TIGERS OF THE

TIGERS OF THE

TRANSBOTIGERS OF THLIST OF FIGURES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

By Dr.Fourkan Ali

We thank Dr. Rajesh Gopal of the National Tiger

Conservation Authority (NTCA), Government

of India; Mr. Megh Bahadur Pandey and Mr.

Bishwonath Oli from Ministry of Forests and Soil

Conservation (MoFSC), Government of Nepal; Dr.

Ghana Shyam Gurung and Mr. Shiv Raj Bhatta, WWF Nepal; Dr. Sejal Worah, and Dr.

Dipankar Ghose, WWF-India and Mr. Ganga Jung Thapa, National Trust for Nature

Conservation (NTNC) for encouraging collaborative surveys, and for steering dialogue

between Nepal and India for tiger conservation in the Terai Arc Landscape.

In India, this study was made possible by the Uttar Pradesh and Bihar Forest

Departments. As well as granting research permits, they provided logistical support in

many other ways. We are grateful in particular to the Chief Wildlife Wardens of Uttar

Pradesh and Bihar, Dr. Rupak De and Mr. B. A. Khan, whose support was instrumental

for these studies. We also acknowledge support from the Field Directors of Dudhwa

Tiger reserve, Sh. Sailesh Prasad and Valmiki TR, Sh. Santosh Tewari, their kind

support interest. The Divisional Forest Offi cers Sh. Ganesh Bhat (Dudhwa), Sh. R.K.

Singh (Katerniaghat), Sh. A.K Singh (Katerniaghat), Sh. Kamaljeet Singh and Sh. Nand

Kishor (both Valmiki) and Sh. M. Mittal (Suhelwa) were all enthusiastically involved in

the monitoring and facilitated the work in numerous ways. We are also grateful for the

support of Range offi cers and foresters who aided us with the camera trapping. Finally,

credit is due to the many dedicated forest guards and watchers (too numerous to name

here) who proudly led us to tiger signs in their beats, and worked with us to ensure

that the monitoring exercise was implemented effectively and to meet its objectives.

These studies were funded by WWF-India (through grants from WWF-UK and WWFSweden),

and by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. We thank Dr. B. R. Noon

for his involvement and support.

In Nepal, we highly appreciate the lead taken technical committee and Dr. Chiranjibi

Prasad Pokheral in overall co-ordination and fi eld implementation. We are highly

grateful to Chief Conservation Offi cers, Mr. Fanindra Kharel, Chitwan National Park,

Mr. Jagannath Singh and Mr. Nilamber Mishra, Parsa Wildlife Reserve, Mr. Tulsi Ram

Sharma, Bardia National Park, Dr. Jhamak Bahadur Karki, Banke National Park and

Mr. Yuvaraj Regmi, Shuklaphanta Wildlife Reserve for leading the fi eld survey team

and facilitating fi eld work in various ways. We thank the District Forest Offi cers of all

14 Terai districts of the Terai Arc Landscape Nepal for extending their full support and

co-operation for fi eld work. We are extremely thankful to our fi eld team members: staff

of DNWPC, DOF, NTNC, WWF Nepal, Nepal Army, International Trust for Nature

Conservation (ITNC), Nature Guide Association, local communities from Buffer Zones

and Community Forests, and volunteer students from Tribhuvan University, Pokhara

University and Kathmandu University who spend numerous days and nights inside the

jungle to collect data. This study was made possible by the funding support we received

from USAID funded Hariyo Ban Program, DiCaprio Foundation, United States Fish and

Wildlife Service, WWF US, WWF UK and WWF Australia. We are highly thankful to

Ms. Judy Oglethorpe, Hariyo Ban Program, WWF Nepal and Mr. Netra Sharma, USAID

for fi nancing the last minute funding crunch.

Mr. Ravi Singh, Secretary General and CEO of WWF-India, Anil Manandhar of

WWF Nepal, and Mr. Juddha Gurung, NTNC are thanked for their leadership and

TIGERS OF THE TRANSBOUNDARY

TERAI ARC LANDSCAPE

immense support for the program. Dr. Ghana Shyam Gurung and Mr. Shiv Raj

Bhatta of WWF Nepal, Dr. Sejal Worah and Dr. Dipankar Ghose, from WWF-India,

Dr. Eric Wikramanayake and Shubash Lohani from WWF US are thanked for their

instrumental role in building the program, and guiding its progress. We also thank

WWF Tigers Alive Initiative (TAI) for coordination and technical support provided as

and when required.

We thank Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, Mr. Bhagwan Lal Shrestha, Mr. Bikram Kacchyapati,

and Mr. Prabin Rayamajhi and Buddhi Chaudhary of WWF Nepal and Ms. Emily

Gousen, WWF US for taking care of the entire painstaking job of procurement, customs

clearance and organizing the fi eld logistics on time. We thank all the protected area

offi ces in Chitwan NP, Bardia NP, Parsa WR, Banke NP and Shuklaphanta WR;

NTNC fi eld offi ces, Biodiversity Conservation Center, Bardia Conservation Program

and Shuklaphanta Conservation Program for mobilizing fi eld logistics against all

odds. We thank Mr. Bishnu Prasad Thapaliya, Mr. Tika Ram Poudel, Mr. Rupak

Maharjan and Mr. Birendra Kandel in Chitwan NP, Mr. Lal Bahadur Bhandari in

Banke NP, Mr. Ramesh Thapa in Bardia NP, Mr. Manjur Ahmad and Mr. Pramod

Yadav in Parsa WR, Mr. Ram Kumar Aryal (BCC), and Mr. Rabin Kadariya (BCP) for

excellent co-ordination in the fi eld. We thank Ms. Rama Mishra, Mr. Sanjay Dhital, Mr.

Shailendra Yadav, Mr. Suman Malla, Mr. Suryaman Shrestha and Mr. Pallav Regmi

for maintaining the site specifi c database. We are also grateful to TAL fi eld offi ces

in Sauraha and Dhangadhi for their continuous support. We also acknowledge the

support of Sh. N Lodhi, Anil Shirstav, R Shyam, Vijay Pal, Sardeep and Virender from

the WWF-India fi eld offi ces in Pilibhit and Palia for their support in liaison. We are

also grateful for the leadership of Dr. Harish Guleria and Dr. Mudit Gupta from WWFIndia’s

TAL offi ce; they have anchored WWF’s conservation program in this region

and provided key administrative support through the duration of this study. We are

grateful to the Director, Wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dr. V.B Mathur, the Dean and

supportive staff of the WII for extending the institute’s facilities for our use, to develop

this report. We thank Ms. Parabita Basu for arranging the logistics at WII. Finally,

thanks are due to Mr. Ninad Shastri and Ms. Shikha Bisht at the Wildlife Institute ofBIndia for sharing their expertise with the Extract Compare software.L

EEXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

While the conservation of tigers is emphasized in

protected areas throughout their range countries, the

species continues to be distributed in forests of varying

protection status, and in habitats that span international

borders. Although India and Nepal share a long border

in the Terai belt, this area that was once forested is

now largely agricultural, and wildlife is restricted to

remnant forest patches. This study details the status

of tiger and ungulate prey species populations in around 5300 km2 transboundary

Terai Arc Landscape (TAL), documents the movement of tigers between forests in

India and Nepal based on camera trap data and makes specifi c recommendations for

the conservation of tigers and their prey in Transboundary TAL. Notable protected

area within the study area includes Chitwan and Bardia National Parks in Nepal and

Dudhwa and Valmiki Tiger reserves in India.

This study was carried out in 7 protected areas and reserve forests in India, and 5

protected areas, three biological corridors (protected forests) and adjoining forest

patches in Nepal. Occupancy surveys for animal signs involved 4496 kilometres of

foot surveys in Nepal and India. Between November 2012 and June 2013, these sites

were sampled with a total of 1860 camera trap stations, with a total sampling effort of

36,266 trap nights. Nearly 9000 km2 of tiger habitat was sampled with camera traps.

3370 kilometres of line transects (n=239) were sampled in the landscape. Cumulatively,

this sampling exercise is the largest survey effort of its kind in the Terai Arc Landscape

to date, and involved partnerships between National and State government agencies,

research institutions, non-governmental organizations and members of local

communities who participated in the research.

