ORYX VOL 27 NO 4 OCTOBER 1993 A new look at the Himalayan fur trade Joel T. Heinen and Blair Leisure In late December 1991 and January 1992 the authors surveyed tourist shops sell- ing fur and other animal products in Kathmandu, Nepal. Comparing the results with a study conducted 3 years earlier showed that the number of shops had in- creased, but indirect evidence suggested that the demand for their products may have decreased. There was still substantial trade in furs, most of which appeared to have come from India, including furs from species that are protected in India and Nepal. While both Nepali and Indian conservation legislation are adequate to con- trol the illegal wildlife trade, there are problems in implementation: co-ordination between the two countries, as well as greater law enforcement within each country, are needed. Introduction Enforcement of conservation legislation Since the 1970s Nepal and India have been In spite of measurable successes with regard considered to be among the most progressive to wildlife conservation, there are several ob- of developing nations with regard to legis- stacles to effective law enforcement in both lation and implementation of wildlife conser- countries. In Nepal the Department of vation programmes. The Wildlife (Protection) National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act of India was passed in 1972 (Saharia and (DNPWC), which is the designated manage- Pillai, 1982; Majupuria 1990a), and Nepal's ment authority of CITES (Fitzgerald, 1989; National Park and Wildlife Conservation Act Favre, 1991), is administratively separate from was passed in 1973 (HMG, 1977). Both have the Department of Forestry, but both depart- schedules of fully protected species, including ments are within the Ministry of Forests and many large mammalian carnivores and other the Environment. The DNPWC has jurisdic- fur-bearers (Upreti, 1989; Majupuria, 1990b) tion over wildlife conservation law enforce- and both have extensive protected area sys- ment only within parks and reserves, while tems (Seshadri, 1986; IUCN, 1990a; Majupuria, the Department of Forestry is responsible for 1990a, Heinen and Kattel, 1992a), with over 3 enforcing wildlife legislation in the rest of the per cent of the land area of India in several country (HMG, 1977; Heinen and Kattel, hundred reserves, and over 10 per cent of the 1992a, b). In India the Wildlife (Protection) land area of Nepal in 14 reserves. Act, 1972 does not apply in the State of Jammu India and Nepal are also Parties to CITES and Kashmir (Saharia, 1982). This state, (Convention on International Trade in renowned for its fine handicrafts, is the tra- Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ditional centre of the Himalayan fur trade; (Fitzgerald, 1989) and have active law enforce- many Kashmiri people are dependent on the ment programmes with regard to violations of trade for at least some income (Kapur, 1980; their national law and international agree- Pillai, 1982; Cochrane, 1986). The Jammu and ments related to conservation (Thakur, 1990; Kashmir Wildlife Act of 1979 is very similar to Heinen and Kattel, 1992a, b). There is evidence the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act but the from both countries that populations of many national government has no power to enforce endangered species have increased in many its laws within Jammu and Kashmir. protected areas (e.g. Seshadri, 1986). Furthermore, the State of Jammu and Kashmir 231 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.40.139, on 29 Sep 2021 at 18:16:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605300028143 J. T. HEINEN AND B. LEISURE has not adopted the subsequent amendments cally. Numbers of tourists to Jammu and to the national act, several of which greatly re- Kashmir have plummeted since the civil war stricted or proscribed trade in animal products started in 1989. The pro-democracy movement from the country (Nichols et a\., 1991) in Nepal limited tourist entries for 1 year, and These problems in implementing conser- the new Nepali Congress government has vation legislation have many ramifications, been confronted with a host of economic prob- one of which is the sale of furs and fur prod- lems, leading to several devaluations of the ucts to tourists. International tourism has been Nepali Rupee (see Bhatta, 1987; Shah, 1988; an important industry in Jammu and Kashmir Bista, 1991). Despite these concerns, however, in India and in the Kathmandu Valley and tourist entries into Nepal did not decline ap- several outlying areas (e.g. Pokhara) in Nepal. preciably, and are again rising (HMG, 1991). The infrastructure and policies supporting During this period there were several publi- tourism