DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF HIMALAYAN BLACK BEAR AND BROWN BEAR AND HUMAN BEAR CONFLICT IN MANASLU CONSERVATION AREA, NEPAL
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF HIMALAYAN BLACK BEAR
AND BROWN BEAR AND HUMAN‐BEAR CONFLICT IN MANASLU
CONSERVATION AREA, NEPAL
A Progress Report Submitted to Taronga Conservation Society, Australia
Submitted by: National Trust for Nature Conservation‐Manaslu Conservation
Area Project, Nepal
Prepared by: Madhu Chetri
MAY 2013
i
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... v
Acronyms and Abbreviations ...........................................................................................vi
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... vii
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Objectives of Study ............................................................................................ 1
2. Study Area .................................................................................................................. 1
3. Methodology ................................................................................................................ 2
4. Results and discussion................................................................................................ 4
4.1. Distribution and abundance of Himalayan black bear and brown bear within MCA . 4
4.1.1. Forest vegetation recorded in Himalayan black bear and brown bear habitats
................................................................................................................................. 5
4.2. Human-Bear Conflict and Economic Loss ................................................................ 6
4.2.1. Seasonal calendar-cultivation and time of crop damage ................................ 6
4.2.2. Ranking of major pest wild animals within MCA ............................................. 8
4.2.3. Past and present trend of crop damage and livestock killings ........................ 8
4.2.4. An Assessment of crop damage through direct field measurement ............... 8
4.2.5. Livestock killing, attacks and human casualties ............................................. 9
4.2.6. Ranking of damages from black bear and brown bear ................................. 12
4.2.7. Human-black bear and brown bear conflict in MCA ..................................... 13
4.3. Publication of educational materials ....................................................................... 13
4.4. Awareness camps and workshop ........................................................................... 14
4.4.1. Conservation Awareness Program ............................................................... 14
4.4.2. Formation of Night Vigilance Group (NVG) .................................................. 15
4.4.3. Data Recording Training .............................................................................. 15
4.4.4 Human Bear Conflict Mitigation Measures Workshop ................................... 15
5.0. Findings of Pre and Post Survey ............................................................................ 17
6.0. Conclusion and Recommendation.......................................................................... 17
7.0. References ............................................................................................................. 19
ii
Annex
Annex 1: Participants of environmental awareness camp, Lho & Lhi villages, 29 August
2012.............................................................................................................................................. 20
Annex 2: Participants of environmental awareness camp, Lho village, 1 Sept, 2012 .... 21
Annex 3: Participants of environmental awareness camp, Prok VDC, 03 September
2012.............................................................................................................................................. 22
Annex 4: Participants of environmental awareness camp, Chhak village, 6 Sept, 2012 23
Annex 5: Night Vigilance Group, Prok (Date of formation: 04 September, 2012) ........... 23
Annex 6: Night Vigilance Group, Lhi village (Date of Formation: 10 September, 2012) 24
Annex 7: Trainee of data recording training ........................................................................... 24
Annex 8: Participants of human-bear conflict mitigation workshop, Namrung village .... 24
Annex 9: Participants of human-bear conflict mitigation workshop, Sirdibas-Philim, 27
July, 2012 .................................................................................................................................... 25
Tables
Table 1: Distribution of Himalayan black bear and brown bear within MCA .................... 4
Table 2: Calendar of crop cultivation within MCA based on PRA .................................... 6
Table 3: Calendar of crop damage by different wild animals in the study area ............... 7
Table 4: Ranking of crop raiding by various wild animals ................................................ 8
Table 5: Trend of livestock killings and crop damage by Himalayan black bear as per
local perceptions (N=69) ................................................................................................. 8
Table 6: Conversion of Ghwak to Kilogram ..................................................................... 9
Table 7: Damage of maize crop by Himalayan black bear in the study area, 2012 ......... 9
Table 8: Livestock killings and depredation by Himalayan black bear in MCA .............. 10
Table 9: Economic loss due to livestock killings by Himalayan black bear, 2009-2012 . 10
Table 10: Total economic loss from livestock killings in four years, 2009-2012 ............ 10
Table 11: Livestock killings by Himalayan brown bear in MCA, 2012 ........................... 11
Table 12: Assessment of ranking due to black bear ...................................................... 12
Table 13: Direct observation of crop loss by Himalayan black bear, 2012 .................... 13
Table 14: Questionnaire survey households, 2012 ....................................................... 13
Table 15: Summary of implemented activities ............................................................... 14
Table 16: Preference ranking of mitigation measures ................................................... 16
Figures
Figure 1: Location map of the project sites...................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Distribution map of Himalayan black bear and brown bear and conflict areas . 5
Photos
Photo 1: Himalayan black bear and brown bear conservation awareness poster in
Nepali language. ........................................................................................................... 26
iii
Photo 2: Himalayan black bear and brown conservation awareness poster in Tibetan
language. ...................................................................................................................... 27
Photo 3: Himalayan black bear and brown bear conservation sticker. .......................... 28
Photo 4: Bhanjam-Lhi Village, Lho VDC with several night guarding temporary camps at
corn field........................................................................................................................ 29
Photo 5: Awareness camp at Prok village-participants watching video related to
environmental awareness and wildlife conservation. .................................................... 30
Photo 6: Awareness camp at Lhi village-participants watching video show. ................. 30
Photo 7: Interaction with local communities with regards to human-bear conflict at Lhi,
Lho VDC. ....................................................................................................................... 30
Photo 8: Participants presenting group work findings during the coordination workshop
at Philim, Sirdibas VDC. ................................................................................................ 30
Photo 9: Participants of Human-Bear Conflict Mitigation Workshop, Prok village. ........ 31
Photo 10: Project staff interacting with local inhabitants at Lhi village regarding Human-
Bear Conflict. ................................................................................................................. 31
Photo 11: Night Vigilance Group at Lhi Village. ............................................................. 31
Photo 12: Project staff testing mega torch light to handover to Night Vigilance Group,
Lhi Village. ..................................................................................................................... 31
Photo 13: Night guarding platform at Chhak village, Prok VDC. ................................... 32
Photo 14: Night guarding platform at Namrung village, Prok VDC. ............................... 32
Photo 15: Remains of the maize corn left by Himalayan black bear, Namrung village. . 32
Photo 16: Trail of Himalayan black bear at maize corn field, Chhak village, Prok VDC. 32
Photo 17: A typical forest habitats (mixed Oak forest) of Himalayan black bear in MCA.
