings with gewog administration 2016 105

High school 6.7 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 6.0 Primary school 6.7 20.0 20.0 13.3 10.0 0.0 12.0 NFE 13.3 0.0 6.7 13.3 40.0 30.0 15.0 None 73.3 73.3 80.0 73.3 60.0 40.0 67.0

3.2 Livelihood and income 3.2.1 Sources of livelihood With 54% of the respondents involved in agriculture, it retains its national position as the largest source of livelihood in landscape 3 followed by livestock rearing (Figure A3.6). Slight digression to this popular trend is Tsamang where livestock rearing is the primary source of livelihood with agriculture taking a second place. On the contrary its sister gewog of Metsho depends very little on livestock with only 10% of the farmers reporting livestock rearing as a source of livelihood. Methsho can perhaps provide an interesting model for reducing dependence on livestock to reduce its adverse impacts on nature including grazing and greenhouse gas emission.

Figure A3.6 Sources of livelihood in landscape 3 100 80 60 40 20 0

Percent respondents respondents Percent Chumey Ura Gangzur Langthel Metsho Tsamang Total

Gewog Agriculture Livestock Business/trade Off farm

3.2.2 Agriculture Overall, respondents (N=80) owned total of 160 acres of dry and 117acres of wet land in landscape for agricultural purposes. Of these 107.10 acres of dryland and 49.1 acres of wetland are currently used for agriculture. Small percentage of using agricultural land indicates a declining agricultural activity which is easily blamed for wildlife predation or lack of irrigation facilities. While problems like wildlife predation on crops and livestock and lack of irrigation facilities are a universal issue in Bhutan, policy makers and managers must pay special attention to get these constrained contained if farmer support for conservation is to stay rooted, and if agriculture industry is to grow to secure food for Bhutan.

106

Table A3.9 Land ownership patterns as reported by households (%) Amount Chumey Ura Gangzur Langthel Metsho Tsamang Total of land Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Wet Dry Wet owned land land land land land land land land land land Dry land land land land 100. No land 0.0 0 0.0 73.3 0.0 26.7 0.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 53.8 <1 acre 13.3 0.0 6.7 0.0 6.7 0.0 6.7 26.7 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 13.8 1-3 acre 53.3 0.0 40.0 13.3 86.7 73.3 80.0 40.0 4.0 1.0 50.0 10.0 60.0 26.3 >3-5 acre 26.7 0.0 6.7 13.3 6.7 0.0 13.3 13.3 5.0 0.0 40.0 10.0 21.3 6.3 >5 acres 6.7 0.0 46.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 12.5 0.0

Land ownership pattern for landscape 3 exhibits some interestingly trends. Over 53% of the respondents have no wetland land posing potential constraints towards achieving national food security (Table A3.9). Even low altitude gewogs such as Langthel, and Tsamang have substantial number of households with no wet land. Dryland ownership on the other hand is more normal with a nice bell shaped curve with 60% of the respondents owning between 1-3 acres of land with declining numbers on either side of the equation. In terms of gewogs, Ura is an outlier with over 46% of the respondents owning land in excess of 5 acres, the national land ceiling.

Figure A3.7 Mean land ownership in landscape 3

All gewogs mean Metsho

Gangzur Gewogs Chumey 0 2 4 6 8 10 Mean land owned (acres) Wetland Dryland

In general, the mean dryland and wetland ownership of 2 acres and 1.5 acres respectively conform to the average land ownership in the country (Figure A3.7). It does however show how little land these farmers own and how this might actually limit the possibilities of engaging in diversified economic activities that are land based such as cash crops.

3.2.3 Livestock Livestock is a critical component of livelihood strategy in landscape 2 too. Traditionally people from Bumthang dzongkhag own large herds of livestock and grazing land which spreads all the way south to the current Jigmecholing gewog in Sarpang dzongkhag. Likewise, people of Tsamang and Gangzur also derive their livelihood from livestock. As discussed elsewhere in this report, livestock provides essential services such as draught

107

power, manure, milk, cheese, butter, and met thereby niching itself as an inevitable component of agricultural farming in Bhutan. Of the 80 respondents from landscape 3, 90% owns livestock. Of the gewogs, 100% of the respondents from Tsamang and Gangzur gewogs own livestock (Figure A3.8). While livestock grazing and ownership was big in Ura and Chumey, in recent years’ livestock rearing has been declining due to lack of human labor, availability of other livelihood sources, and nationalization of pastures.

Figure A3.8 livestock ownership patterns in landscape 3

Owns livestock No livestock 150

100

50

0 Percent respondents respondents Percent Chumey Ura Gangzur Langthel Metsho Tsamang Total Gewog

Figure A3.9 Feeding preferences as reported by those who owned livestock in landscape 3 Both stall and forest 28%

Stall 50%

Forest 22%

An analysis of livestock feeding practices indicate that 50% of the farmers’ stall feed their cattle with only 22% who forest graze or 28% who practice both forest grazing and stall feeding (Figure A3.9). Stall feeding has gained much success in landscape 3 and could provide solutions for reducing forest grazing in other areas.

Insufficient grazing land is the predominant constraint faced by the respondents from landscape 3 with over 54% of the respondents reporting it (Figure A3.10). While livestock is critical for life on farms, lack of grazing and is the biggest constraint. It is crucial that an innovative strategy be quickly developed and implemented to curb this constraint so that farm life stays successful to enhance food security and reduce rural urban migration.

