1. Kazi Kamrul Islam (Kyushu University Dipesh Joshi (Wageningen University) Sato Noriko (Kyushu University)

2. Today’ s menu: Tiger status & Background information Research questions Study area Discussion Social aspect Ecological aspect Management Evaluation Conclusions

3. Tiger sub speciesRange countryPopulation Royal Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) Bangladesh Bhutan India Myanmar Nepal 62-362 67-81 (adult) 2500-3750 124-231 93-97 (adult) Caspian Tiger (P. tigris virgata) Afghanistan, Iran, Chinese and Russian Turkestan, Turkey Extinct 1970s Amur Tiger (P. tigris altaica) China, N Korea, Russia360-406 Javan Tiger ; Bali Tiger (P. tigris sondaica; balica) Java, Indonesia Bali, Indonesia Extinct 1980s, Extinct 1940s South China Tiger (P. tigris amoyensis) China20-30 Sumatran Tiger (P. tigris sumatrae) Sumatra, Indonesia400-500 Indo-Chinese Tiger (P. tigris corbetti) Cambodia, China, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Eastern Myanmar 1,227-1,785 Status of the tiger

4. Background  In 1906 about 40,000 tiger exists in the Indian subcontinent (Gee 1963) area  But in 2008 it was only 3,176-4,556 (Tiger Action Plan, 2010)  Bengal Tiger accounts 60% of the existing tiger subspecies of the world  Nepal Govt. started the park conservation Act on 1973 and Royal Chitwan National Park (CNP ) is the first protected areas under this Act

5. Main Research question: Is it possible to conserve the tiger population and its habitat in CNP? Sub Questions: What are the legislation and policy of Government towards tiger conservation? Are the local communities accepting the tiger conservation program? Is the ecology of the tigers favorable for its natural conservation process? What are the management strategies of tiger conservation in CNP and are they sufficient to conserve tiger or not?

6. Range of the tiger Study area: Sub-tropical area IUCN –II (National park), 70% tree,20% grass, 7% riverrine forest 37 human settlements around the park areas Source: Google.com

7. Social aspect Legislation and Govt. policy – Form NPWCA in 1973 – Hunting/poaching is strictly prohibited/banded – Fine of Rs. 50,000 -100,000 or imprisonment of 5-15 years – Because of International market poaching is not totally banded – Govt. established Anti Poaching Unit (APU) with the cooperation of various organization and local people But the Execution level is problematic!!!!!

8. View of the local community – Surrounded by numerous settlements and human intervention to the core habitat is the most threat for tiger conservation – People thought Govt. emphasis forest not them – Previously they collect NTFP from core forest area – Their livelihood depends on the forest resources since long time ago Their attitude towards tiger conservation is negative Grass cutting

9. Tiger-human conflict – 1.2 person/year up to 1998 – 7.2 person/year 1998-2006 – Huge number of livestock also – Compensation goes to whole community not individual level (Gurung et al. 2006, 2008) Involvement of the International agencies – UNESCO (1960-) – WWF’s (1980-) – ICDPs (1980-), UNDP, DFID, USAID, Focus on conservation

10. Ecology Reproductive capability – Gestation is short, 103 days – Female get mature at 3 yrs (3.4 mean) – Litter size is 3 common (2-5 range) – Inter-birth only 20 months (Smith and McDougal, 1977) Population dynamics Genetic diversity ( two main issue), genetic drift (gene pool) gene flow Little genetic diversity, and 95% genetic diversity will exist in CNP after 100 yrs (Frankham, 1995) – Gene flow and genetic drift is not limiting factor at CNP

11. Dispersal capability – Male can disperse 3 times higher than female – Most females were philopatric, settling next to their mothers – Male average 33km longest 65km – Female average 10km longest 33km – Young leaving their area 19-28months, establish new territory (Smith, 1993; Sunquist, 1991) Food availability and requirement – A tiger required average 5-6 kg meat/day – Mostly occupy by deer (Biswas and Sankar, 2002; Sunquist, 1991)

12. Figure: Major prey species of tiger at CNP Source: Biswas and Sankar (2002 )

13. Prey species % of prey eaten by tiger* Amount of meat (Kg) Average body Wt of prey species** Number of prey spp. Chital33.386913(75-100 kg)= 88 Kg987 Sambar29.376473(100-150kg) = 125kg611 Hog Deer15.440194(50-110 Kg) = 80 Kg502 Wild Pig10.627666(70-90 Kg) = 80 Kg345 Common Langur4.110701(4-24 kg) = 14Kg764 Muntjac5.714877(15-20 Kg) = 18 Kg826 Others1.6417650 Kg84 Sources: * Biswas and Sankar (2002) on ** www.worlddeer.org www.worlddeer.org Table: Estimated food requirement of 100 tiger per year in CNP

14. Effect of prey – Prey density 96.65/sq.km – Total area 93,200 ha – Prey is not a limiting factor and tiger does not affect the prey population (Biswas and Sankar 2002; McDougal 1979)

15. Management Buffer zone – Bag heralu (guard), form Buffer Zone management Council – Compensation (human life and livestock) – Lethal control (tiger) – Using pet dog (guide for human) Wild prey management – Maintain prey density Corridors – Between two fragment of forest Information, education awareness Core forest Buffer Zone

16. Evaluation Social Govt. policy & regulation Society views Conflict International agencies +--++--+ Ecological Reproductive capability Population dynamics Dispersal capabilities Food availability Effect on prey ++++++++++ Management Buffer zone Wild prey Corridor Information, awareness, etc + +/- + -

17. The legislation strongly supports the tiger conservation of CNP but its execution level will need more attention. The ecological aspects are also positive for tiger conservation Management strategies especially local people attitude and compensations will require more emphasis. More research will be needed to resolve the wildlife-human conflict at the CNP area. Finally, the analysis clearly indicating that the possibility of tiger population and its habitat conservation is favorable at CNP. Still the Nepal Government has to go lot of miles for tiger conservation due to societal constraint at the CNP. Conclusion and Recommendations

18. Thank you