...................................................................................................................................... 33
Photo 18: A typical pine forest habitats of Himalayan black bear in MCA. .................... 33
Photo 19: A typical habitat of Himalayan brown bear in MCA. ...................................... 34
Photo 20: Signs of Himalayan brown bear-snow filled holes is the diggings site for
Himalayan marmot. ....................................................................................................... 34
iv
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the community members for sharing their valuable information,
recommendation, comments and suggestions during data collection and showing their involvement and
active participation in various awareness camps, and workshops. We are grateful to the Taronga
Conservation Society Australia for financial support without which this project would not have been
possible. Thanks to Baburam Lamichhane for helping us with the map preparation. We would also like to
thank the senior management team of National Trust for Nature Conservation for encouragement and
supporting us during the course of field research.
v
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACA Annapurna Conservation Area
APU Anti Poaching Unit
CA Conservation Area
CAMC Conservation Area Management Committee
CITES Convention on Int. Trade in Endangered Sp. of Wild Fauna and Flora
DDC District Development Committee
DNPWC Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
FMsC Forest Management sub‐Committee
GoN Government of Nepal
IUCN World Conservation Union
MCA Manaslu Conservation Area
MCAP Manaslu Conservation Area Project
MG Mother Groups
NTFP Non Timber Forest Product
NTNC National Trust for Nature Conservation
NVG Night Vigilance Group
Sqkm Square Kilometers
TAR Tibetan Autonomous Region
TMsC Tourism Management sub‐Committee
VDC Village Development Committee
vi
Executive Summary
We assessed the status, distribution and magnitude of Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) and
Himalayan Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) – Human Conflicts in Manaslu Conservation Area (MCA), Nepal
from January 2012 to December 2012 through field surveys, semi‐structured questionnaire and direct
field measurement of crop loss in order to identify the high conflict zones and the causes for conflicts for
mitigation planning. Various environmental awareness and mitigation workshops were conducted
during July to September 2012. We choose four highly affected VDCs (total households 212) for direct
field measurement of crop damage. Of the total 212 households, we interviewed 69 households (32.5%)
to obtain information on the status, distribution, cropping patterns, bear attacks on humans, crop
raiding behavior, livestock depredation, causes for conflicts, and the current practices of local villagers in
reducing conflicts. In addition, information was also collected during various awareness camp and
workshop.
With support from Taronga Conservation Society, Australia, National Trust for Nature Conservation
(NTNC), Manaslu Conservation Area Project (MCAP) has initiated research to understand the level of
human bear conflicts in the Manaslu region. The project aimed to determine distribution and abundance
of the species; assess past/present trend of crop/cattle damage and human casualties. Research work
was followed by various awareness camps and workshops targeting the settlement of bear ranging
areas.
The presence of black bear was recorded from all seven Village Development Committees (VDCs)
whereas presence of brown bear was only recorded from two VDCs (Samagauan and Chhekampar) in
Manaslu Conservation Area (MCA). Total area covered by Himalayan black bear habitats in MCA was
216.63 sqkm (13.03% of the total area) whereas Himalayan brown bear habitats covered only 88.56
sqkm (5.3% of the total area). Himalayan black bear was a resident to the area whereas brown bear was
a seasonal visitor visiting the area only in summer season. Brown bear used to visit from the adjoining
Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) of People’s Republic of China and its habitats were mostly confined
to the Nepal‐TAR border adjoining to Samagaon and Chhekampar VDCs. Based on the questionnaire
survey, focus group discussion and assessment made during field survey, 30‐40 black bears were
assumed to be present in the region. This number reflects the density of 0.1 – 0.2 individuals per sq km
within MCA. Brown bear were occasional visitors to the region. They visit during the summer in search
of food and they are rarely sighted.
Four VDCs namely Sirdibas, Chumchet, Bihi, Prok and Lho were highly affected by black bear both in
terms of crop damage and livestock killings. In MCA, both bears are considered as the problem animals.
However, Himalayan black bear were considered to be one of the most problematic animals and the
trends of damages and livestock killings are increasing as compared to last two decades. Livestock killing
problem by brown bear was recorded only in Samdo pasture areas of Samagaun VDC. Depredation of
horse calves were reported by villagers. But as the species is the summer visitor to the region, damages
caused by brown bear was comparatively low when compared to black bear.
In Prok and Lho VDCs, four highly effected settlements (Prok, Chhak, Namrung and Lihi) were selected to
assess crop damage, livestock killings and human casualties by black bear. These settlements have
altogether 212 households (HHs). Out of 212 households, 131 households (61.8%) (Prok‐43 HHs, Chhak‐
29 HHs, Namrung‐19 HHs and Lihi‐40 HHs) cultivated maize in 2012. Research finding shows that out of
vii
131 households who grow corn during 2012, 60 HHs (46%) (Prok‐12, Chhak‐13, Namrung‐13 and Lihi‐22)
faced crop raiding problems due to black bear. These households has a total loss of 3,818 Kg maize
which is equivalent to Nepalese rupees (NRs.) 1909,000 (US$ 2,235) in 2012. Lihi, Prok, Namrung and
Chhak were highly affected settlements respectively in terms of loss quantity.
Forty three households of the study sites lost 55 numbers of livestock from 2009‐2012. Total loss from
livestock killing by black bear from 2009‐2012 is equivalent to NRs. 2030,000 (US$ 23,882). In 2012
alone, 23 animals were killed by black bear which is equivalent to NRs. 860,000 (US$ 10,118). Ten
households of Samagaun VDC lost 12 horse calves in 2012 killed by brown bear. The loss caused by
brown bear depredation is equivalent to NRs, 600,000 (US$ 7,059). Six human casualties by black bear
were recorded since 2005 to 2012 within MCA. Data reveals that cattle depredation; crop raiding
specially maize and human casualties are the key major problems due to black bear. There were no
records of crop raiding and human casualties from brown bear, but cattle depredation was recorded
where livestock and brown bear habitats overlap during the summer season.
In order to raise awareness among the local communities, the project had developed 1000 stickers and
3000 posters in local language which were distributed widely in MCA. Several awareness camps and
workshop were conducted. Altogether, 232 (M‐153, F‐79) people were mobilized during several
environmental awareness camps, workshop and field research. In order to protect the crop raiding by
black bear in the most prone areas, two Night Vigilance Groups (NVG) including seven and nine
members respectively in each group were formed. Community consultation workshops have identified
the preferable mitigation measures. Barbed wire fencing is the highly preferred mitigation measures
identified by the community.
viii1. Introduction
Two species of bear are found in Manaslu Conservation Area (MCA) namely, the Himalayan Black Bear
(Ursus thibetanus) and the Brown Bear (Ursus arctos). Both bears are considered as pest animals by the
local communities. Crop‐raiding and livestock killings by bear is a major cause of concern and
communities sometimes retaliate through traps and snares and even through loaded guns. Retaliatory
killing and poaching particularly of the black bear for gall bladder are major setbacks for the
conservation of the species in MCA.
Despite their presence within Manaslu region, a research targeting to these species is still not carried
out. Their interaction with human, level of conflict, mitigation measures etc. are not known from the
region. The first step in conserving these species is to establish database on economic loss and to find
out how to minimize conflicts. Only then sustainable conservation of the species can be ensured in the
region. With the support from Taronga Conservation Society Australia, this project is designed to collect
data on the distribution and abundance of two species of bear, evaluate the economic loss and explore
suitable mitigations measures to reduce human‐bear conflict in MCA.