108

Figure A3.10 Constraints faced by livestock owners in landscape 3

140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 Percent respondents Percent 0.0 Loss to Low milk Poor quality Insufficient Pest and predators breeds grazing land disease Constraints Chumey Ura Gangzur Langthel Metsho Tsamang Total

3.2.4 Major sources of cash income Results indicate that agriculture is the top source of cash income (51%) followed by livestock (31%), business (10%), and off farm (8%; Figure A3.11). Similar trends are also exhibited by individual gewogs.

Figure A3.11 Sources of cash income in landscape 3

Off farm… Business/tra de 10%

Agriculture 51%

Livestock 31%

Overall, 80 respondents earned a total of 6,713,000 ngultrums in the last year with a mean earning of Nu83,912 (Table A3.10). Large majority of this income is contributed by sale of agriculture products followed by business and livestock. While livestock is ranked second in terms of cash income sources for the respondents, respondents engaged in business earned substantially more than those engaged in livestock.

109

Table A3.10 Cash incomes from different sources by gewogs

Cash income in gewogs (in NU)

Sources of Mean

cash Total income

Ura Gangzur Langthel Metsho Tsamang income Chumey Nu NU Agriculture 740,000 1,145,000 547,000 1,115,000 210,000 392,000 4,149,000 51862 Livestock 85,000 90,000 135,000 176,000 114,000 505,000 1,105,000 13812 Business/tr ade 692,000 87,000 0 170,000 0 220,000 1,169,000 14612 Off farm 125,000 30,000 0 0 0 135,000 290,000 3625

Total 1,642,000 1,352,000 682,000 1,461,000 324,000 1,252,000 6,713,000 83912

3.2.5 Food self sufficiency 100% of the respondents from across the landscape said they are food secure and that their abilities to enhance their food security is either good or medium.

3.5 Membership, gender, and social inclusion 45% of the respondents are engaged in some form of self-help group in the community (Table A3.11). Of those saying they are members, 55.6% were women and 44.4% men. So comparatively, women are more active members of community groups. Community forest is the most popular group in all the gewogs except in Tsamang where over 80% of the farmers are engaged in livestock and agriculture group. There is also a greenhouse group in Ura who grow vegetables in green houses for sale and restricted only to women members. Interms of gender participation only about 37% of the respondents said there is gender parity in the groups although women are welcome to join the groups anytime.

Top benefits from member ship are cash income, followed by conservation of forest, water, cane and bamboo, training/farm tours, and enhanced availability of forest products from community forests.

Table A3.11 Membership in existing self-help groups in landscape 3 % respondents reporting membership in various groups by Community groups gewogs Chumey Ura Gangzur Langthel Metsho Tsamang Total Community forest 26.7 0.0 13.3 6.7 80.0 0.0 18.8 Milk processing 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 Community forest + milk processing 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 Livestock + agriculture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 10.0 Cane and bamboo 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 2.5 Greenhouse 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 Vegetable 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 1.3

110

4. Key threats and root causes Key threats in landscape 3 emerge from human wildlife conflicts in the form of crop damage, livestock predation, and retaliatory killing of wildlife. Others include excessive grazing, infrastructure development, poaching of wildlife and forest species, forest fires, and unsustainable harvesting of natural resources.

Construction of Shankar-Gorgan road and the spin off impacts associated with coming of the road will continue to pose a serious threat to the wildlife in PNP. This road demands strict enforcement of FNCA 1995, EIA, and management.

4.1 Human Wildlife Conflict Retaliatory execution of wildlife for damaging crops or livestock is one of the biggest threats to wildlife conservation especially when high profile species such as tiger is involved. Tigers, leopards, and other species are executed for damages and only few cases of retaliatory killings are detected due to lack of enough patrolling staff. While varieties of reasons are debated to be the cause of conflicts including wildlife population increase, increase in forest area, etc., and one fact remains true. That is the growing number of livestock and human activity in the deep forests which damages wildlife habitats and enter into direct competition with wildlife. Table A3. 12 Percent respondents reporting crop damage and livestock predation (%)

Damage reported in gewogs (%) Damage type Chumey Ura Gangzur Langthel Metsho Tsamang Total Crop damage 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Livestock Predation 60.0 100.0 100.0 86.7 0.0 100.0 77.5

100% of the respondents reported experiencing crop damage with another 77% suffering some form of loss from predation on livestock (Table A3.12). Wildlife pig is the top reported predator on crops (100%) followed by barking deer (51%), and sambar (33%). Farmers practice traditional guarding practices such as scarecrows, physical guarding, and fencing. Recently, government has introduced electric fencing in all gewogs which are proving to be very effective against crop damaging wildlife. Livestock predation was reported highest in Tsamang (100%), Ura (100%), and Gangzur (100%). Overall, an incidence of livestock predation reported is pretty high in all the gewogs except Metsho. Respondents ranked leopards as the top predator (62.5%), followed by tigers (40%), and wild dogs (37.5%; Figure A3.13). According to the records from WCD METT+, 9 horses and 11 cattle heads were killed by leopard and wild dogs respectively confirming the high percentage of respondents reporting livestock losses.