Data analysis was carried out using contemporary analytical methods including site

occupancy models, spatial explicit capture recapture models and distance sampling

framework. Site occupancy was estimated to be 0.55 (0.44-0.66) in Nepal and 0.77

(0.67-0.85) in the region between Nandhaur WLS and Suhelwa WLS in India. A

total of 239 individual adult tigers were identifi ed from camera trap photos, of which

89 were adult males and 145 were adult females. 5 animals could not be ascribed a

gender from camera trap data. Site-specifi c minimum tiger numbers varied from 3

in Banke National Park in Nepal to 78 in Chitwan National Park, also in Nepal. Tiger

numbers and/or abundances in other sites within the Transboundary landscape were

estimated to lie within this range, with notably large populations in Bardia National

Park and Pilibhit Tiger Reserve, and smaller populations in Dudhwa National Park,

and Kishanpur Wildlife Sanctuary and Shuklaphanta Wildlife Reserve. Tiger densities

in the Transboundary Terai Arc Landscape range between 0.16/100 km2 in Banke

National Park, Nepal to 4.9/ 100 km2 in Kishanpur Wildlife Sanctuary, India. Spatial

heterogeneity in tiger densities has been mapped for the entire study area. Densities

of principal ungulate prey species of tigers were found to vary widely across sites, and

while density estimates in some protected areas in Nepal were as high as 92.6/km2

(Bardia National park), they were seven fold lower in other sites in India and Nepal

(13.6 in Dudhwa National Park and 10.7 in Banke National Park).

While habitat connectivity has severely been compromised in this landscape, tigers exist

as one wholly-connected population in the protected areas of Chitwan National Park,

Nepal and Valmiki Tiger Reserve, India as well as in Shuklaphanta Wildlife Reserve,

Nepal and the Lagga-Bagga Block of Pilibhit Tiger Reserve, India. Other than these sites

we photo-documented movement of tigers between Nepal and India along the Khata

corridor (between Bardia National Park and Katerniaghat Wildlife Sanctuary) and

Shuklaphanta - Tatarjanj - Pilibhit Corridor. We failed to document tiger movement

in four other corridors: Boom-Brahmadev, Laljhadi, Basanta, and Kamdi. Forest

connectivity has severely been compromised in these corridors by land use change.

There are notably large differences in tiger and prey densities within and between sites.

This study points to the infl uence of habitat (forest-grassland mosaics and riparian

areas) on the distribution and density of tigers and their prey. However, these factors

alone are likely to provide incomplete explanations for observed patterns. Observed

patterns of tiger and prey densities are likely to also be on account of anthropogenic

pressures on wildlife and their habitats in the form of poaching, livestock grazing and

the entry of large numbers of wood and grass collectors deep into wildlife habitats.

Another signifi cant threat to the survival of tigers and other mammals arises from the

proposed development of new roads in Nepal and India that may severely degrade the

region’s fragile corridors. The establishment of new settlements near existing tiger

habitats constitutes encroachment, and poses a signifi cant challenge for conservation in

some parts of this landscape.

The continued use of two forest corridors between Nepal and India by tigers and other

large mammals is encouraging. The dispersal of tigers between sites plays an important

role in maintaining demographically stable and genetically robust populations. The

most pressing task for conservation is to protect these corridors and to re-establish

connectivity between other sites by restoring corridors that have been eroded by

development and land-use change. There are also signifi cant opportunities to build

conservation and development programs that emphasize the protection of the Terai’s

remnant wilderness areas, while also attending to legitimate needs of forest-dependant

human communities.

This report also identifi es key interventions that are needed to secure the future of

tigers in the Terai. These include policy initiatives, important interventions to create

functional biological corridors, key enforcement and protection measures, prescriptions

for community involvement in conservation and identifying important themes for

future research and monitoring. To set tangible management and conservation targets,

recommended actions under these themes have been listed separately for twenty four

sites in the transboundary TAL.

The future of tigers and other large mammals in Nepal and India are intertwined,

as is the wellbeing of the peoples of the Terai who live along this forested frontier.

Building effective partnerships for conservation between the governments, conservation

organizations and civil society of India and Nepal, and working toward common goals

are imperative to maintain and promote populations of tigers and other endangered

wildlife in this unique eco-regionOF CONTENTS

FORE1. INTRODUCTIONWORDS vii

ACKNOAnimals and plants do not recognize the political and

administrative boundaries that intersect their habitats.

This is true for the multitude of organisms including

insects, birds, mammals and species of other taxonomic

groups that move or migrate across boundaries separating regions, countries and even

continents. Wildlife conservation can therefore be deemed as a global responsibility,

with the survival of species often being dependent on protected habitats that are

distributed across national and geo-political boundaries. Modern conservation practice

has recognized the importance of the ‘landscape approach’ that scales up conservation

initiatives across larger areas, and seeks to combine both protection and sustainable

management of biological diversity.

A transboundary landscape presents us with an opportunity to conserve biodiversity

across a large area which extends well beyond the boundaries of smaller protected areas

within it. One such unique and signifi cant transboundary landscape exists along the

southern boundary of Nepal and the sub-Himalayan region of North India, alluded to as

the “Terai Arc Landscape” (TAL). This unique landscape spans the Himalayan foothills

and adjacent fl ood-plain areas, and holds populations of a variety of endemic and

endangered fl ora and fauna. The Indo-Nepal border allows for the movement of people

and animals that is not impeded by fences or walls. India and Nepal’s ‘open’ border

arrangement provides signifi cant opportunities and challenges for the co-ordinated

conservation of large mammals and other wildlife. This report presents the fi ndings

of extensive monitoring that was conducted to ascertain the status of tigers and their

prey in protected areas and other forests in the transboundary Terai region of India and

Nepal.

1.1 THE TERAI ARC LANDSCAPE

The 49,500 km2 Terai Arc Landscape (hereafter referred to as TAL) is situated in the

foothills of the Himalayas and proximate plains, and includes around 15 protected areas

of Nepal and India. The Indian portion of TAL, stretching from the Yamuna River in

the west to Valmiki Tiger Reserve, Bihar in the east, spreads across fi ve states along

the Shivaliks and Gangetic plain. The Nepal part is distributed across 14 districts from

Rautahat in the east to Kanchanpur in the west and contains six protected areas. The

landscape contains almost all the forests of the Shivalik and Terai regions of India,

and over 75% of the remaining forests of the Terai, and Churia and Shivalik foothills in

Nepal. Since its recognition as a conservation landscape of global importance by various

scientists and NGOs (WWF, 2000; Wikramanayake et al., 2004; Sanderson et al.,

2006), numerous projects have been developed to conserve populations of threatened

wildlife and ecosystems in the landscape. Pioneering long-term studies on the ecology

of tigers and other large mammals have been carried out in Chitwan National Park (NP)

and other sites in Nepal since the 1970s (Seindensticker, 1976; Laurie, 1978; Sunquist,

1981; Dinerstein & Price, 1991; Jnawali, 1995), and more recently in India (Johnsingh

et al., 2004; Harihar et al., 2009; Jhala et al., 2011). These and other studies have been

the basis for the formulation of creative strategies to conserve biodiversity through

scientifi c understanding and partnerships among multiple stake-holders including

local communities, government agencies, academic institutions, NGOs and donors.

Conservation efforts in recent years have largely focussed on populations of largeixmammals such as tiger, elephant and rhino that range over large areas. These species

are often described as charismatic, and there is global concern for their conservation.

They therefore serve as umbrella species and enable promotion of wider biodiversity

conservation objectives at regional scale, while also generating funds for conservation

and sustainable development in areas close to wildlife habitats.

This remarkable transboundary landscape comprises of three distinct geographical and

physiographical zones (Johnsingh et al., 2004):

(i) Shivaliks (known as Churia in Nepal) are the southernmost and geologically

youngest range of the Himalayas and are characterized by sandstone and

conglomerate rock formations. They run parallel to the southern boundary of the

lesser Himalayan ranges, and are sometimes indistinguishable from them.