1.1. Objectives of Study
With an aim to collect baseline information of bear species found in MCA, this study was carried out
with the financial support of Taronga Conservation Society Australia with following objectives.
1. Collect data on the distribution and abundance of Himalayan black bear and brown bear
2. Evaluate the economic loss caused by bear within MCA
3. Conduct awareness camps and workshop among the stakeholders
4. Explore possible mitigation measures in consultation with local communities
2. Study Area
Manaslu Conservation Area is situated between latitudes 28°21’ and 28°45’, and longitude 84°29’ and
85°11’ in central Nepal in the district of Gorkha (Figure 1). It covers seven Village Development
Committees (VDCs). It encompasses Dhading district in the east, Bhimthang in the west, Tibetan
Autonomous Region (TAR) of the Peoples Republic of China in the north and Kerauja, Uhia, Laprak,
Barpak VDC of Gorkha district in the south. It covers an area of 1,663 sq. km and is recognized as a
“biodiversity hot spot” because of its position in the Mansri Himalayan range of the eastern Himalaya
(Conservation International 2009). MCA provides habitats for more than 40 mammal species, 201 bird
species, 25 butterfly and 3 reptiles. It harbors 11 types of forest vegetation having approximately 2000
species of plants. It has 5 climatic zones (sub‐tropical, temperate, sub alpine, alpine and nival) within a
narrow width of Manaslu region. Elevation ranges from 1239 m to 8,163 m (the Mt. Manaslu, eight
highest peaks). The vast topographical variations provides habitat for many endangered flora and fauna.
Traditionally, MCA is divided into three valleys. The eastern part consisting of two VDCs viz. Chumchet
and Chhekampar are known as Tsum Valley (NTNC, 2013). The middle part consisting of four VDCs viz.
Bihi, Prok, Lho and Samagaun VDCs are known as Nubri Valley. The southern part i.e. Sirdibas and small
portions of Prok and Bihi VDCs are known as Kutang Valley. Each valley has distinct dialect, customs and
traditions.
1The climate is monsoonal with wet seasons (June‐September) and dry seasons (October‐May) and an
average rainfall of 1,900 millimeters (74 inches) per year (DNPWC, 2010).
Figure 1: Location map of the project sites
3. Methodology
Research activity was initiated since the inception of project proposal approved by Taronga Field
Conservation Grant. Required information was gathered to conduct detail activities of project. During
March‐December 2012 field activities targeting research on Himalayan black bear and Himalayan brown
bear was conducted.
Literature review and consultation with local level stakeholders
Before the initiation of the field work, high problem areas was identified base on record maintained at
Manaslu Conservation Area Project (MCAP) office. These records were further verified during the
coordination meeting organized by the project involving all the 7 CAMCs (Conservation Area
Management Committees), Anti Poaching Units (APUs), Mother Groups (MGs) and various other
stakeholders. Based on the analysis, four highly affected villages' of Prok (Prok, Chhak) and Lho
(Namrung, Lihi) VDCs were selected for assessing human‐black bear conflict. These four villages have
212 Households (HHs). In 2012, out of 212 HHs, only 131 HHs has grown maize. Four data
recorders/enumerators were selected from these villages for regular updating the data on livestock loss
and human casualties and for informing the crop loss. Recorders were trained and orientated to collect
data and keep records systematically. As a piloting, Night Vigilance Group (NVG) was formed in Prok and
2Lihi villages to protect the maize crops from Himalayan black bear raiding. These NVGs were also
supported with mega torches for effective guarding.
Social survey tools
In order to assess distribution and abundance of black bear and brown bear, Participatory Rural
Appraisal (PRA), focus group discussion, key interview, mapping exercise were done in five settlements
(Philim, Prok, Chhak, Namrung, Lihi villages) were carried out. Seasonal calendar of each crop, damages
caused by various wild animals, listing of problem animals, livestock and crop loss ranking, habitat
mapping of bear, possible effective mitigation measures and their preference ranking was discussed and
recorded applying Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools.
Participatory mapping
Intensive mapping exercise was done in five settlements using topographic map (1:25,000). Map
produced were also verified with the key leaders and herders of other VDCs who have knowledge on
distribution and habitats of bears. These maps were scanned and later transform into ArcGIS and bear
distribution map was produced. Following steps were followed during mapping exercise: i)
knowledgeable people were asked to tell the name of bear distribution area, ii) they were asked to show
the area in map iii) they were ask to sketch the area in a map and iv) finally the accessible areas of bear
distribution are verified by collecting ground truth data. In order to estimate the abundance of black
bear, questionnaire survey was conducted in 69 HHs (32.5% of the total 212 HHs). Density of black bear
was calculated based on bear distribution area.
Participatory cost analysis
Data recorders and NVGs regularly informed the project staff regarding the damaged caused by
Himalayan black bear and field measurement was done regularly visiting those affected areas during the
research period. Loss of crops by Himalayan black bear was assessed by visiting individual households
and farm directly. The maize farms of 131 households (Prok‐43, Chhak‐29, Namrung‐19 and Lihi‐40)
were visited to evaluate the loss of crop (maize) damage. Quantity of crop loss was calculated visiting
each affected sites by a team of data recorder, community leader and project staff. Number of maize
plant damaged by Himalayan black bear was counted. Similar number of maize plants from the vicinity
was harvested and measured the yield using local weight measurement i.e. bhari (bhari‐a local unit of
weight measurement i.e. bamboo basket normally capable of carrying a load by a person). After drying
maize corn, seeds were extracted and sun dried. One bhari wet maize is equivalent to 20 ghwak (1
ghwak seeds of maize=1.15 kg) dried seeds of maize. Total quantity of loss from all the sites were
calculated as per the local monetary rates.
Random questionnaire survey was also conducted in 69 households (32.5% of the total 212 HHs) of the
four study sites. Cattle depredation by Himalayan black bear was calculated by Participatory Rural
Appraisal (PRA) and focus group discussion. Depredation data obtained from Participatory Rural
Appraisal (PRA) and focus group discussion and questionnaire survey were also tallied and verified with
the monthly records systematically maintained at field office. The local rates of livestock are derived
from focus group discussion during the workshops.
Community mobilization and sensitization
Awareness camps were conducted in the targeted settlements. A joint workshop was organized among
the representatives of Conservation Area Management Committee (CAMC), Anti Poaching Unit (APU),
Mother Groups (MG) and data recorders at Namrung and Philim villages.