111

Figure A3.12 Key wildlife species responsible for crop damage 120 100 80 60 40 20

Percent respondents Percent 0 Wild pig Barking deer Sambar Key species

Figure A3.13 Key wildlife species responsible for livestock predation 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Percent respondents Percent 0 Tiger Leopard Wild dog Key species

4.2 Poaching and illegal trading in species and their parts Wildlife species of high monetary values such as tiger, leopard, and musk deer are being increasingly poached. There is reports organized poaching of musk deer in landscape 3 and musk traps are frequently encountered by park staff during patrolling and by local farmers visiting forests for grazing or collecting forest products. The musks are being traded to the neighboring countries (both India and China) with increased value (Table A3.13). No tiger poaching was detected in the last four years. Fishing is also quite frequent mainly for self- consumption and sometimes for commercial purposes. This indicates that farmers have been and are still hunters and gatherers. Table A3.13 Frequency and type of wildlife poaching in landscape 3 Species poached Poaching frequency Comments Musk deer 5 2011-2015 Gorals 2 2015 Himalayan black bear 1 2015 Fishing 10 2011-2015 Source: PNP Management and DoFPS

112

4.3 Excessive grazing Threat from grazing is high in this landscape as the households here practice migratory herding. It is estimated that there are over 3610 cattle being grazed just within PNP, not to mention of the heavy migration that is taking place in BC4. PNP has identified that as much as 80 % of the forest in the park could potentially be traditionally registered grazing areas called tsamdrog. This traditional grazing rights, which involves seasonal moving from one grazing areas to another based on an agreed grazing schedule, are important household possession that have been passed over from one generation to another. With the increase in both human and cattle population, many of these Tsamdrogs are overgrazed with sapling and trees heavily removed for fodder and forage. It is also recognized that grazing are occurring illegally in areas beyond the agreed Tsamdrogs, causing greater forest areas under pressure. Although the summer grazing areas are scattered in several different areas in and around the park, the winter grazing areas are concentrated in fewer areas, causing overgrazing in the broadleaf forest. Park officails indicate that overgrazing is evident in some of the areas with increased weeds with unpalatable tree species coverage especially in the winter grazing areas.

4.4 Over-exploitation and unsustainable use of natural resources Subsistence agriculture and farmers are dependent on forest products and ecosystems services. Under the business as usual this interdependence is sustainable due to low population density, environmental friendly agricultural technologies, and lack of market demand for forest products. With increasing population, availability of technology, and market demand, unsustainable harvesting of forest products is increasingly threatening the health of ecosystems, habitats, and ecosystem services. Farmers collect, fuelwood, fodder, leaf litter, now wood forest products, timber, and graze excessively entering into competition with wildlife for these limited resources and degrading critical habitats.

Table A3.14 Detection frequency and type of illegal extraction of natural resources Resource type Detection frequency Comments Timber 30 2011-2015 Stone 5 2011-2015 Sand 5 2011-2015 Bamboo 5 2011-2015 Paris polyphylla 3 2011-2015

Although government has imposed a ban on timber export, there is increased domestic demand for timber, particularly for construction needs. The houses in Bhutan are mainly made by wood, with roof covered with wooden shingles. The wooden roof needs to be replaced nearly every 3 years in the warmer regions of Bhutan, which creates substantial pressure to the forest resources. Along with increased population and economic activities, demand for new houses, infrastructures, service centers such as school and health center are increasing in rural Bhutan. The existence of heavy subsidy on rural timber compared to other types has allowed for a timber black market to boom with many rural timber finding their way into commercial and urban constructions. This also encourages illegal poaching of timber. In the last 4 years, illegal poaching of timber is the highest in the 113

landscape compared to other forest products (Table A3.14). This is serious findings as poached timbers are harvested with no scientific approach and could damage the forest habitats significantly. Fuel wood is also used by all the households in landscape 3. On average households spend about 5 days collecting fuel wood mostly from forests (82.5%; Table A3.15). Majority of households (51.3%) reported fuel wood collection as a team work between male and female, while 41% said it’s a man’s job. Increasingly transportation of fuel wood is done by trucks (68.8%) and this is going to increase with coming of farm roads.

Table A3.15 Collection and use of fuel wood in landscape 3 Gewogs Chumey Ura Gangzur Langthel Metsho Tsamang Total Mean number of days lasted by 1 backload of fuelwood 1.1 1.5 1.6 2.6 5.2 4.3 2.5 Mean number of days spent collecting firewood/year 3.6 4.2 1.5 12.1 3.3 7.8 5.4 Collected by Male 33.3 100.0 86.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.3 Female 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 30.0 10.0 7.5 Both male and female 66.7 0.0 13.3 86.7 70.0 90.0 51.3 Mean transportation time (hours/backload or trips) 1.3 4.3 3.8 3.1 3.4 0.9 2.9 Means of transportation (%) Man 33.3 0.0 13.3 86.7 40.0 10.0 31.3 Truck 66.7 100.0 86.7 13.3 60.0 90.0 68.8 Fuel wood sources (%) Forests 86.7 100.0 86.7 100.0 10.0 90.0 82.5 Village and sokshing 13.3 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Tseri 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.0 10.0 12.5

4.4 Forest fires Forest fire continues to threaten entire ecosystems and wildlife. Information from the park indicates that fires are most frequent in chirpine (Pinus roxburhi) forests. While forest fires do not help reduction of GHG emissions and wildlife conservation, chirpine forests are more resistant to damages from fire than other forest types. Available data from PNP and Fire Division of the forest department indicate that forest fires were more frequent in Gangzur and Langthel gewogs with substantial damages (Table A3.16). Fire incidences are on the increase especially during late winter and spring when the weather is dry with low humidity. These seasons are also windy, which help fires spread quickly. The fires are mainly caused by accidental escape of agriculture fire for herding and crop farming. Losses to forest fires are huge due to lack of technology and manpower to contain forest fires coupled with rugged terrain make firefighting inefficient. In total forest fires destroyed 3,373 acres of forest in landscape 3. 114