(ii) Bhabar is characterized by a low gradient terrain with coarse alluvium and

boulders, and Sal (Shorea robusta), mixed and miscellaneous vegetation

communities. Such areas are associated with the lesser Himalayan ranges, and the

lower slopes of the Shivaliks. Wide, rocky, porous streambeds (raus) are a defi ning

feature of the Bhabar zone.

(iii) Terai is characterized by fi ne alluvium and clay rich swamps which support a

mosaic of tall grasslands, wetlands and mixed deciduous forests dominated by

Sal (Shorea robusta) forest. These habitats exist along the fl ood-plains of many

streams and rivers that originate in the Himalayas.

Of these zones within the TAL, the Terai in particular has been listed among the

globally important 200 ecoregions for its unique Terai-Duar Savannas and Grasslands

(Olson and Dinerstein, 1998). These alluvial fl oodplain grasslands are regarded as the

world’s tallest grasslands, with some grass species growing higher than seven meters.

TAL is a biologically diverse eco-region that is home to 86 species of mammals, >600

species of birds, 47 species of herpeto-fauna, 126 species of fi sh, and over 2,100 species

of fl owering plants (Flemming et al., 1976; lnskipp and Inskipp, 1991 Maskey, 1989

and Shah, 1995). Three Level I Tiger Conservation Units (TCUs) (Chitwan-Parsa-

Valmiki, Bardia-Banke, and Rajaji-Corbett) and two Level II TCUs (Dudwa-Kailali

and Shuklaphanta-Kishanpur) form part of this landscape (Dinerstein et al., 1997).

The tall alluvial fl oodplain grassland and subtropical deciduous forests of TAL support

one of the highest recorded densities of tiger (Panthera tigris) in the world (Sunquist,

2010), and the second largest population of greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros

unicornis) (Dinerstein and Price, 1991). Other notable wildlife species include Asiatic

elephant (Elephas maximus); gaur (Bos gaurus); sloth bear (Ursus ursinus); dhole

(Cuon alpinus); 12 species of wild cervids and bovids; 11 species of canids and felids;

and the critically endangered Gangetic dolphin (Palatanista gangetica) and gharial

(Gavialis gangeticus). These and other plant and animal species contribute to the Terai

Arc Landscape’s global biodiversity signifi cance. Given that tiger and other species exist

in populations that are small, fragmented and threatened by various anthropogenic

pressures, the TAL has also been recognized as a high priority conservation landscape

(Johnsingh et al., 2004, Wikramanayake et al., 2004).

TAL lies between the Mahakali (Sharda) River in the west and the Bagmati River in the

east, and contains four forest management categories: protected areas, reserveforest,

protected forest (corridors) and community-managed forests. In Nepal, Parsa Wildlife

Reserve, Chitwan National Park, Banke National Park, Bardia National Park and

Shuklaphanta Wildlife Reserve sustain tiger populations. In India, Dudhwa National

Park, Pilibhit Tiger Reserve (formerly Forest Division), Kishanpur Wildlife Sanctuary

(WLS), Katerniaghat Wildlife Sanctuary, Valmiki Tiger Reserve, and Nandhaur Wildlife

Sanctuary hold resident tiger populations. Other sites such as Suhelwa and Sohagibarua

WLSs appear to have sporadic tiger presence.

The conquest of malaria, and subsequent large-scale expansion of agriculture and human

settlement, particularly over the past fi ve decades, has resulted in fragmentation

and degradation of forest and grassland habitats in the landscape. Consequently the

distribution of species such as one-horned rhinoceros, swamp deer (Cervus duvauceli),

hog deer (Axis porcinus), gaur and wild buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) are now greatly

restricted. The continuing loss of forests and grasslands in the Indian TAL, and more

commonly in Nepal, poses daunting challenges for wildlife conservation efforts. There

is an urgent need to arrest the loss of wildlife habitats through proactive conservation

measures and policy interventions that recognize and seek to maintain functional

ecosystems and biodiversity in the Terai. In particular, there is a need for government

support to restore and maintain habitat connectivity by protecting fragile corridors,

and to protect remnant forest and grassland patches in the TAL from the impacts of ongoing

and proposed infrastructure development and encroachment.

Recognizing these threats, conservation groups and government research agencies

agree that an overarching vision for conservation in the TAL is to restore connectivity

between large habitat blocks and to connect habitat islands with the Churia-Shivalik

hill forests in Nepal and India (Johnsingh et al., 2004; Wikramanayake et al., 2004;

Jhala et al., 2011). Achieving these targets will provide dispersal corridors and

migration paths for tiger, rhino, elephant and many other species, which are crucial for

maintaining functional eco-systems and gene fl ow.

Currently, there are thirteen protected areas and various other forests with lower

protection status (Table 1) in the transboundary landscape, and they serve as key sites

for tiger conservation. Some of these forests are contiguous with one another (e.g.

Chitwan NP in Nepal and Valmiki TR in India). Connectivity between other forests in

India and Nepal is through well delineated forest corridors (e.g. the Khata corridor

between Bardia NP and Katerniaghat WLS). However, most corridors between the

two countries now exist in the form of narrow wilderness patches and water channels

that have been hemmed in by human settlements and agriculture development, and

dissected by roads and highways (e.g. the Laljhadi corridor between Dudhwa NP and

Shuklaphanta WR; Basanta corridor between Dudhwa NP and Bardia NP via National

Forests in Nepal, and Kamdi corridor connecting Banke NP and Suhelwa WLS).

Transboundary conservation is important both because some TAL wildlife populations

and ecosystem functions are shared across the border, and because forests in both

nations serve to provision fuel wood, fodder and other resources for the region’s large

and rapidly growing human population. While there are signifi cant opportunities for

wildlife conservation in the transboundary TAL, such as the restoration of important

corridors and improved protection and community conservation initiatives, there are

daunting challenges as well. Notably, several new infrastructure development projects

have been conceived or initiated in both countries in the interest of national security

and development. However, these projects (e.g. highways and railways in the border

districts of Nepal and India) can have severe adverse effects on wildlife populations and

habitats. The development of new roads will further fragment wildlife habitats (WWFIndia,

2014), and adversely affect the behavior and survival of tigers and other species

(Kerley et al., 2002; Fahrig and Rytwinski, 2009). Encroachment of wildlife habitats

and hunting are also complicated threats of great concern.

Atthe time of its conception, this conservation vision for the TAL was merely an idea

on paper and needed a lot of work make it a reality. A feasibility study for the entire

TAL was conducted in 2001 by WWF’s tiger conservation program. This preliminary

study identifi ed potential corridors, described their status and pin-pointed ‘bottleneck

areas’ where forest connectivity was severely compromised. The Government of Nepal

endorsed the Terai Arc Landscape Program in 2001 in Nepal, which was a landmark

for conservation in the region. In the Indian part of TAL, a more detailed study at

landscape scale was conducted by Johnsingh et al. (2004). From that survey, 9 tiger

habitat blocks (THBs) were identifi ed in the Indian part of TAL, which were pooled into

fi ve larger tiger units (TUs) using connectivity through forests.

While the conservation strategy envisaged for the TAL is centered on habitat and

connectivity (see Wikramanayake et al., 2004; Johnsingh et al., 2004), there is a

general consensus that there is an urgent need to extend conservation efforts and

Iprotect all the forest patches of the landscape (both inside and outside PAs). In addition

to serving as important habitats for the region’s wildlife, conserving forest outside

protected areas and restoring degraded forests will ensure the continued provisioning

of fuel-wood and other forest resources for millions of forest-dependent people who live

in and around TAL’s forests.

1.2 MOTIVATION FOR COORDINATED MONITORING AND

JOINT REPORTING

Though regular tiger monitoring programs have been institutionalized in both Nepal

and India, there has been very little formal collaboration or data sharing to date

between the two countries. As a result, there has been a paucity of information on

the actual status of corridors that lie along the international border and their use by

tigers and other large mammals. In order to develop a better understanding of the

distribution, abundance and movement of tigers in this transboundary landscape

and develop effective conservation strategies, coordinated surveys were planned and

implemented in the transboundary TAL. Several consultative meetings involving the

two governments and their NGO partners were organized to streamline and coordinate

a joint tiger survey in 2013, and to promote other collaboration for conservation.