34. Results and discussion
4.1. Distribution and abundance of Himalayan black bear and brown bear within
MCA
The abundance of Himalayan black bear was assessed on the basis of questionnaire survey, interviews,
and reports of sighting by the villagers. Of the total respondents (69 people), 87% believed that the
population is increasing, 9% stated that the population has remained same, and 4% stated that the
number is declining. Of the total respondent, only 90% (62 people) tentatively assigned number of black
bears that thrives in the region whereas 10% (7 respondents) did not answer. Analysis of the 90%
respondent reveals that there may be 30‐40 Himalayan black bear within MCA. This number reflects the
total number of Himalayan black bear within their know distribution range in MCA. Based on the
available habitats and local respondents data analysis; the density of Himalayan black bear is in the
range of 0.1‐0.2/sqkm within MCA. Based on the interactions and discussion with local people and field
observation, it was found that 16 villages were highly affected from damaged caused by Himalayan black
bear (Table 1). However, people failed to say the minimum number of Himalayan brown bear that thrive
in this region. They only reported few sighting incidences and digging signs of marmot burrows from the
pasture of Samagaon and Chhekmapar VDCs. Himalayan brown bear are very rare in the region and
mostly visit during the summer season in search of food specially marmots (preferred food of brown
bear). During this study, several fresh digging signs of Himalayan brown bear were recorded from the
pastures of Chhetang, Gyala, Lajung pasture of Samdo and Chheke and Bhajyo pastures of Chhekampar
VDC (Table 1). These pastures are adjacent to the TAR of Peoples Republic of China.
Table 1: Distribution of Himalayan black bear and brown bear within MCA
1
Affected Distribution and habitat of Himalayan Distribution and habitat
SN VDC name villages black bear of Himalayan brown bear
Yayu, Talawang, Tejya, Sakala, Sharada, ‐
1 Sirdibas ‐
Pugyu, Chhi, Nyak
Lokpa, Sipchet, Sarti, Lokpa, Gumlung, Sipchet, ‐
2 Chumchet
Dhumje, Rinjam Gumbalungtang, Syarpu
Hinge, Chheke,
3 Chhekampar ‐ Mathang, Kyangbachhe, Thangdhoma, Dhladanchaur, Yamdo,
Pablung, Lingjyo, Nagompa Bhajyo, Thumbu kharka
Silam, Syarang, Krak, Syarang, Ungal, Fudar,
4 Bihi
Krak, Rip, Pujyu Dubtawang, Brobuk,Thangduk, Pojyu ‐
Tarang, Machi, Ripchuk, Jhong, Thalo,
Tomkhola, Ghoichet, Tumbuwang,
Prok, Chhak,
5 Prok Serakhu, Bhiwak, Dho, Kwak, Syarang,
Kwak, Namrung
Lungawak, Mandalgang, Harsyang,
Dhakchyat, Chhyolasa, Namla ‐
Pal, Ferrang, Ongmang, Kolbak,
Nangsang, Feche, Lukumfya, Ongmang,
6 Lho Lihi, Shyo, Lho
Kahm, Gunga, Homda, Remja, Lifolong,
Nasyang, Syorka ‐
1
Seasonal visiting area
41
Affected Distribution and habitat of Himalayan Distribution and habitat
SN VDC name villages black bear of Himalayan brown bear
Chhethang, Yayuthang,
7 Samagaun ‐ Numla
Ngosithang, Gyala, Lajung
Participatory mapping techniques were also used to assess the spatial distribution and habitat of bears
in MCA. The information obtained from participatory mapping was fed into ArcGIS and digital maps
were produced using the ArcGIS software (Figure 2). No overlap in distribution pattern and habitats was
noted between Himalayan black bear and brown bear in MCA. Himalayan black bear were confined to
forest habitats where as brown bear were distributed above the tree line. Total area covered by
Himalayan black bear habitats in MCA was 216.63 sqkm (13.03% of the total area) whereas Himalayan
brown bear habitats covered only 88.56 sqkm (5.3% of the total area).
Figure 2: Distribution map of Himalayan black bear and brown bear and conflict areas
4.1.1. Forest vegetation recorded in Himalayan black bear and brown bear habitats
The vegetation within MCA includes middle Mountain to alpine scrub. The habitats of Himalayan black
bears were mostly confined to the middle part of MCA. Mixed Oak forest is the highly preferred habitat
(2500‐3000m). The species associated in this type of broadleaved forest includes Quercus lanata, Q.
leucotrichophora, Q. lamellosa, Q. semicarpifolia, Juglans regia etc. The understory vegetations
associated with mixed Oak forest are Asparagus filicinus, Berberis aristata, Daphne papyraceae,
Gaultheria fragrantissima, Myrica esculanata, Rubia munjith, Zanthoxylum armatum, Cotoneaster
frigidus etc. Middle part of MCA also have patches of bamboo forest consisting of species viz.
Drepanostachyum khasianum, Himalayacalamus hookerianus, Drepanostachyum falcatum and some
5unidentified bamboo species which are highly favored by black bear. During May‐June, the new shoots
of bamboo are highly palatable to bears. Cornus capitata, Elaegnus parviflora, Juglans regia, Prunus
cornuta (peach), Prinsepia utilis, Solena heterophylla, Pyrus pashia, Holboellia coriacea etc. are some of
the wild fruits associated with the habitat of Himalayan black bear and are highly preferred by bears. In
the upper part of the mixed Oak forest, coniferous species dominates the bear habitats. Species such as
Pinus wallichiana, Picea smithiana, Tsuga dumosa, Larix griffithiana, Larix himalaica, Abies spectabilis
are the dominant species. The understory dominating species associated with coniferous forests consists
of Asparagus filicinus, Berberis aristata, Daphne bhoula, Dioscorea deltoids, Rhododendron spp., and
Betula spp.
The Himalayan brown bear prefers bare open valleys, pasture and high altitude area above 4,000 m. The
vegetation around brown bear habitats consists of Betula utilis with shrubberies of Rhododendron
lepidotum, Rhododendron anthopogan, Juniperus recurva, Salix deltoniana etc. Potentilla biflora,
Primula spp., Aconitum spp., Cordyceps sinensis, Dactylorhiza hatagirea, Fritillaria cirrhosa,
Nardostachya garndiflora, Rheum australe etc. are some of the Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP)
found in the habitat of brown bear. Other dry alpine scrub such as Caragan gerardiana, Euphedra
gerardiana, Hippophoe thibetana, Sophora moorcroftiana, Berberis spp., Artemisia spp., Anaphalis spp.
and other grass spp. are found in the habitat of brown bear.
4.2. Human-Bear Conflict and Economic Loss
4.2.1. Seasonal calendar-cultivation and time of crop damage
Naked barley (Hordeum sp.), wheat (Triticum aestivum), soybean (Glycine max), latte (Amaranths
caudatus), maize (Zea mays), buckwheat (Hordeum vulgare), potato (Solanum tuberosum) and
kidneybean (Phaseolus vulgaris) are the major crops grown in MCA. February‐March (Falgun) and
March‐April (Chaitra) are the major months of sowing seeds of different varieties of crops such as maize,
potato, latte, soybean and kidney bean. People start sowing naked barley and wheat during February‐
March (Falgun). Buck wheat (Fapar) during February‐March (Falgun) and June‐July (Ashadh) (Table 2).