Table A3.16 Frequency and magnitude of forest fire in landscape 3 Gewog Area damaged Forest type Frequency Metso 150 acres in 2015 Chirpine 1 Gangzur 462 acres in 2015 Chirpine 1 45 acres in 2014 Chirpine 1 Ura 2000 acres in 2015 Chirpine 1 Langthel 600 acres in 2013 Chirpine 1 45 acres in 2012 Chirpine 1 Trong 71 acres in 20111 Chirpine/broadleaf 1 Source: DoFPS, 2016

4.5 Land-use and land-use change Based on recent researches conducted by the park, maximum potential agriculture land in the Phrumsengla National Park has been converted to tseri, which is reducing healthy forest areas. Due to increased population pressure, fallow period is also shortened, which has reduced soil fertility of the Tseri and pangzhing. Overall, majority of the respondents (65%) were not able to determine if the major ecosystem types are increasing or decreasing and 30% reported observing no changes. At the ecosystem level, respondents reported that forest (61.3%), Agriculture (56.3), and settlements (62.5%) are increasing (Table A3.17).

Table A3.17 Respondent perception regarding changes in major ecosystem types (%) Perceived changes reported (%) Major Ecosystem types No change Increasing Decreasing No idea

Forest 2.5 61.3 35.0 1.3 Agriculture 10.0 56.3 31.3 2.5 Grazing land 37.5 8.8 32.5 21.3 Shrub-land 23.8 15.0 10.0 51.3 Freshwater (river/steam) 35.0 8.8 47.5 8.8 Wetland 20.0 6.3 43.8 30.0 Settlement 18.8 62.5 13.8 5.0 Degraded or bare land 30.0 2.5 2.5 65.0

4.6 Infrastructure development Development initiatives, such as hydropower development, road construction and other rural infrastructure are growing threats to the temperate broadleaf ecoregion, particularly causing ecosystem and habitat fragmentation.

Although no scientific studies have been carried out, the park management is of the opinion that the existing roads already disturb few areas of the PNP and the biological corridors. This is exacerbated by proliferation of low cost, low quality high environmental impact farm roads. In addition, few national highway by-pass roads are in the process of being 115

built some of them passing through critical wildlife habitats. For instance, the current by pass for Shingkhar-Gorgan passes through prime forests of the upper reaches of the PNP dissecting the core zone of the park, which is an important habitat for the red panda, tiger, and roosting sites of the tragopan. Such infrastructure development plan could bring serious impact to the vegetation, indicator species habitat, and environmental hazards through landslide and extensive soil erosion.

4.7 Climate change risks Climate change is impacting biodiversity and the lives of people who live in landscape 3. Impacts are felt both in the high altitudes and in the low lands. Respondents have reported that the overall winter temperatures have increased with shorter colder seasons and longer, drier, and warmer summers. In addition, farmers also reported that rain fall has become highly unpredictable in recent years affecting agriculture practices and reducing yields. Farmers are also highly concerned about decreasing water quality and quantity and drying of water sources in the landscapes. Farmers have also reported frequently falling ill with fever, rash, etc which they attribute to warmer and dry weather. In addition, vector borne diseases such as malaria and dengue can move to higher altitudes and endanger lives.

Respondents including farmers, local governments, and park officials agree that climate change is also impacting wildlife and their habitats. Climate change can move tree lines higher threatening high altitude species to evolve to adapt to changing environmental conditions or face extinction. Species such as fir, medicinal and aromatic plants that may have potential to cure killer diseases that exists and may emerge in the future. Warming will also allow warmer forest and wildlife species to move higher thereby replacing and endangering high altitude ecosystems.

Table A1.18 Percent of respondents who experienced extreme weather events and associated loses Reported extreme weather events in gewogs (%) Chumey Ura Gangzur Langthel Metsho Tsamang Total Nature of loss Drought 0.0 60.0 100.0 0.0 50.0 30.0 40.0 no losses Reduced income Flood 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 6.3 from crop loss Land Reduced yield and slides 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 10.0 15.0 income from crops Soil Reduced yield and erosion 0.0 0.0 46.7 0.0 100.0 50.0 27.5 income from crops Wind/hail Reduced yield and storms 73.3 100.0 73.3 0.0 80.0 60.0 63.8 income from crops Forest Reduced yield and fires 0.0 0.0 46.7 0.0 0.0 20.0 11.3 income from crops Early onset of Reduced yield and rain 40.0 60.0 73.3 13.3 0.0 0.0 35.0 income from crops Delayed onset of Reduced yield and rain 20.0 80.0 46.7 66.7 50.0 60.0 53.8 income from crops 116

Prolonged Reduced yield and rain 0.0 60.0 46.7 20.0 50.0 10.0 31.3 income from crops Reduced yield and Pest and income from crops disease 73.3 73.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.0 and vegetables

100% of the respondents from landscape 3 reported that climate change impacts are increasing. The respondents also identified humans as the major cause of climate change resulting from environmental pollution, forest fires, and developmental activities. Overall, 75% of the respondents experienced major extreme events in the form of drought (40%), wind and hail storms (63.8%), delayed rains (53.8%), and pest/disease (90%) (Table A3.18). These events damaged crops, vegetables, and roof of houses. Except for Ura some of the respondents reported that they participated in some awareness programs on climate change (Figure A3.14).

Figure A3.14 Did you attent awareness campaigns on climate change?

Tsamang 21% Chumey 24%

Ura 0% Gangzur 2% Metsho 21%

langthel 32%

5. Status of PA management effectiveness

5.1. Development and implementation of management plans The PNP has implemented its first management plan in 2002 which was later updated in 2009. Currently, the management plan for 2013 to 2018 is being implemented and is challenged by lack of enough financial support.