This report presents fi ndings on the status of tiger population in the trans-border

Terai Arc Landscape (TAL). It provides the most comprehensive information to date

on the status, distribution and movement of tigers in a large portion of the Terai Arc

Landscape. Estimates of prey populations have also been included where available. The

survey was made possible by the cooperation and shared vision for conservation among

the Governments of India and Nepal, and organizations and agencies that partnered in

the monitoring exercise, namely WWF Nepal, WWF-India, National Trust for Nature

Conservation (NTNC) and the state forest departments of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar in

India, along with National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) of the Government of

India and Wildlife Institute of India.

OBJECTIVES

Objectives of the coordinated surveys were:

1. To estimate tiger abundance and density in protected areas and other tiger habitats

in the trans-border Terai Arc Landscape

2. To estimate prey density in protected areas and other tiger habitats in the transborder

Terai Arc Landscape

3. To identify individual tigers which occupy forests in both India and Nepal, and

delineate functional corridors, and corridors that have been severed and need

restoration.

4. To identify opportunities and challenges for transboundary conservation and make

specifi c recommendations for future action.

2. STUDY

AREA

The focal area of this study, the transboundary TAL, extends from

the Bagmati River in the east to the Mahakali River (Sharda River

in India) in the west. Within this region, there are fi ve tiger bearing

protected areas in Nepal: Parsa Wildlife Reserve, Chitwan National

Park, Banke National Park, Bardia National Park and Shuklaphanta

Wildlife Reserve; and seven protected areas in India: Valmiki

Tiger Reserve, Sohagibarwa Wildlife Sanctuary, Suhelwa Wildlife

Sanctuary, Katerniaghat Wildlife Sanctuary, Dudhwa National Park, Kishanpur Wildlife

Sanctuary and Pilibhit Tiger Reserve (formerly Pilibhit Reserve Forest) (Figure 2).

These PAs lie along the international border and are connected via several northsouth

forest corridors that extend between the two nations (Table 1). On the 600 km

long international border in TAL, 250 km have forested habitat located in PAs and

surrounding forest.

2.1 PROTECTED AREAS IN THE TRANSBOUNDARY TAL

2.1.1 Parsa Wildlife Reserve (PWR)

PWR (N: 27.1330 to 27.5498; E: 84.6581 to 85.0245) is located in the south central

lowland of Nepal (Figure 2) and covers an area of 499 km2. It occupies parts of Chitwan,

Makwanpur, Parsa and Bara districts of Nepal and is contiguous with Chitwan National

Park in the west and Valmiki Tiger Reserve in the southwest via Chitwan forest and

therefore provides potential habitat for dispersing tigers from Chitwan NP.

2.1.2. Chitwan National Park

Chitwan NP (N: 27.2836 to 27.7038; E: 83.8457 to 84.7472) has an area of 932 km2

and is situated in south-central lowland Terai (Figure 2). It was gazetted as Nepal’s

fi rst national park in 1973 and is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The Chitwan NP is

contiguous with PWR to the east and Valmiki Tiger Reserve to the south, forming the

Chitwan-Parsa-Valmiki Tiger Conservation Landscape. This landscape forms a level I

Tiger Conservation Unit and supports one of the largest tiger populations in South Asia

(Wikramanayake et al., 1998; Dinerstein et al., 2007). The Rapti, Reu and Narayani

rivers fl ow through the park and form the northern, southern and western boundary of

the park respectively.

FIGURE 2

Protected areas

and corridors in

Transboundary TAL2.1.3. Valmiki Tiger Reserve

Valmiki TR (N: 27.1667 to 27.50000; E: 83.8333 to 84.1667) has an area of 901 km2.

The only tiger reserve of Bihar State, India, VTR is located in the extreme north-eastern

corner along the international border with Nepal (Figure 2) in West Champaran

district. In the west the reserve is bounded by the Gandak River. It is contiguous with

Nepal’s Chitwan National Park to the north, sharing a boundary of approximately ~100

km along which is forested habitat. It is also tenuously connected with Sohagibarwa

Wildlife Sanctuary in Uttar Pradesh, India.

2.1.4. Sohagibarwa Wildlife Sanctuary

Sohagibarwa WLS (N: 27.27143 to 27.17232; E: 83.82282 to 83.44178) covers an area

of 482 km2. The Sanctuary is located in Maharajganj District of eastern Uttar Pradesh

in India (Figure 2) and is a major visitor place in the district. The sanctuary sometimes

acts as corridor for wildlife between PAs of Nepal and India. The Sanctuary is connected

with the western part of Valmiki Tiger Reserve.

2.1.5. Banke National Park

Banke NP (N: 27.9686 to 28.3384; E: 81.6603 to 82.2054) was declared as Nepal’s

tenth national park in 2010. It covers an area of 550 km2 and is surrounded by a buffer

zone of 344 km2, in the districts of Banke, Salyan and Dang. It is bordered by two rivers,

Rapti and Babai. Contiguous to Bardia National Park in the west (Figure 2), Banke

NP provides additional habitat for breeding tigers to support the Nepal Government’s

commitment of doubling tiger numbers by 2022 (DNPWC, 2009; NTRP, 2010).

Banke National Park is connected with Suhelwa Wildlife Sanctuary via national and

community forests in Nepal.

2.1.6. Suhelwa Wildlife Sanctuary

Suhelwa WLS (N: 27.8723 to 27.5594; E: 81.9259 to 82.7431) has an area of 636 km2.

The Sanctuary lies in Balrampur and Shravasti districts of eastern Uttar Pradesh, India

(Figure 2). Along its north-south axis the forests are narrow (3-7 km wide), and the

habitat is part-Bhabar, part Terai. The northern boundary of Suhelwa (about ~100 km

in length) lies on the Indo-Nepal border, and the forests of Suhelwa are contiguous with

forests in Nepal along this border. The western fl ank of the sanctuary is connected with

the newly created Banke National Park through a corridor in Nepal.

2.1.7. Bardia National Park

Bardia NP (N: 28.2630 to 28.6711; E: 81.1360 to 81.7645) covers an area of 968 km2

and is located in the mid-western lowlands in Bardia and Banke districts, Nepal (Figure

2). The park comprises two distinct units, the Karnali fl oodplain and the Babai valley.

The former is situated in the western part of the park and is a biodiversity hotspot with

a large mammalian assemblage. The Babai river valley extends from Parewaodar to

Chepang and is a wilderness zone comprised of alluvial grasslands and forests, covering

more than 50% of the park.

2.1.8. Katerniaghat Wildlife Sanctuary

Katerniaghat WLS (N: 28.365699 to 28.151679; E: 81.036230 to 81.364464) covers an

area of 400 km2 located in the Upper Gangetic Plain in the Terai in Bahraich District,

Uttar Pradesh, India (Figure 2). It is connected with Bardia National Park via the

Khata corridor in Nepal. The Girwa (Karnali) river and a major canal fl ow through this

sanctuary, which is a part of Dudhwa Tiger Reserve. Other areas of the sanctuary are

disturbed because the narrow forest is dissected by a railway line and several roads.

2.1.9. Dudhwa National Park

Dudhwa NP (N: 28.3000 to 28.7000; E: 80.4667 to 80.9500) covers an area of 680

km2. The park is located in Lakhimpur Kheri District of Uttar Pradesh, India (Figure 2).

The park has a number of large wetlands and alluvial grasslands. Historically, this park

was famed for its Sal timber, and later as a premier hunting area. Dudhwa NP is a part

of Dudhwa Tiger Reserve.

2.1.10. Kishanpur Wildlife Sanctuary

Kishanpur WLS (N: 28.453158 to 28.229001; E: 80.340415 to 80.471578) straddles

Gola Tehsil in Lakhimpur District and the Powayan Tehsil in Shahjehanpur District

in Uttar Pradesh, India (Figure 2). It lies on the southern side of the Sharda river and

covers an area of 227 km2. The area of the Sanctuary was once part of the South Kheri

Forest Division, and the Sharada River fl ows along a section of its eastern boundary.