Table 2: Calendar of crop cultivation within MCA based on PRA
May‐June
June‐July
Aug‐Sept
Apr‐May
Sept‐Oct
Feb‐Mar
Mar‐Apr
Nov‐Dec
July‐Aug
Oct‐Nov
Dec‐Jan
Jan‐Feb
Name
Crop
SN
1 Naked Barley W H S
2 Wheat W H S
3 Maize S W H
4 Potato S W H
5 Buckwheat S W H
6 Latte S W H
7 Soyabean S W H
8 Kidney bean S W H
Note: S=Sowing, W=Weeding, H=Harvesting; Crop raiding period
6In the study area, along with maize crop, majority of the farmers follow mixed cropping. They grow
kidney bean, soyabean and latte in the same farm land. However, in some areas latte and potato are
grown separately. It was interesting to note that in Namrung village, although potato is harvested in
June‐July, some farmers keep the potato in their farmland to store naturally and they harvest again in
October‐November. There is also a practice of sowing another species of naked barley which is smaller
in size locally known as “leje” in the naturally stored potato farm. During June‐July, aboveground dried
leaves of potato plant are removed and leje are shown. The leje matures during October‐November and
the farmers harvest both (potato and leje) crops from the field.
Crop raiding and damage caused by different animals according to months are given in Table 3.
Himalayan black bear, Assamese monkey (Macaca assamensis), Himalayan gray langur (Semnopithecus
schistaceus), Himalayan goral (Naemorhedus goral), Himalayan tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus) are
considered as the major pest animals. Crop raiding due to Himalayan black bear and assamese monkey
during the summer was remarkable in the middle part of MCA. Himalayan black bear was considered as
the most problematic animals. Of the various crop cultivated in MCA, mainly three crops viz. maize,
buckwheat and latte are raided by Himalayan black bear. Maize is the staple food of the local people
within MCA and is frequently raided by black bear. Because of its nocturnal habits, maize field are raided
during the night. Villagers mentioned that it is very difficult to safeguard the crops from black bear
raiding. They are very aggressive and difficult to approach to drive them away from field.
Table 3: Calendar of crop damage by different wild animals in the study area
Months
June‐July
Aug‐Sept
Apr‐May
Sept‐Oct
Feb‐Mar
Mar‐Apr
Nov‐Dec
July‐Aug
Oct‐Nov
Dec‐Jan
Jan‐Feb
May‐
June
SN Wild animals
1 H. goral NB,W NB,W NB,W M M M NB,W NB,W
2 H. tahr NB,W NB,W NB,W NB,W NB,W
M,
P, M, P, M, S,
3 A. monkey NB,W NB,W NB,W P P KB KB KB KB NB,W NB,W
4 H. black bear B M, B B, L M, B M, B
M,
P, M, P, S,
5 H.g. langur P P KB KB M,KB KB
Note: B=Buckwheat, KB=Kidney bean, L=Latte, M=Maize, NB=Naked barley, P=Potato, S=Soyabean,
W=Wheat
74.2.2. Ranking of major pest wild animals within MCA
Himalayan black bear, Himalayan gray langur, assamese monkey, Himalayan goral and Jackal were
identified as pest wild animals within middle part of MCA. Himalayan tahr also sometimes raid crops
specially the new shoots of wheat and buckwheat. Among the identified pest wild animals, Himalayan
black bear was identified as the highest ranking pest animals as per the ranking exercise done by the
local community (Table 4). Other problem animals as per the ranking are‐Himalayan gray langur,
assamese monkey and Himalayan goral respectively.
Table 4: Ranking of crop raiding by various wild animals
H.black H. gray Assamese
Animals bear langur monkey Ghoral Jackal
Himalayan H. black
black bear bear H. black bear H. black bear H. black bear
Himalayan gray H. gray langur H. gray langur
langur H. gray langur
Assamese
monkey A. monkey A. monkey
Goral Goral
Jackal
Pest ranking 4 3 2 1 0
4.2.3. Past and present trend of crop damage and livestock killings
Trend of crop damage and livestock killings by Himalayan black bear was assessed through
questionnaire survey. Of the total respondents, 90% claimed that the rate of crop damage and livestock
killings by Himalayan black bear has been increasing compared to past 10‐20 years (Table 5). Before 20
years, 74% respondents claimed that the loss from black bear is low in comparison to current year. In
recent years, some of the farming lands located near the forest is abandoned due to increase in crop
raiding problems by black bear and other wild animals.
Table 5: Trend of livestock killings and crop damage by Himalayan black bear as per
local perceptions (N=69)
SN Trend Before 20 Years Before 10 Years Current Year
1 Low 74% 9% 7%
2 Medium 10% 90% 3%
3 High 4% 1% 90%
4 Don’t know 12% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100%
4.2.4. An Assessment of crop damage through direct field measurement
The project has also assessed the loss of crop due to Himalayan black bear through direct field
measurements. Highly affected settlements were chosen to evaluate the loss of maize crops. Four
settlements namely Lihi‐Bhanjam, Namrung‐Talabari, Chhak and Prok were the focus of the study. In
each settlement, sites of crop damage by Himalayan black bear were inspected through systematic field
measurements. For direct field measurement, a team consisting of local community leader, data
8recorder and project staffs assessed the loss directly visiting each damaged sites. The loss of crop was
recorded in bhari, a local unit of measurements. Each bhari was later converted to ghwak, another local
unit of measurement basically used to weigh grains within MCA. Maize corn of one bhari is measured as
20 ghwak in average. Three ghwak is equal to 1 pathi and 1 ghwak is equal to following quantity of
kilogram (Table 6).
Table 6: Conversion of Ghwak to Kilogram
Crop Name Maize Potato Karu Wheat Bean Soybean
Ghwak to Kg 1.15 1 1.17 1.17 1.23 1.09
Table 7: Damage of maize crop by Himalayan black bear in the study area, 2012
Total Loss Loss
Village Name Cultivated quantity quantity
SN (Study site) Address Name of field Area (ha) (Bhari) (Bhari/ha)
1 Namrung Prok‐8&9 Namrung‐Talabari 9.4 38 4.04
2 Lihi Lho‐1&2 Bhanjam 6.7 52.5 7.84
3 Chhak Prok‐8&9 Chhak 13.5 33 2.44
4 Prok Prok‐1,2&3 Prok 37.5 42.5 1.13
Total 67.1 166 2.5
Total loss in kg (166x20x1.15)= 3,818
Total quantity of maize crop damaged within the survey area through Himalayan black bear was found
to be 166 bhari which is equivalent to 3,818 kilograms (Table 7). The cost of per kilogram of maize is
Nepalese rupees (NRs.) 50 at local market. Total economic loss of maize crop during 2012 from
Himalayan black bear within survey site is NRs 190,900 (USD 2,235) annually.