Zhemgang Forest Division is in charge of managing BC4 and are in the process of carrying out information collection to prepare management plans. To fulfill the prescriptions in the biological corridors strategy and to operationalize BC4, a management plan for BC 4 is urgently required to be developed.

117

5.2. Policy and legal framework Management policy and legal frameworks in this landscape are based on the Forest and Nature Conservation Act 1995 and the subsequent rules. Park management plans draws its policy and legal directions from these two documents. For the biological corridor, a biological corridors strategic framework exists, however, there is no dedicated management plan as of now for BC 4. Biodiversity and socioeconomic surveys are underway to guide the preparation of the biological corridor for BC 4. Implementation of policy and legal framework is also hindered due to lack of awareness by people in the remote areas.

5.3. Institutional and technical capacity Institutionally PNP is relatively well established with its headquarters at Ura supported by range offices in Gangzur, Lingmithang, Autso, and Ura. Park is staffed, basic infrastructure built, and equipped adequately to implement the park plans. However, these exists shortage of technically competent staff to implement park management activities.

While BC management has been entrusted to the DFO, no additional staff or capacity building to carry out wildlife conservation has been imparted to the staff of territorial divisions who otherwise deal with only resources protection and allocation. The technical capacity of the division staff needs to be built either through training or transferring trained staff to these locations.

Institutional and technical capacity building must also include local governments and communities. Local government and community representatives in PNP has received adequate capacity building to link local, and natural resources management (NRM) and poverty reduction, through action projects based on a model and techniques for alternative livelihood options has been enhanced through capacity building of community and local government officials. However, similar capacity building must be extended to those living in BC4.

5.4 Financial sustainability Like all the PAs, PNP and BC4 depend on government approved funds for their management and as such current expenditure are sustainable. However, government has very limited funds for infrastructure and capacity building. Funds must be sought from external sources for capacity building and such initiatives must result in sustainability. For instance, alternative livelihood options to enhance environment poverty linkage has been implemented in PNP with beneficiaries is already seeing early impacts as evidenced by change in income, standard of living, lifestyle, and access to basic facilities.

5.5. Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring and evaluation of management practices are weak, mainly due to lack of adequate staff. At the headquarters there is also a small but serious confusion when it comes to monitoring and evaluation. While the CFOs report directly to the head of the department, WCD is delegated to backstop the PAs creating a convoluted chain of command. Perhaps there is a need to streamline this chain of command which places responsibility and accountability together.

118

6. Brief strategy for Addressing HWC

6.1 Strategy 1: Decrease grazing pressures, reduce livestock predation, and prevent retaliatory killing of wildlife species

Strategic Interventions: • Design and implement herd management schemes aimed at reducing stray grazing especially in remote predator habitats. Herders must be encouraged to always accompany their livestock; • Assist local farmers across the landscape to access improved cattle breeds and encourage them to stall feed their livestock to reduce vulnerability of free ranging cattle to wildlife depredation. Currently, the livestock department is implementing subsidy for purchase of improved breeds and cattle shed construction materials. Help farmers to access these facilities. This facility will not only reduce grazing pressures and predation losses but also enhance cash incomes; • Design and improve existing cattle housing sheds to make them predator proof. If possible with help from livestock department or other donors provide in kind or cash support to build predator proof sheds especially for herders; • With agriculture and livestock development extension services, identify pastures for livestock grazing in buffer zones and in multiple use areas; • Introduce livestock insurance scheme to compensate for livestock killed by wildlife in designated pastures, agricultural fields, or in cattle sheds. Improve on the existing community based insurance scheme by providing more seed funds. Stop compensation for free ranging cattle lost to wildlife depredation; • Study the grazing impacts to: assess the severity of impacts; identify grazing hotspots; study cattle migration trends.

Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Parks, Department of livestock, Department of Agriculture, Local Governments, Financial Institutions for insurance scheme, Druk Seed Corporation.

Strategy 2: Reduce unsustainable harvesting of forest products to reduce habitat degradation and competition for limited resources. • Strengthen the farmer capacities for community based natural resource management (CBNRM); • Upscale the existing community based eco-tourism initiatives that exists in PNP to rest of the landscape especially in BC4. This will not only earn extra cash income to offset losses associated with conservation restrictions, reduce their dependence on forests, but also earn support of the public towards conservation efforts; • Upscale community forestry in biological corridor 4 and private forestry in PNP (community forestry is not allowed in National Parks) to meet their forest product requirements; • Promote firewood saving technology including subsidized distribution of appliances for lighting, cooking, and heating in the landscape.

Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Parks, Department of livestock, Department of Agriculture, Druk Seed Corporation, RSPN, TF, BAOWE.

119

Strategy 3: Reduce crop damage and improve food production • Identify crop damage hotspots throughout the landscape and upscale electric fencing to protect crops from wildlife damage; • Where possible assist farmers to build wildlife proof fencing around their fields; • Upscale the use of sound and light systems to ward off wild life from fields at night; • Research to find a solution to reduce crop damage by monkeys; • Pilot crop insurance scheme.

Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Parks, Department of livestock, Department of Agriculture, Druk Seed Corporation, Financial Institution for insurance scheme.

Strategy 4. Stop poaching and illegal trade of forest and forest products and wildlife and wildlife parts • Form and train a core anti-poaching team consisting of physically able park rangers and park guards; • Carry out rigorous anti-poaching exercises and implement anti-poaching and illegal trade rules with zero tolerance; • Develop a robust intelligence network to detect illegal poaching and trade in forest products and wildlife and wildlife parts. Collaborate with other law enforcement agencies including Royal Bhutan Army (RBA), Royal Bhutan Police (RBP), BAFRA, etc to strengthen enforcement; • Provide awareness and education programs focused on anti-poaching, FNCA 1995, FNCR 2010 directed to the herders, and other farming communities in and around the landscape.