This site is also a constituent area of Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, and is connected with

South Kheri Forest Division.

2.1.11. Pilibhit Tiger Reserve (formerly Forest Division)

Pilibhit Tiger Reserve (N: 28.8667 to 28.7667; E: 79.9167 to 82.2500) covers an

area of 1074 km2 and is located in Pilibhit District of Uttar Pradesh, India (Figure

2). It is connected with the terai-bhabar forests of the Surai range in the Terai East

Forest Division (FD) in the north-west, and with Kishanpur WLS in the south-east.

This reserve also provides connectivity to Shuklaphanta Wildlife Reserve, and with

Kishanpur WLS in India, through the Lagga-Bagga forest block, and Tatarganj area of

North Kheri FD.

2.1.12. Shuklaphanta Wildlife Reserve

Shuklaphanta WR (N: 28.7193 to 29.0515; E: 80.0609 to 80.4120) covers 305 km2.

Located in the far-western lowland of Nepal (Figure 2) it is bordered by the Chaudhar

river to the east and Mahakali river to the west. It is connected with two tiger reserves

in India: Pilibhit and Dudhwa in the south via narrow links of Churia forests and the

Laljhadi and Basanta corridors; and the eastern part of Indian Terai Arc Landscape

across Mahakali River through the Brahmadev corridor.

2.1.13. Nandhaur Wildlife Sanctuary

Nandhaur WLS (N: 29.191 to 29.046; E: 79.675 to 80.032) covers 260 km2 in the State

of Uttarakhand, India (Figure 2) and was created in 2012. Located in the Bhabar zone

and the lower Himalayas, the sanctuary contains steep mountains and rocky valleys

with montane and lowland deciduous forests. Nandhaur WLS shares boundaries with

Haldwani, Champawat and Terai East Forest Divisions in India and the Brahmadev

forests across the Sharda (Mahakali) river in Nepal. Connectivity between Nandhaur

and the Corbett Forest complex to the West and the Pilibhit-Kishanpur Forest Complex

to the south is thought to have been severely disrupted by land use changes in recent

decades.

2.2 VEGETATION TYPES

According to Dinerstein (1979), Terai vegetation is sub-tropical and can be broadly

classifi ed into six major types. These are listed below, along with other vegetation

communities in transboundary TAL.

2.2.1. High Density Sal forest

More than 70% of the Terai forest is dominated by Sal (Shorea robusta), a Dipterocarp

species dominant in the region’s climax-stage forests. Common Sal associates are

Buchnania latifolia, Terminalia arjuna, T. latifolia, Dillinia pentagyna and Lagerstromia

parvifl ora. The understorey comprises primarily of Clerodendron viscosum,

Colebrookia oppositifolia, Callicarpa macrophylla, Flemengia spp, Phylanthus spp

and Pogostemon bengalensis.

2.2.2. Hill Sal forest

Hill Sal forest occurs along the southern slopes of the Shivaliks to the north, mostly in

Nepal. The major dominant tree species in Hill Sal Forest are Shorea robusta, Terminalia

alata, Careya arborea, Buchanania latifolia, Lagerostroemia parvifl ora, Semicarpus

anacardium and Syzygium cumini.

2.2.3. Riverine forests

Forests on fl ood plains and riverine alluvium along the major river systems of the Terai

belt primarily contain Acacia catechu and Dalbergia sissoo, which withstand fl ooding

and are early woody colonizers of grassland vegetation during the process of natural

succession. Riverine forests occur along the banks of the Rapti, Reu, Pandai, Manor,

Pachnand and Narayani (Gandak in India) rivers in eastern TAL; Khauraha, Karnali

(Geruwa in India), Babai, Rapti and Bheri rivers in central TAL; and Mahakali (Sharda

river in India), Mohana and Suheli rivers including several rivulets of these river

systems in the western portion of TAL. Moist riverine forests are also characterized by

evergreen tree species such as Ficus racemosa, Cassia fi stula, Syzygium cumini and

Mallotus philippensis. Other tree species associated with riverine vegetation include

Ehretia laevis and Trewia nudifl ora along with a shrub layer of Murraya koenigii, Callicarpa

macrophylla, Coffi a spp. and Colebrookia oppositifolia.n

2.2.4. Mixed hardwood forests

The Terai has several belts of mixed hardwood forest dominated by Shorea robusta,

Bombax ceiba, Mallotus philippensis, Adina cordifolia, Lagerstroemia parvifl ora and

Dalbergia sissoo. The understorey layer is dominated by coarse grasses such as Imperata

cylindrica, Erianthus ravennae and Vetiveria zizanioides. This vegetation differs

from wooded grassland on the basis of the remarkable tree density and the conspicuous

shrub layer dominated by Colebrookia oppositifolia, Pogostemon plectranthoides,

Clerodendron viscosum and Murraya koenigii (Dinerstein 1979).

2.2.5. Grasslands and Phantas

There are three types of grassland in TAL: tall fl oodplain grassland, open grassland and

wooded grassland. These vegetation types are at different successional stages and under

certain conditions will progressively change into shrub lands, woodlands and forest.

2.2.5.1. Tall fl oodplain grassland

The fl oodplain grasslands are established and maintained as a secondary seral stage

as a result of monsoon fl ooding and other fl uvial actions (Dinerstein 1979). Prominent

species of the tall grass community are Saccharum spontaneum, Narenga porphyrocoma,

Themeda arundinacea and Phragmitis karka. These riparian grasslands provide

good habitat for hog deer.

2.2.5.2. Open grasslands

Areas that were previously cultivated fi elds often develop into “phanta” grasslands.

Several villages were relocated when Nepal hunting reserves were upgraded to national

park or wildlife reserve status. Phantas include: Baghaura, Khauraha, Lamkauli,

Sanoshree, Thuloshree, Chepang and Guthi in Bardia NP; Rambhori in Parsa WR;

Padampur in Chitwan NP; and Hirapurphanta in Shuklaphanta WR. Some grasslands

of this type are also found near Kishanpur village in Kishanpur WLS and in the portions

of Dudhwa National Park and Pilibhit Forest Division. The dominant grass species in

phantas are Imperata cylindrica, Desmostachya bipinnata, Arundo donax, Phragmites

karka, Cymbopogon spp, Eragrostis spp and Sporobolus spp.

2.5.3. Wooded grasslands

This type of vegetation is defi ned by sparsely-distributed Bombax ceiba (silk cotton)

and associated tree species, with various grasses in the under storey. The role of Bombax

ceiba in the succession patterns of this particular habitat is of utmost importance

since it is resistant to fi re, grazing and fl ooding, the three important factors which play

the role in shaping the vegetation composition in Bardia NP (Dinerstein 1979), and

other fl ood-prone areas in the Terai. Associated tree species that occur sporadically in

such grasslands include Shorea robusta, Bombax ceiba, Mallotus philippensis, Adina

cordifolia, Lagerstroemia parvifl ora and Dalbergia sisso. The understorey layer is

dand a conservation area that together cover approximately 14% of the land in Nepal’s

Terai region. Management in the core areas is regulated by DNPWC and protection

is provided by the Nepal Army in collaboration with park staff (Appendix III). With

regard to access of local human populations to forest resources, each park/reserve has

its own specifi c set of regulations that has been endorsed by the government. Some

parks grant access to local people for certain periods each year to collect grass and

thatch. A number of buffer zone forests are managed by buffer zone community forest

user groups (to whom such areas are handed over for management by the government).

In these areas communities have access to fuel-wood, fodder and timber based on

buffer zone community forest operational plans. In addition 30-50% of a park’s

annual revenue is provided to the buffer zone communities through the buffer zone

management council and buffer zone user committees.

Other forests outside protected areas in Nepal are managed by the Department of

Forests under six different categories: government managed forest (national forest),

protection forest (corridor forest in Terai), leasehold forest, collaborative forest,

religious forest and community forest. Community forests are the forests handed over

to community forest users groups (CFUGs) by district forest offi ces for development,

protection, utilization and management of natural resources (Appendix III).