Based on the data collected from the field, the density of loss/ha was found high in Lihi and Namrung
villages. These settlements and the farm lands are at the middle of the dense forest. The forests
associated with these settlements are highly suitable black bear habitats. Local communities opined that
black bear can hide easily in the vicinity after chasing during the night and return again to raid the crops
if night guard remains silent. In comparison to Namrung village, Lihi village was more affected both in
quantity (bhari) and density (loss/ha). Similarly, the density of loss/ha in Chhak village was more than
Prok village but the damage quantity is more at Prok (42.5 bhari) than Chhak (33 bhari).
4.2.5. Livestock killing, attacks and human casualties
4.2.5.1. Livestock killings by Himalayan black bear
Manaslu Conservation Area Project has been closely monitoring the loss of cattle depredation through
Himalayan black bear since 2009. There was a high livestock killing due to attack of Himalayan black
bear. Data revealed that 43 households have lost 55 different livestock due to attack by Himalayan black
bear during 2009 to 2012 (Table 8). In 2009, the percentage of livestock loss was 29% with sharp decline
in 2010 (13%) and 2011 (16%) and increased rapidly in 2012 (42%). Villagers mentioned most of the
attack was from huge solitary black bear. Data reveals that the economic loss caused due to livestock
killings has adversely affected the rural economy.
9Table 8: Livestock killings and depredation by Himalayan black bear in MCA
Location of killings Percentage
Year and depredation Cow Bull Chauri Yak Jhopa Horse Total (%)
Prok, Namrung 4 0 2 0 0 1 7 29
2009
Lho, Hinang 6 1 1 1 0 0 9
2010 Lho, Hinang 0 0 4 2 1 0 7 13
2011 Lho, Hinang 0 0 3 2 2 2 9 16
2012 Lhi, Shyo, Lho 0 0 2 5 16 0 23 42
Total 10 1 12 10 19 3 55 100.00
Note: Four Jhopas injured (May 2010=1, May 2012=3); Chauri=Female Yak, Jhopa=male‐born from
crossed between Chauri and Bull; jhopas are very popular in the area as they are used to plough fields
and to carry loads.
Total estimated loss is equivalent to NRs 20,25,000‐27,55, 000 (USD 23,824‐32,412) (Table 9). In addition
to this loss, 4 Jhopas were attacked by Himalayan black bear and injured during the period of 2009‐
2012. Table 10 shows annual average economic loss in four years from livestock killing by Himalayan
black bear. The average monetary loss has increased from 20‐43%.
Table 9: Economic loss due to livestock killings by Himalayan black bear, 2009-2012
No of Local sales rate Amount Amount (USD)
SN Livestock type Cattle (NRs) (NRs)’000
1 Cow 10 15,000‐20,000 150‐200 1765‐2353
2 Bull 1 15,000‐25,000 15‐25 176‐294
3 Chauri 12 40,000‐50,000 480‐600 5647‐7059
4 Yak 10 60,000‐90,000 600‐900 7059‐10588
5 Jhopa 19 30,000‐40,000 570‐760 6706‐8941
6 Horse 3 70,000‐90,000 210‐270 2471‐3176
Total 55 20,25‐27,55 23,824‐32,412
Note: Cost of cattle is calculated according to the rate of 2012 (1 USD is equivalent to NRs. 85)
Table 10: Total economic loss from livestock killings in four years, 2009-2012
Year
2009 2010 2011 2012
Amount Amount Amount Amount
Livestock in Amount in in Amount in in Amount in in Amount in
type NRs'000 USD NRs'000 USD NRs'000 USD NRs'000 USD
Cow 150‐200 1765‐2353 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Bull 15‐25 176‐294 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Chauri 120‐150 1412‐1765 160‐200 1882‐2353 120‐150 1412‐1765 80‐100 941‐1176
Yak 60‐90 706‐1059 120‐180 1412‐2118 120‐180 1412‐2118 300‐450 3529‐5294
Jhopa ‐ ‐ 30‐40 353‐471 60‐80 7.6‐941 480‐640 5647‐7529
Horse 70‐90 824‐1059 ‐ ‐ 140‐180 1647‐2118 ‐ ‐
Total 415‐555 4882‐6529 310‐420 3647‐4941 440‐590 5176‐6941 860‐1190 10118‐14000
Average
annual loss 20% 15% 22% 43%
10in Percent
4.2.5.2. Livestock killings by Himalayan brown bear
There were also records of livestock killings by Himalayan brown bear. Himalayan brown bear mostly
attack the calf of horse and yak. As goat and sheep are very low in the area, and complaint regarding
their losses is totally absent. In 2012, 10 households of Samagaun and Samdo village lost 12 horse calves
(Table 11). Herders opined that the entire killing of horse calf was by brown bear at Samdo pasture.
However, it was also suspected that some losses might occur due to depredation from Snow leopard
and gray wolf there were several fresh signs (pugmark, scrape, scats of snow leopard; scat of gray wolf)
in the pasture of Samdo where villagers reported to be major depredation sites.
Sighting of Himalayan Brown Bear by Mrs. Dhorje Buti Lama, local resident of MCA
During the first week of June 2012, Mrs. Dhorje Buti Lama, a resident of Samagaon‐6, Samagaon VDC
(recently residing at Samgaon gompa) had an encounter with brown bear near Chhethang kharka. Her
relative who is residing in Chhethang kharka and herding livestock had to go to Kathmandu for
treatment, so she took responsibility of herding livestock for few days. She was alone and walking in the
pasture monitoring livestock. Suddenly a brown bear with two cubs appeared in front of her. She was
very frightened and started shouting very loudly. Luckily the bear took its own way and did not attack
her. She mentioned that she had a narrow escape from bear attack. Till date human casualties due to
attack of brown bear is not recorded from the region and from other parts of the country as well.