Stakeholders: Department of Forests and Parks, Bhutan Agriculture Food Regulatory Authority, Royal Bhutan Police, Community members, Local Governments.

120

ANNEXURE 4. List of Forest Genetic Resouces under the landscapes

Common Species (local name) Uses name/categories Locally consumed and 1. Auricularia sp. (Jili namcho) exported Locally consumed and 2. Cantharellus cibarius (Sisi shamu) exported Mushrooms 3. Lyophyllum shimeji (Ngala shamu) Locally consumed 4. Rozites caperata (Dungshi shamu) Locally consumed Locally consumed and 5. Tricholoma matsutake (Sangay shamu) exported 1. Bambusa sp Multiple uses 2. Borinda grossa Multiple uses Bamboo 3. Dendrocalmus sp. Multiple uses 4. Neomicrocalamus andropogonifolius (yula) Handicraft 5. Yushania sp. (Daew yangka) Bow making 6. Calamus acanthospathus(Beth) Handicraft Cane 7. Calamus latifolius (Beth) Handicraft 8. Plectocomia himalayana (Patsha) Special dish 1.Aconitum

heterophyllum/lacinatum(Tsendhug) 2. Acorus calamus (Chudala) 3. Cordyceps sinensis (Yartsa guenbup) 4.Illicium griffithi (Lee-shing) 5.Phyllanthus emblica (Amla) 6.Picrorhiza scrophulariifolia (Hong-len) 7.Swertia chirayita (khalu) 7.Juniperus squamata/pseudosabina (shup) 8.Ephedra gerardiana (Tshe) Aromatic 9.Rhododendron anthopogon (Balu) Medical Plants 10.Rhododendron ciliatum 11.Rhododendron setosum (Sulu) 12.Selenium vaginatum (Tang-kuen) 13.Nardostachys grandiflora (jatamansi,

pangpoi) 14.Inula racemosa (Manu) 15.Cinnamomum tamala (Shintsa, Teespata) 16.Tanacetum nubigenum (Sanse kaju) 17.Terminalia chebula (Aru) 18.Terminalia bellirica (Baru) 19.Cymbopogon bhutanica

121

1. Rhus sp Natural dyes 2. Rubia cordifolia 1.Asparagus racemosus (Wild asparagus) 2. Dioscorea belophylla (Tubers) 3.Dioscorea pentaphylla (Tubers) Food and 4.Diplazium esculentum (Nakey) vegetables 5.Elatostema sp. (Damroo) 6.Esholia sp 7.Girardinia diversifolia (Nettle plant) 8. Oroxylum indica 1.Piper longum (Pipla long) 2.Piper pedicellatum or peepuloides (Pipla Medicinal Spices round) 3.Zanthoxylum armatum (Sichuan pepper) Species and medicinals 4. Illicium grifithii Medicinal 1.Acendra (churi) edible 2.Symplocos paniculata edible 3.Odorata edible Oil and resin 4.Pinus wallichiana Industrial application 5.Punus wallichiana Industrial application 6.Jatropa Industrial application 1.Juglan regia Food 2.Manifera sylvatris Food 4.Castanopsis tribuloides Food Fruits and nuts 5.Castanopsis indica Food 6.syzyium cumini Food 7.Choeropondias auxullairies Food 8.Myrica escunelata Food 1.Daphne spp Handmade paper Traditional paper 2.Edgeworthia gardneri Handmade paper Source: (FGR Country report,2012)

122

ANNEXURE 5. Survey Questionnaire

Name of the respondent:………………………………………………… Age: ...... years Gender: Male Female Village:...... Gewog:...... Dzongkhag:...... FamilyOccupation income group : Local government business person Farmer NOTE:Education It is level important: None that NFE you say Primary "No" if you High really school do not know,College rather Masters than guessing Ph.D. about theAnnual appropriate HH income answers level. : less than Nu. 100,000 Nu. 100,000 - Nu. 300,000 Nu. 300,000 - Nu. 1 million Nu. 1 million - Nu. 10 million Ethnics Group: Ngalop Sharchop Lotshampa Bumthap Khengpa

1. General Household (HH) Situation 1.1 Demography Household members over 15 years living /eating with the household (> 6 months/year at home); Also include HH cattle/yak herders, agric. helpers, servants. No. Sex Age Main occupation Attending school?  M/F tick Standard 1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  Who is the head of the household? Circle no. in table above

1.2 Are you member of any of committee/groups/association?

Yes No if yes, mention……………………

1.3 Do you have equal gender inclusion in the committee/groups/association?

Yes No If no, what could be the probable reasons for that?......

1.4 What are the benefits of being in the Membership? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1.5 landholding pattern of the HH

Total land owned (all types registered with the HH) Cultivated/used by HH in last two half yearly period Dry land Wetland Dryland Wetland ** Half yearly= 1st half yearly is from Jan to June and 2nd half yearly is from July to Dec. 1.6 Does your HH have any livestock? Yes No

1.7 If yes (please use a code: *1=stall feeding 2=Forest Grazing 3=Both 123

1.8 What are the main constraints for the livestock for the HH?

losses due to predators insufficient grazing diseases few extension visits poor quality local breeds low milk yields

1.9 Livelihood sources for the HH in an annual basis Rank for the importance What are the main sources of Sources R livelihood? Agriculture Off farm labor Rank in order of importance Livestock Trade/business (specify) Others (specify) Amount earned What are the main sources of cash Sale of agric. products income of the household? annually Off farm Labor Livestock products Rank in order of importance Remittances Business/trade Others Specify:

1.10 What is your consumption and income from forest products? What forest products, apart from timber and fuel wood, does the household collect annually by Gender? Product (for self- Sty Tick M F Product (for sale) Sty Tick M F consumption)  mushrooms   mushrooms   fern tops   fern tops   thatch grass   thatch grass   canes   canes   bamboo   bamboo   fodder leaves   fodder leaves   vegetables   vegetables   leaves for bedding   leaves for bedding   top soil   top soil   stone   stone   sand/soil   sand/soil  Others………...  Others………... 