2.3.2. TAL India

In British India, forestry operations were well established in Kheri, Pilibhit and

Bhariach districts by the last quarter of the 17th century. In their aspiration to

administer the Terai more effi ciently and make it productive, the British encouraged

settlement and provided incentives to people to move into the Terai and clear its forests

to establish farmland. At the time of India’s independence large patches of forest had

already been cleared, and existing forests were under the management regime of the

government’s Forest Service, guided by lengthy working plans. For the fi rst three

decades following India’s independence the government continued to actively settle

migrants in the Terai, and with the aid of bulldozers and modern insecticides, they

‘sanitized’ the Terai and transformed large portions of wilderness into a productive

agricultural belt. Tigers were hunted as a sport through the imperial period and for

about two decades after independence. While there is little evidence of large-scale loss

of forest cover in the Terai following India’s independence in 1947, it is evident that

extensive patches of swamp and primary-succession riparian habitats along streams

and rivers have been drained and converted into agricultural areas. With this land

conversion and growing human settlements, connectivity between several prominent

forests in India such as Dudhwa, Kishanpur-Pilibhit and Katerniaghat via riparian

tracts and grasslands was lost by the 1980s.

In India, forests in the Terai are managed either as protected areas (tiger reserves,

national parks and sanctuaries) or as reserve forests. While protected areas are

designated as exclusive zones for the preservation of wildlife, reserve forests permit

extraction of some forest resources by the public, and government sanctioned selective

felling of Sal and other trees. Protected areas comprise core and buffer zones, and while

core zones are largely out-of-bounds for local populations and tourists, buffer zone

forests are used extensively by local populations, primarily for extraction of fuel-wood

and fodder. The management of each protected area (protection, habitat management,

TERAI ARC LANDSCAPE

IS POPULATED BY 8,048,006

PEOPLE WITH A

POPULATION DENSITY

OF 346.91 PEOPLE PER

KM2iatourism and community rights) is guided by a management plan that is periodically

updated (Appendix III). Eco-development committees (EDCs) involving collaboration

between Forest Department and forest dependent village communities have been

created in the tiger reserves. However, in many areas these EDCs do not function as

envisioned, and there is thus limited community involvement in conservation and

forest management. a2.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC

Originally the only indigenous communities living in Terai were Tharu and Buxa.

Today, on the Nepal side communities also include Madhesi, Brahmin, Chettris,

Magars and Gurung. In India, in addition to the indigenous Tharu communities, there

are many other groups including Sikh, Bengalis and migrants from other areas. The

Nepal portion of the TAL is populated by 8,048,006 people with a population density

of 346.91 people per km2 (CBS, 2011). The population in TAL Nepal has increased by

126% since the 1980s, with an annual growth rate of 3.15% (CBS, 2011). Another 20

million people reside in TAL India, where the population has increased by as much as

54.2% which is 9% above the national average (WWF-India, 2014). The average annual

income for a person is US $100.

Forests are used extensively for livestock grazing and also for fodder and fuel wood

collection. The majority of people rely on fuel wood as their main source of energy for

cooking, i.e. 61% and 93% of households in TAL-Nepal and TAL-India respectively

(WWF-India, 2014). Animal husbandry is integral to the livelihoods of communities

practicing subsistence agriculture. The livestock population in TAL Nepal is 3.5 million

as per the most recent census (CBS, 2011). In TAL India, Uttar Pradesh has a livestock

population of approximately 3.5 million, and in West Champaran district of Bihar there

are about 810,000 livestock (www.indiastats.com, 2011 livestock census).

2.5 INSTITUTIONAL SETUP FOR TIGER SURVEY

The following sections describe the institutional arrangements for the survey in each

country.

2.5.1. Nepal

Under Nepal’s nationally approved tiger monitoring protocol, the tiger survey was

planned to establish monitoring standards and implement the fi rst of a series of

four-yearly surveys. The Fourth National Tiger Coordination Committee (NTCC)

meeting chaired by the Prime Minister formally endorsed the 2013 national tiger and

prey monitoring in Nepal. The survey involved formation of advisory and technical

committees at the central level and fi eld task forces at each protected area level. The

advisory committee played an overall counselling role, and comprised the Director

General, DNPWC, Member Secretary of the National Trust for Nature Conservation

(NTNC), and the Country Representative, WWF Nepal. The technical committee,

comprising the Ecologist of DNPWC, Under Secretary of DoF and Biologists from

WWF Nepal and NTNC, co-ordinated and facilitated all planning and implementation

of the fi eld work. WWF Nepal Biologists were an integral part of designing the study.

The fi eld task force was led by the Chief Conservation Offi cer of each protected area,

and Biologists from WWF Nepal and NTNC. Outside protected areas, District Forest

Offi cers were the focal persons for co-ordinating the tiger occupancy survey. This

team took responsibility for training fi eld personnel, mobilizing the fi eld operation,

and overall monitoring and supervision of the survey. The database was maintained at

NTNC fi eld offi ces and centrally at NTNC, WWF Nepal and DNPWC.

2.5.2. India

Sampling in the tiger reserves was carried out broadly adhering to the guidelines of

the National Tiger Conservation Authority, New Delhi for phase IV monitoring, or the

intensive monitoring of ‘source’ populations (NTCA, 2012). In non-PA areas, surveys

were part of the on-going conservation and monitoring programs of WWF-India. The

Forest Departments of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar were partners in these surveys and

extended permits and provided logistical support. The Chief Wildlife Wardens of each

state, and the Field Directors and Deputy Directors of the parks were nodal offi cers

from the Government of India. The surveys in UP were designed by researchers from

WWF-India, in collaboration with Biologists from Colorado State University, and the

Wildlife Institute of India. Fieldwork was carried out by a WWF-India team, which was

aided by fi eld staff of the State Forest Departments.

More recently, identities of individual tigers from both countries have been integrated

into the WII-NTCA tiger database (http://projecttiger.nic.in/whtsnew/Protocol_

Camera_trap.pdf).nd

3.1. TIGER HABITAT OCCUPANCY

A tiger habitat occupancy survey was conducted across TAL

Nepal covering all potential tiger habitats. Ninety-six grid

cells, each 15 x 15 km2, were laid across TAL from Rautahat

in the east to Kanchanpur in the west (Figure 3). Fifty-three

grid cells fell outside PAs and buffer zones; the rest were inside.

The fi eld team walked transects along trails, roads, ridgelines, and river and stream

beds searching for tiger signs (scats, scrapes, pugmarks, kills and urination sites); prey

signs (dung, footprints, calls, sightings); and signs of human disturbance (wood cutting,

lopping, grazing, poaching, etc.) in the area. Data were recorded every 100 m along

the transects, giving a total sampling effort of 2,319 km. The fi eld work started on 5th

February in Kanchanpur and ended on 5th April, 2013 in RautahatIn India, the most recent occupancy surveys in TAL were done in 2010, and involved

a survey of 60 cells (166 km2) lying between and including Nandhaur WLS and

Suhelwa WLS (Chanchani et al., unpublished report). Similar to Nepal, cells were

intensively sampled by observers on foot who searched for tiger signs. Surveys used

two groups of independent observers for each cell, and the cumulative survey effort was

approximately 2000 km. Details of occupancy surveys in other areas of TAL India are

documented in Jhala et al. (2008 and 2011).

3.2. TIGER POPULATION ESTIMATION

The estimation of population parameters such as abundance (N) and density (D)

forms an integral part of wildlife monitoring programs. In the case of the tiger which

is an elusive species, and has unique identifi cation patterns in individual animals,

photographic capture-recapture is a reliable method for estimating populationNabundance. Capture-recapture models provide a statistically robust framework for this,

particularly when a population is said to be closed to births, deaths and the immigration

or emigration of animals during the survey period (Karanth and Nichols, 2002).