Table 11: Livestock killings by Himalayan brown bear in MCA, 2012
Location (Area
SN Name of owner Name of cattle No of loss name)
Horse calf (M) 1 Ngile Kharka
1 Sanu Dhorje Lama, Samdo
Horse calf (M) 1 Ngile Kharka
Horse calf (M) 1 Chhongar Kharka
2 Pasang Ngima Lama, Samdo
Horse calf (F) 1 Chhongar Kharka
3 Tashi Lama, Samdo Horse calf (F) 1 Lajung
4 Chhembel Lama, Samdo Horse calf (F) 1 Ngile Kharka
5 Pasang Dhiki Lama, Samdo Horse calf (F) 1 Sonam Kharka
6 Dhiki Lama, Samdo Horse calf (M) 1 Lajung‐Ngila
7 Gyalzen Lama, Samagaon ‐2 Horse calf (M) 1 Mayul
8 Chhimik Lama, Samagaon‐2 Horse calf (M) 1 Gyala
9 Norabo Lama, Samagaon‐5 Horse calf (F) 1 Gyala
10 Traders from Tibet Horse calf (M) 1 Gyala
Total lost 12
Local people have claimed the depredation was due to attack of Himalayan brown bear. There is
presence of snow leopard and gray wolf in the same habitat therefore the loss of some horse calf is also
probably from snow leopard and gray wolf. This needs further confirmation and systematic inspection of
11each kills. Local sales rate of horse calf
4.2.7. Human-black bear and brown bear conflict in MCA
The presence of Himalayan black bear was recorded in majority of the available forest habitats within
MCA (see Figure 2). The forest areas of Sirdibas, Chumchet, Bihi, Prok and Lho were good habitat of
black bear. Lower part of Samagaon and Chhekampar VDCs has the habitat of black bear whereas upper
parts of these two VDCs have the habitat for brown bear. Bihi, Prok and Lho VDCs were the most
affected VDCs by black bear. Some settlements of Chumchet and Sirdibas were also affected by black
bear. Samdo area of Samagaun is the most affected site by brown bear. Occasional visit of brown bear
was found in the pasture of Chhekampar also.
Four settlement of MCA (Lihi‐Bhanjam, Namrung‐Talabari, Chhak and Prok) were selected based on
consultation and discussion with local communities to evaluate the conflict with black bear. Two
techniques ‐ direct measurement of damaged crop (maize) and assessment of crop loss by questionnaire
survey were applied to measure the conflict.
Within four survey sites, altogether there are 212 households. Among them only 131 households
cultivated maize crops in 2012 (Table 13). Of the 212 households, 69 households (Table 14) were
selected randomly for questionnaire survey (32.5%). All the surveyed households complained crop loss
from Himalayan black bear. It reveals that they also incorporated the loss made by black bear in the
previous year. Field survey in 2012 reveals that only 60 households have actually lost maize crops from
black bear.
Table 13: Direct observation of crop loss by Himalayan black bear, 2012
No of Maize farming Affected
SN Villages households households Households
1 Lihi‐Bhanjam 51 40 22
2 Namrung‐Talabari 32 19 13
3 Chhak 51 29 13
4 Prok 78 43 12
Total 212 131 60
Table 14: Questionnaire survey households, 2012
SN Villages Total HHs Sample HHs for survey HHs Coverage (%)
1 Lihi‐Bhanjam 51 16 31.4
2 Namrung‐Talabari 32 13 25.6
3 Chhak 51 20 40.6
4 Prok 78 20 39.2
Total 212 69 32.5
4.3. Publication of educational materials
In order to raise awareness among the local communities, posters and stickers in local language were
published and distributed widely. Altogether 3000 pieces of posters (both in Tibetan language and
Nepali language) and 1000 stickers were developed. Posters highlighted the general description of
Himalayan black bear and brown bear. The poster highlights status (both global and national),
distribution, physical description, habitats, food, body weight, gestation and lifespan of bears. The
13poster also highlights three main threats: habitat loss, poaching and human‐wildlife conflict. Further it
also describes seven mitigation measures on how to minimize human‐bear conflict. These were: fencing,
guarding, farming an alternative crops unpalatable to bear, not to release livestock in the forest without
herders, not to go in the forest alone, protect habitat of bear, do not exploit foods of bear. The posters
and sticker developed is given in photo 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
4.4. Awareness camps and workshop
During the project implementation period, several workshop and awareness programs were launched in
order to address and minimize human‐bear conflict in MCA. Awareness programs and workshop were
designed focusing on targeted settlements together with research activities. Altogether, 232 people
(male=153, female‐79) actively participated in various awareness camps and workshop (Table 15).
Awareness camps were mostly targeted to raise awareness among the local communities and
discourage hunting of wildlife. In addition, several workshops were organized to estimate abundance of
bear, identify habitats, conflict areas, and mitigation measures.
Table 15: Summary of implemented activities
Participants
S.N. Activities Location Date Male Female Total
1 Coordination Workshop Philim 27 July, 2012 27 0 27
Lihi 29 Aug, 2012 15 6 21
Lho 31 Aug, 2012 38 1 39
Environmental awareness
2 Prok 3 Sept, 2012 21 23 44
camps
Chhak 6 Sept, 2012 13 15 28
Total 87 45 132
Prok 4 Sept, 2012 14 13 27
Formation of Night
3 Lihi 10 Sept, 2012 10 4 14
Vigilance Group (NVG)
Total 24 17 41
4 Data Recording Training Namrung 1 Sept, 2012 3 1 4
Human‐Bear Conflict
5
Mitigation Workshop Namrung 9 Sept, 2012 12 16 28
Grand Total 153 79 232
4.4.1. Conservation Awareness Program
Awareness is the essential component of community which leads communities in the mainstream of
conservation and development. Due to low literacy rate and remoteness of the area, frequencies of
awareness camp need to increase in future. Available data indicates that there is only 32% are literate
(able to read and write) within MCA (Chetri, 2010). In this context bear conservation is a challenging task
for the conservation authority as the black bear are rated as one of the major pest animal in the region.
The main objectives of the awareness program were to i) generate awareness against wildlife poaching,
ii) generate awareness on national and CITES legal provision against poaching and iii) raise awareness on
importance of bear conservation and mitigation measures to reduce human bear conflict. To meet the
above objectives, a one day awareness camp was conducted from 26 August to 06 September 2012 in
14each four settlements namely Prok, Chhak, Lihi and Lho. Altogether 132 people (male‐87, female‐45)
actively participated in awareness camp. In each camps discussion session was also held among the
participants on mitigation measures on how to reduce human bear conflict. The name list of participants
is given in Annex 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
4.4.2. Formation of Night Vigilance Group (NVG)
Guarding farm land during the night to protect maize crop is a difficult task. It is also dangerous.
Communities have been practicing to chase the bear since centuries by guarding during the night time
by constructing rooftop in trees and machans (watch towers), lighting fires, shouting and beating drums
in some areas. This is an effective method to chase the bear. However, there is always a risk to guard the
crop field during the night lonely. Therefore, this study tried to form a group for night time guarding
hypothesizing that the chances of human casualties would be minimal if they are in group rather than
guarding alone. As a pilot initiation, two night vigilance groups (NVGs) were formed in Prok and Lihi
villages during 4th and 9th September 2012 to protect the maize crop. These two villages are located in
close vicinity of the dense forest and are highly preferred sites of Himalayan black bear. Altogether 27
people (M‐14, F‐13) in Prok and 14 people (M‐10, F‐4) in Lihi gathered during the night vigilance group
formation. A seven member committee in Prok village and nine member committee in Lhi village were
formed. Both night vigilance groups were supported by mega torches to assist them for effective
guarding and patrolling during the night. The NVGs patrol the maize field regularly. It was realized that
only group formation is not sufficient to protect crops. They need motivation and additional material
support (e.g. mega torch light, bear spray, protective platform for guarding etc.) in future for effective
guarding. Also it was found that the farm land were scattered and majority of the settlements lacks
young people to guard during the night. The NVGS will be supported in the coming years and the
effectiveness will be monitored and evaluated. The name lists of NVGs are given in Annex 5, and 6
respectively.