1.11 Do you have more access today than five years ago? Yes No 1.12 If no what are the limiting factors? If yes why do you think so? ...... 1.13: Household Food Security annually

1.14 Did you produce enough food for your household annually Tick Yes  or No  . If Yes, STOP here. If the answer is No, then continue 1.15a

124

1.14a: Annual Food shortage months. Which months did you experience shortages? Tick as responded.

Calendar Months English Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Bhutanese Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Tick  1.14b: Food shortage coping mechanism (Rank) Tick Rank Sale of forest products  Sale of livestock products  Cash remittance from employed members  Exchange with labour  Off-farm activities (weaving, pottering, Business/contracts etc.)  Borrowed from neighbours (cash or agricultural products)  Daily wages (amount earned from working in others field) 

1.15 How is your ability to enhance your food self-sufficiency of HH? Ability Tick Comments/suggestions for improvement Low Medium (some ability but not a lot) Good Same

2. Biodiversity 2.1 Are you aware of the biodiversity and ecosystem of your community? Yes No

2.2 What are the major steps taken by your community for the sustainable conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem? 1……………………………………………………2……………………………………………… ………………………………………………3…………………………………………………… ………………… 2.3 How do you feel about the biodiversity and ecosystem of your community before 5 years and today? Before 5 years Today Excellent Good Fair Reasons Improved Needs Stable Reasons improve

2.4 Is there any change in these ecosystems/ land use in terms of their area over the last 10 years? (*Please use given codes: 0= No change; 1= Increasing; 2= Decreasing, 3= No idea) 125

Major Ecosystem Changes within 10 Reasons for change years interval Forest Agriculture Pasture Shrub-land Freshwater(river/steam) Wetland Settlement Degraded or bare land Others (specify)

2.5 Do you know about the existence of the Biological Corridor, Yes  or No . If the answer is Yes to 2.5 go to sub questoin 2.5.1 and 2.5.2.

2.5.1 If yes, do you know why the Biological Corridors are established? a. Nature Conservation b. To provide protected land escape for migration of wild animal. c. I don’t know the reason for existence.

2.5.2 If yes, the source of information on existence of Biological Corridor (select top three) a. Forest staff b. MoAF Personals c. Dzongkhag officials d. Local Government e. Media (audio, radio and print) f. Village elders. g. Friends h. Others 2.6 Energy sources and consumption for the HH What energy sources does the household use for (list top three):  Light wood electricity solar gas kerosene other ______ Cooking wood electricity solar gas kerosene crop residues dung others_ _ _  Space heating wood electricity solar gas kerosene crop residues dung others _ How many days can the household do with _ _ days with _ _ loads one (or more) backload of fuelwood?  for example 2 days with 3 loads

Where does the HH collect its fuelwood? village tseri cropland Rank in order of importance sokshing forest other _ _ _ _ How long does it take to carry a load of fuelwood from main _ _ hours, _ _ minutes fuelwood source to the house? Carried by: How much time does the HH spend to collect 1 load : _ _ days/year fuelwood? [Collection at the source] Who is involved in fuel wood collection Male………Female………Both……………

3. Climate change and adaptation 3.1 How do you feel about the climate change and vulnerability?

126

a. Yearly Increasing b. Yearly Decreasing c. Same as before 3.2 What is your probable reason for this? Causes Reasons Human Natural 3.3 Have you attended any of the climate change awareness campaign? Yes No 3.4 What are the benefits from the campaign? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………….. 3.5. Did you experience extreme weather events that affected your life in the last 5 years? Yes No 3.6 In what specific ways did this variability’s/extreme climate affect your lives? Nature of climate Rank No. of Years Impact on Impact on Loss of Loss of variability experienced livelihood income propertie lives [2010-2015] (Yes/No) (decrease/I s /assets (no) ncreased (Type) Drought Flood Land slides Soil erosion Wind/hail storms Forest fires Early onset of rain Delayed onset of rain Prolonged rain Pest and disease

3. 7 Do you consider it necessary to have adaptation strategies to cope with climate change impacts on livelihood of the society? Yes No If yes, suggest strategies for coping with climate change 1...... 2………………………………………………………………………………… 3…………………………………………………………………………………

4. Human Wildlife Conflict 4.1 Do you get any of the following problems due to wildlife?

1. Crop Damages Yes No 2. Livestock predation Yes No 3. Disease transmission Yes No 4. Harassment Yes No 5. Others Yes No

If you answer is yes to 4.1.1, please specify If you answer is yes to 4.1.2, please specify the animal name (Rank largest damage animal the animal name (rank worst predator as 1) as 1)

127

1………………………………………………. 1……………………………………………… . .. 2………………………………………………. 2……………………………………………… . .. 3………………………………………………. 3……………………………………………… . .. 4………………………………………………. 4……………………………………………… . .. 5……………………………………………… 5……………………………………………… … ...