3.3. CAPTURE-RECAPTURE SAMPLING FOR TIGERS

Tiger populations were sampled with camera traps distributed in ca. 9000 km2 of the

Shivalik, Bhabar and Terai habitats across the transboundary Terai Arc Landscape. Our

sampling was determined by the size of the protected area (PA), availability of camera

units and fi eld personnel, other logistical constraints, and study design (Karanth and

Nichols, 2002). Because large areas were sampled, camera trapping was conducted in

shifting blocks (similar to Royle et al., 2009a) in each PA including the surrounding

forests which were divided into 3-4 blocks. Pairs of cameras were placed in a total

1,804 locations, in 12 protected areas and reserve forests along the border between

the two nations (Table 3 & Appendix IV). To maximize spatial coverage and achieve a

near-uniform distribution of camera traps, we placed camera traps in most cells of a

2x2 km grid overlaid on a map of the study region. In each station, two cameras were

placed facing each other at a height of 45 cm above ground and were mounted on trees

or posts on either side of a forest trail or road, with a distance of 6-8 m between the two

cameras. Camera trap sampling was carried out in the period between December 2012

and June 2013.

Sites for camera trap stations were selected on the basis of extensive fi eld surveys for

signs of tiger, including pugmarks, scrapes and scats, as well as the presence of water.

Detailed site-specifi c information on camera trapping is presented in Appendix IV. Sign

surveys in Suhelwa Wildlife Sanctuary indicated that the area was unlikely to support

a resident population of tigers; because of constraints of resources (available camera

traps and time) we did not conduct camera trapping in Suhelwa, nor in Nandhaur or

Sohagibarwa sanctuaries in 2013.

3.4. SAMPLING EFFORT

Camera trapping was conducted with an intensive effort of 36,266 trap days covering

9111.78 km2 across the PAs in transboundary TAL. Six different models of camera were

used (Reconyx 500, Reconyx 550, Bushnell Trophy Cam HD, Moultrie, Stealth Cam and

Cuddeback Attack).

Nepal: A total of 268 trained personnel affi liated with DNPWC, DoF, NTNC, WWF

Nepal, International Trust for Nature Conservation (ITNC), Nepal Army, nature guides,

buffer zone user committees and students from various universities were involved

in data collection over 17,628 man days. In several sites, sampling was conducted in

remote areas with very limited road access.

India: In Uttar Pradesh, fi eld work was carried out by fi eld biologists affi liated to

WWF-India. These biologists were aided by fi eld assistants from forest-fringe villages.

Staff of the state Forest Department contributed to the monitoring exercise by regular

patrolling to protect cameras from theft and vandalism. In Bihar, monitoring wasdesigned, led and coordinated by fi eld biologists of WWF-India and implemented by

staff of Valmiki Tiger Reserve.

3.5. LINE TRANSECT SURVEYS FOR PREY-BASE DENSITY

ESTIMATION

Densities of prey species in the protected areas were estimated using variable distance

line transect sampling (Buckland et al. 2005). In Nepal, line transects were placed systematically

in the camera trapping grid cells, avoiding areas with hilly terrain that were

relatively inaccessible. The length of transects varied from 2 to 4 km. GPS locations of

the start and end points of each transect were uploaded into a GPS prior to the survey

and the straight line was navigated following the actual bearing using a Suunto compass

and GPS. Two people surveyed each transect on foot or from the elephant-back between

0630 hrs and 0930 hours, and each were repeated twice. Elephants were used in tall

fl ood plain grasslands. 985 line transects were surveyed across the Terai PAs and the

overall sampling effort was 2,470.25 km of transect (Table 4).

21

designed, led and coordinated by fi eld biologists of WWF-India and implemented by

staff of Valmiki Tiger Reserve.

3.5. LINE TRANSECT SURVEYS FOR PREY-BASE DENSITY

ESTIMATION

Densities of prey species in the protected areas were estimated using variable distance

line transect sampling (Buckland et al. 2005). In Nepal, line transects were placed systematically

in the camera trapping grid cells, avoiding areas with hilly terrain that were

relatively inaccessible. The length of transects varied from 2 to 4 km. GPS locations of

the start and end points of each transect were uploaded into a GPS prior to the survey

and the straight line was navigated following the actual bearing using a Suunto compass

and GPS. Two people surveyed each transect on foot or from the elephant-back between

0630 hrs and 0930 hours, and each were repeated twice. Elephants were used in tall

fl ood plain grasslands. 985 line transects were surveyed across the Terai PAs and the

overall sampling effort was 2,470.25 km of transect (Table 4).

As a part of WWF’s ongoing wildlife monitoring program, line transect sampling was

undertaken in Dudhwa Tiger reserve in India. In total, around~ 100 transects were

sampled, each 2-4 km long. Lines were marked before-hand and each line was sampled

3-5 times, by 2-3 observers on foot, or on elephant-back in tall grasslands. Transectlines were placed systematically within major habitat types (strata), represented by

grasslands/riparian forests and Sal-dominated forests. Lines were sampled in the

morning and evening hours, and records were made of animal attributes (sex, group

size), and distances and angles from the observer’s location on transect to the animals.

The total sampling effort was around~ 900 km.

3.6. DATA ANALYSIS

Individual tigers were identifi ed from the photographs by three observers

independently, and capture histories were generated. Only animals that were classifi ed

as adults (>2 years old/individuals that had dispersed from natal territories) were

included in capture-recapture analysis. We did not perform formal tests for population

closure because data used in these analyses are restricted to a maximum period of 60

days for each site. This period is small relative to the life span of a tiger. The spatially

explicit capture-recapture models we have employed are thought to address the issue of

geographic closure (Royle et al., 2009a).

3.6.1. Tiger Habitat Occupancy

A detection history matrix was generated using fi eld information on presence (1) and

absence (0) of tigers in MS-Excel and this information was imported into the program

PRESENCE 5.9 (Hines, 2006). This program implements the maximum likelihood

approach of site occupancy models developed by MacKenzie et al. (2002). In addition

to providing an estimate of site occupancy (proportion of sampled area in which tigers

occur) and the detection probability, these models also allow occupancy to be modeled

as a function of environmental covariates that were sampled along trails or derived

from remotely sensed data. This helps us ascribe underlying causes for observed

heterogeneity in site occupancy between sampled cells.

We ran a single season model to estimate the parameters: proportion of area occupied

(ψ) and detection probability (p). A number of models were fi tted to the observed data

with the covariates human disturbances (H), prey (P) and Observer Experience (O),

and ranked by their Akaike information criterion (AIC) values to determine the most

parsimonious model (Burnham & Anderson, 2002; Hines et al., 2010).

3.6.2 Tiger Population Estimation

Capture-recapture models have proved to be a reliable means of analyzing data

from camera traps for large carnivores (Karanth and Nichols 1998). This involves

identifi cation of tigers based on their unique stripe patterns; developing a capture

history matrix detailing tiger ID, capture location, and sampling occasion over the

sampling period; and analysis of capture history data using maximum likelihood or

Bayesian estimators.

We report the minimum tiger numbers (Mt+1) from the transboundary TAL area,

which is the total number of individual tigers photo-captured from each of the sampled

sites. We also present the total ‘independent’ captures from each site, as well as the total

number of males and females photo-captured. For details of parameter estimates for

abundance from closed capture-recapture models, spatially explicit capture-recapture

(SECR) models and “super population” (Nsuper) of tigers from Bayesian capturerecapture

analyses, please refer to Appendix II.

3.6.3. Tiger Density Estimation

We used SECR models and Bayesian estimators to estimate tiger density (Royle et al.,

2013). To defi ne the state space (S) within which activity centers for animals exposed

to camera traps are likely to be located, we added habitat buffers to the area that

contained the camera trap array. Buffer distances varied between 5 km and 15 km.

Where a site sampled with camera traps is embedded in a larger habitat block, the use

of large buffers (15 km) helps specify a state space that is large enough to account for

the capture of tigers in the camera trap array, even when only a small portion of their

territory may lie within the camera trap array region. Potential tiger activity centres

were represented by regularly spaced points at 580 m (each point representing an area

of 0.3664 km2) (Gopalaswamy et al., 2012b). Given that a number of these points were

located in non-habitat areas (such as settlement or agriculture), we overlaid a land-use

map of TAL to delineate habitat (forests and grasslands) which were assigned value

1, or non-tiger habitats (areas of human land use including agricultural and built-up

areas) which were assigned value 0.