4.4.3. Data Recording Training
In order to keep data in a uniform manner, one day data recording training was provided to selected
member of the community at Namrung village on 02 September 2012. Four data recorders from four
settlements were selected through community meeting. A data format was developed and the selected
participants were taught how to complete the data form. List of participants trained in data recording
training is given in Annex 7. These trained data recorders filled up the format and gathered information
related to crop depredation and loss from the affected areas.
4.4.4 Human Bear Conflict Mitigation Measures Workshop
On 9 September, 2012 a one day workshop among the participants of Lho and Prok VDC was organized
at Namrung village. Representatives from CAMC Prok‐6, APU Prok‐1, CAMC Lho‐1 APU Lho‐1, Sub‐
committee of Prok (TMsC, FMsC, MG and social workers)‐ 12, Sub‐committee of Lho (MG) – 6 and police
personnel from Namrung – 1 participated in the workshop. Altogether 28 participants (14 male, 14
female) attended the program. The main objectives of the workshop were: i) to identify the seasonal
calendar of crop damage ii) identify black bear habitats and iii) explore mitigation measures. The name
list of the participants is given in Annex 8.
4.4.4.1 Mitigation measures for human-black bear and brown bear conflicts
Workshop was focused on the mitigation measures against crop damage due to black bear. People had
identified seven types of mitigation measures to minimize the crop loss by black bear. Barbed wire was
considered as the most preferred mitigation measure followed by electric fencing and sound and
15firecrackers (Table 16). Least preference was given to night guarding. People were not interested to
protect their crops through guarding. They complained that whole day they remain busy looking after
other household activities, caring livestock and farm land. By the time they reach home they get very
tired and it’s impossible to guard their crops whole night and protect them from bears.
Table 16: Preference ranking of mitigation measures
Mitigation Sound,
measures BWF EF firecrackers Lighting Guarding Firing AC
Barbed wire fencing
(BWF) BW BW BW BW BW BW
Electric fencing (EF) EF EF EF EF EF
Sound, firecrackers S,F S,F S,F S,F
(S,F)
Lighting Lighting Lighting Lighting
Guarding Guarding Guarding
Burning fire Firing
Alternative crop (AC)
Preference 6 5 4 3 0 1 2
Data revealed that the problem from brown bear was low as compared to black bear in the study area.
The complain regarding the livestock killing by brown bear needs further verification as the area also
holds other predators e.g. snow leopard and gray wolf. However, livestock should be attended carefully
in order to avoid conflict especially during the summer where there is a high chance of interaction with
Himalayan brown bear.
4.4.4.2. Co-ordination Workshop
Co‐ordination workshop was organized at project office, Sirdibas, Philim on 27 July 2012 among the
representatives of CAMC, APU, ISC, political leaders, police personnel and social workers. The main
objectives of the workshop were: i) to sensitize among the various stakeholders and conservation
agencies about the GoN legal provision as well as of CITES, ii) to raise awareness among the
stakeholders, iii) to strengthen coordination among the enforcement agencies and iv) to map the
habitats of brown bear and black bear in MCA. Main focus of the program is to share and make them
understand on the legal provision of CITES and national rules and regulations with regards to protection
of species. During the workshop participants were also actively involved to identify the habitat of black
bear and brown bear within MCA. Altogether 27 participants (CAMC‐7, APU‐7, ISC‐2, Political leader ‐1,
Police personnel – 7, Social worker – 3) attended the workshop. The name list of workshop participants
is given in Annex 9.
165.0. Findings of Pre and Post Survey
MCA is a region highly dominated by Buddhist religion. Therefore, most of the people are wildlife
friendly. Killing bear is sin in their religion. Some people in the area also believed that the loss due to
wild animals occurs when God gets angry. And the losses were considered as an offering to God to make
happy. Traditionally there is a strict ban on hunting both in Nubri and Tsum valley. In the past, there is
no record of livestock killing from bears. Crop (maize) damage by black bear is common in this region.
There is a high demand from the local communities that the project should intervene with concrete
activities (e.g. fencing, solar electric fence etc.) that can control crop loss. Peoples’ mentality is against
the conservation of black bear as the rate of livestock killings and attacks are increasing. Traditionally
people are self‐mobilized to save wild animals but they aren’t interested to conserve problem animals
like Himalayan black bear. Livestock killing by Himalayan black bear was started since 2009 from Prok
and Lho VDC. These trends doubled in four years causing retaliatory feeling against black bear. People
also claimed that killing of livestock was from a solitary bear. This bear has changed its normal behavior,
it starts killing livestock as soon as it return from hibernation. Last year Conservation Area Management
Committee (CAMC) of Lho recommended to MCAP to kill the pest bear. This incident reflects the
perception of community against black bear.
Most of the farmers in the study area possess scattered farm lands where they cultivate various crops
according to seasons. Therefore, for a single farmer it was not possible to be present everywhere to
guard the farmland. In practice, among the various cultivate crop fields, farmers choose the best and
productive field for guarding by constructing machan (a raised platform in the crop field). During the
survey, we recorded 17 machans in Bhanjam of Lihi village which has only 6.7 hectare of corn field
(Photo 4). Farmers used to construct machan and guard crop fields in scattered manner to avoid the risk
of crop raiding by black bear. They also mentioned that it was not practical to remain in a group during
guarding as one cannot confirm from which side and location black bear will enter the crop field. Further
they also relate the story of bear revisiting the crop field several times from different areas in a single
night. The formation of NVGs has encouraged the local communities to mobilize in groups in scaring the
bear from crop fields. However, the support made by the project to NVGs is very minimal. These groups
need further support in terms of both materials (e.g. mega torch light, bear spray etc.) and motivation.
Observation reveals that the NVGs could play a lead role in convincing and mobilizing the local
communities for crop protection and black bear conservation.
6.0. Conclusion and Recommendation
In the MCA, human and livestock populations are increasing and as a result, there are increasing
pressures on natural resources. Reports of black bear attacking humans and killing livestock and
subsequent public backlash are frequent in the Himalayan region (Sathyakumar, 1999a, b). Economic
losses in the form of livestock killings and crop damage have badly affected the people living in these
areas. The human‐wildlife conflicts arising due to these damages cannot be contained fully because wild
animals frequently invade and damage human settlements and cultivated areas located on the fringes of
forest areas (Chauhan, 2003). In the project area, at present there is no provision or mechanism for
compensation for crop damage nor are there livestock insurance schemes. This needs to be tested and
piloted in high conflict areas. In addition, the demand for barb wire fencing and solar electric fence was
very high, these need to be piloted and tested in some of the highly affected crop raiding sites. This will
17You can also read