have been in place much longer in cized cases of tourists who were caught in Jammu and Kashmir than in Nepal (Bamzai, their own or other countries with furs of en- 1973; Kapur, 1980), but since the early 1970s dangered species bought in Nepal (B.N. the latter has become a major tourist destina- Upreti [Former Director General, DNPWC] tion (Richter, 1989). Today tourism is Nepal's pers. comm; U. R. Sharma [Assistant Director largest industry measured in gross foreign ex- General, DNPWC] pers. comm.). Barnes's change (HMG, 1991) and the largest employer work, cited in several popular articles, also of Nepali people after agriculture (Heinen and created an awareness of the problem in India Kattel, 1992a). (L. J. Barnes, 1992, pers. comm.). Furthermore, many recent tourist guides to Nepal and India have sections on conservation (e.g. Israel and The 1988 survey Sinclair, 1989), and there are now signs in the Central Immigration Office in Thamel, Nepal, In late 1988 Barnes (1989a,b, 1990) did a sur- warning tourists not to buy furs. vey of fur-selling shops in the tourist area of Our survey of the Himalayan fur trade in Kathmandu. He and a female colleague posed Kathmandu was designed to discover how as American tourists. He counted the number these interacting factors may have influenced of coats made from the fur of four species: sales in the 3 years since Barnes's work. All leopard cat, common leopard, clouded leop- other factors being equal, we would have ex- ard and snow leopard and estimated the total pected more fur trade in Kathmandu given number of such shops. He found 50 shops that that there were more tourists. Because tourist sold furs, all run by Indian nationals from entries into Kashmir have declined precipi- Kashmir. Many coats were made from furs of tously, we may also have expected more endangered species, protected in either or Kashmiri-run tourist shops to be operating in both India and Nepal, and listed on Appendix Kathmandu. However, if tourists had become I of CITES (which prohibits commercial inter- more aware of trade controls and if enforce- national trade). Barnes noted that the coats ment in other countries had increased, this were readily available, frequently hanging in would have the opposite effect, as would shop windows in blatant violation of Nepali changes in the fashion industry brought about and international law; there was obviously no by anti-fur campaigns. enforcement of fur trade controls. Methods From 1989 to 1991 and the present study One of us (J.T.H.) started on 20 December 1991, by walking through the tourist areas of In the 3 years since Barnes's work, the political Kathmandu, especially in Durbar Marg (close and economic situation in the State of Jammu to the Royal Palace, offices of airlines, travel and Kashmir and Nepal have changed drasti- agents and five-star hotels) and Thamel (sev- 232 ORYX VOL 27 NO 4 OCTOBER 1993 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.40.139, on 29 Sep 2021 at 18:16:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605300028143 HIMALAYAN FUR TRADE eral blocks of small streets, to the west of the said that they didn't believe we were Royal Palace, with many cheaper guest houses interested in buying fur when we began such and tourist shops). J.T.H. counted the number lines of questioning. We refrained from direct of shops selling furs and noted their locations. questioning after the second day of the sur- In most cases, there was no need to enter the vey, because our main goal was to obtain a shops because most of them had coats or other general idea of the extent of the trade. fur products displayed in windows. We surveyed the Durbar Marg area on 22 Posing as American tourists, we started the December 1991, several five- and four-star ho- extended survey on 22 December. We entered tels distant from the town centre on 23 each shop together, expressing interest in the December, part of Thamel of 24 December, purchase of furs. While B.L. tried on fur coats and the rest of Thamel on 14 January 1992. We and engaged the shopkeepers' attention, J.T.H. also visited all three-star hotels in Kathmandu (using a small pocket notebook) made inven- separately in mid-January, and J.T.H. visited tories of the coats on display, recording sepa- the tourist area of Lakeside, Pokhara, in the rately those made from cats, wolf, and large mountains of western Nepal in early January. Indian civet. Wild cat species are more vulner- We believe we covered the extent of the fur able, for several reasons, than other fur-bear- trade for tourists in Nepal as far as the num- ers (Nichol, 1987; Oldfield, 1989; Kitchener, ber of businesses engaged in the activity is 1991) and the spotted cats are relatively easy concerned.