4.2 What are the major initiatives taken to solve those problems?

1. Fencing 2. Guarding 3. Scarecrow 4. Trapping in field 5. Hunting in field 6. Others (specify)…………………………………………………………………………..………

4.3 Do you get any help/incentives to solve these problems? Yes No 4.4 If yes, please give the details of the interventions implemented in your areas? HWC Implementer Total cost of If the any Comments interventions the cost shared (E.g, intervention. by the Electric/solar farmers fencing, insurance scheme, organized guarding)

4.5 What do you think about the trend in wildlife population?

Evidence Increasing Decreasing Stable Sighted Signs Tigers Leopards Wild dogs Sambar Barking deer Wild Pig Macaques Others……………… 128

4.6 Do you think that wildlife should be protected/preserved? Yes No

4.7 If Yes, which animals should be protected? (Rank them for importance) Rank Reasons Tigers Leopards Wild dogs Sambar Barking deer Wild Pig Macaques Others(………….)

If No, Why?......

4.8 The current wildlife management policy (especially the forest and nature conservation act 1995) is appropriate Agree No opinion Disagree

4.8.1 If you agree, why?

1. Resources are better managed

2. Conservation development benefits

3. Protects wild life

4. Monitors the Illegal extraction of forest and wild resources

5. Sustainable availability of Natural resources for domestic consumption 4.8.2 If you disagree, why?

1. Our interests are not taken into account 2. Too much restriction on resource use 3. Not profitable for us 4. We are not involved 5. No legal compensation scheme

6. No information on the policy

7. Others (specify)

5. Data to be collected from Park/DFO and WCD

1. Biodiversity inventory data 2. SES: Population figure for the park and BCs 3. Landuse information

129

4. Cases of land encroachment (last 5 years) Encroachment type Encroachment frequency Comments

5. Cases of illegal extraction of natural resources (last 5 years) Resource type Illegal incidence frequency Comments

6. Cases of poaching and trade in wildlife and wildlife parts (last 5 years) Species poached Poaching frequency Comments

7. Forest fire (last 5 years) Forest type frequency Area damaged (acres)

8. METT: Get the completed WCD met form pages 7 to 33 Rejected by WCD saying they have to publish the reports first 9. Biodiversity Tracking Tools (get the GEFF 6 tracking tools)

6. Data from Local Government 1. Population of the gewog 2. Livestock population (cattle, horse, goats, sheep) 3. Project management and implementation modality: Most project are currently managed and implemented by central agencies: Which one would you prefer as an option to implement the project: a.Central government b. Local government

Reasons: 1. 2. 3.

130

Annexure 5: Biodiversity tracking tools for the PAs in the three landscapes.

The Tracking tools are submitted as a separate file submitted electronically.

131

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chettri, P. B and Tenzin, K. (2012). State of Forest Genetic Resources of Bhutan. Country Report. RNR Research and Development Centre. Yusipang.

Nature Conservation Division. (2007). Striking the Balance-Guidelines to identify Integrated Conservation and Development Programs (ICDPs) in the Protected Areas of Bhutan. Department of Forests, Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Government of Bhutan. Thimphu.

Nature Conservation Division. 2007. Corrected Protected Areas %age. Nature Conservation Division, Department of Forests, Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Government of Bhutan. Thimphu.

Ministry of Agriculture. (2008). Bhutan National Human-Wildlife. Conflicts Management Strategy. Nature Conservation Division. Department of Forests. Ministry of Agriculture. Thimphu, Bhutan: Kuensel Corporation Limited.

Ministry of Agriculture. (2008). Plant Genetic Resources of Bhutan (Volume 1). National Biodiversity Centre, Serbithang. Thimphu.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forests. Wildlife Products and Red Sanders Seizures in 2013 and 2014. (2015). Department of Forests and Park Services. Thimphu.

Planning Commission. (2002). Bhutan poverty assessment and analysis report. Planning Commission, Royal Government of Bhutan, Thimphu, Bhutan.

RGoB. (1995). Forest and Nature Conservation Act 1995. Royal Government of Bhutan, Thimphu, Bhutan.

RGoB. (2000). Environmental Assessment Act. National Environment Commission. Royal Government of Bhutan, Thimphu, Bhutan.

Thrumshingla National Park, Department of Forests (2008). Thrumshingla National Park Management Plan July 2008 – June 2013. Conservation to Ensure the Ecological and Environmental Foundations for Achieving Gross National Happiness. Thrumshingla National Park, Department of Forests, Ura, Bumthang.

Toorsa Strict Nature Reserve, Department of Forests & Park Services. (2011). Toorsa Strict Nature.Reserve Management Plan July 2012-June 2017. Balancing Conservation of pristine temperate and alpine eco-systems with the Development needs of communities. Wildlife Conservation Division, Department of Forests & Park Services, Royal Government of Bhutan.

Wang, S.W. (2004). The impacts of wildlife damage and conservation policies on attitudes in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. M.S. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

132

Wang, S.W. and Macdonald, D.W. (2006). Livestock predation by carnivores in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Biological Conservation.

Wang, S.W., Curtis, P., Lassoie, J.P. (2006a). Farmer perceptions of crop damage by wildlife in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Wildlife Society Bulletin.

Wang, S.W. (2008). Understanding ecological interactions among carnivores, ungulates and farmers in Bhutan’s Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park: Ph. D Dissertation. Cornell University, NY, USA.

Wangchuk, T., Thinley, P., Tshering, K., Tshering, C., Yonten, D., Pema, B. (2004). A Field Guide to the mammals of Bhutan. Department of Forests, Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Government of Bhutan, Thimphu.

133