3.6.4. Prey-base abundance using distance sampling

Line transect data were analyzed using the program DISTANCE version 6 (Thomas et

al. 2010). This yielded estimates of the density of principal prey species for each study

site. We used two approaches: a) pooling data for all prey species for fi tting global

detection function curve; and b) fi tting detection function at species level when there

were suffi cient detections. The goodness of fi t (GoF-P) test was used to judge the fi t of

the model, and the ‘best’ model from the subset of models was selected using AIC.

3.6.5. Identifi cation of common individuals

We visually compared tiger photographs between sites in Nepal and India, to identify

animals moving across the border. As a second step, to validate visual identifi cation

and append these data to a database, we utilized the software Extract Compare (v1.20)

(Hiby et al., 2009) which fi ts tiger images to a 3D surface model, captures a pattern and

encodes it in a binary system (Figure 5). To enter data into this software, users have to

‘digitize’ the left and right fl anks, and hind limbs of tigers. The program then compares

stripe patterns in its database of images, identifi es putative matches, and assigns a score

refl ecting the degree of similarity for each pair of pictures. Where the software indicates

a ‘strong’ match, users are required to visually confi rm whether or not the images in

question are of the same animal. In addition to aiding the process of identifying tigers,

the database associated with the program serves as a repository of images which can

then be used to record inter-annual survival, dispersal events and movements, and aid

law enforcement efforts that seek to determine the origin of seized tiger skins.

4.1. TIGER DISTRIBUTION

Tigers were captured from 675 locations (37%) out of 1804 camera

locations in transboundary TAL (Figure 6).

In Nepal, tiger presence has been confi rmed in 12 of the 14 Terai districts surveyed

(Rautahat, Bara, Parsa, Makwanpur, Chitwan, Nawalparasi, Kapilvastu, Dang, Banke,

Bardia, Kailali and Kanchanpur). A naïve occupancy of 0.44 and model averaged

occupancy of 0.55 were estimated from a total of 96 grid cells (S) where tigers were

detected in 44 cells (Figure 7). The naïve occupancy estimate has increased from 0.34 in

2009 to 0.44 in 2013 (30% increase); i.e. occupancy in 44 out of 96 grid cells compared

to 33 out of 96 cells surveyed in 2009 (Barber-Meyer et al., 2013). Model averaged tiger

occupancy increased positively by 50% during the last fi ve years from 0.37 to 0.55.

In India, results for a comprehensive occupancy survey spanning all PAs and Reserve

Forests in the TAL are presented in Jhala et al. (2011). This study estimated tiger

occupancy in the entire TAL-India as 0.44 (se=2.9) while the estimated detection

probability was 0.4 (se=1.2). More recent surveys that sampled large (166 km2) grid

cells in a portion of this landscape calculated the naive occupancy to be 70% (Chanchani

et al., unpublished report). The occupancy estimate from the model Ψ(.),ϴ(.),ϴ’(.),p(.)

was 0.77 (0.67-0.85) in the region between Nandhaur WLS and Suhelwa WLS in Indiae(Figure 8).

4.2. INDIVIDUAL IDENTIFICATION

We obtained 9,731 tiger pictures and identifi ed a total of 239 individual tigers, including

89 males, 144 females and 5 of unknown sex. A site-wise break-down of minimum tiger

numbers for prominent PAs is provided in Table 3, and additional details are given in

Chanchani et al. (2014a and b); Maurya and Borah (2013); and DNPWC (2014).

4.3. TIGER ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY

There is high variability in tiger abundance (Appendix II) and density in sites sampled

with camera traps in Nepal and in India (Table 3). The Chitwan-Valmiki and Bardia-

Katerniaghat complexes support the largest and second largest populations of tiger

respectively in the transboundary TAL, followed by the Pilibhit-Kishanpur complex.

Besides the minimum tiger numbers, we have reported two estimates of population

size, N and Nsuper (Appendix II). These have to be interpreted differently. The

estimate N from program MARK is an estimate of the tiger population size for the

region that was camera trapped, and utilizes data of all adult tigers that were photocaptured

by one or more camera traps in each site. The parameter Nsuper, on the other

hand, cannot strictly be interpreted as the estimate for a specifi c PA. Rather, it is an

estimate of all the tigers within the camera trap array, as well those tigers that could be

captured within the array, but are associated with an ‘activity centre’ that lies outside

the trapping grid. Thus Nsuper will typically be > N. This is relevant for areas such as

Chitwan NP, which shares a common boundary with other forests that cumulatively

measure more than its own area (Valmiki TR and Parsa Sanctuary). The Nsuper

estimate for Chitwan is therefore an estimate for the entire forest block, comprising of

all these protected areas, which lie within the buffered region (or state space) used in

the Bayesian SECR model.

Tigers were found to occur at densities ranging between 3 and 5 tigers/100 km2 in 5 of

the 12 sites sampled, namely Kishanpur WS, Chitwan NP, Pilibhit TR, Shuklaphanta

WR and Bardia NP (Table 3). However, within and between sites, there were marked

differences in tiger densities measured at the ‘pixel’ scale (tigers/.336 km2). In

general, the highest tiger densities were concentrated in areas of riverine fl ood plains,

grasslands, riparian forest and around wetlands such as the Rapti, Reu and Narayani

fl oodplains in Chitwan NP; Karnali fl ood plains and along Babai river in Bardia NP,

along Mahakali river and phantas of Shuklaphanta, and along Sharda and Mala rivers

in Pilibhit TR and Kishanpur WS, Khata corridor - Trans-Girwa in Katerniaghat

WLS and around the Suheli river and large wetlands in Dudhwa NP. These areas are

coloured red in Figure 9. Forest areas dominated by other vegetation types such as Sal

forest, mixed hardwood forest and hill Sal forest support lower tiger densities in the

Transboundary TAL.

4.4. PREY DENSITY

Over 20 prey species were detected during the line transect survey. In general,

estimates of prey density in PAs in Nepal were considerably higher than areas in the

Indian TAL. Among the PAs in TAL, Bardia NP, Shuklaphanta WR and Chitwan NP

support the highest prey densities in the landscape (estimated to be between 73 and 92

ungulates/km2) (Table 4).

pal4.5. COMMON INDIVIDUALS BOTH IN INDIA AND IN NEPAL

A total of ten individual tigers were found to be ‘common’ between forests of India and

Nepal in the transboundary TAL between 2012 and 2014. From the joint survey in 2013

we identifi ed fi ve individual tigers using habitats on both sides of the border, through

visual comparisons. The software Extract Compare confi rmed that these individuals

were indeed matches, and did not suggest any further matches. Information on the ten

individuals is presented below, including the other fi ve common tigers detected outside

the current survey.

4.5.1. Chitwan-Valmiki Complex

Four tigers (three males and one female) were captured from the western part of

Chitwan National Park and Valmiki Tiger Reserve (Figure 10) during the 2013 survey

Three male tigers (CNP-02/VTR-16; CNP-04/ VTR-8 and CNP-38/ VTR-09) common

between CNP and VTR occupied large territories while the female tiger was found along

the border of Chitwan-Valmiki with a smaller territory (Figures 10 and 11).

4.5.2. Bardia-Khata-Katerniaghat Complex

Four tigers (three males and one female) were captured both in the Bardia area (Khata

corridor) and in Katerniaghat WLS during camera trapping in 2012-2014, including the

transboundary survey. Of these four tigers, two were adult males ‘Khata male’ (named

‘Khata’ since it was photo-captured in Khata corridor and another transient-aged male

and one was a transient-aged female. However, only one adult male tiger was common

between Bardia National Park and Katerniaghat Wildlife Sanctuary during the 2013

joint tiger survey (the others were found to be common in 2012). Photographs of tigers

captured on both sides of the border during the last two years appear in Figure 12.

The common tigers between Katerniaghat WLS and Khata corridor (Bardia) were

captured in the Khata corridor in several community forests such as Shiva CF,

Ganeshpur CF, Kushumya CF, Gaurimahila CF and Balakumari CF, all restored

and protected by the stewardship of local communities with support from the DFO,

NTNC and Terai Arc Landscape conservation program. In Katerniaghat WLS, they

were captured along the Nepal-India border in the Transboundary (beats 1 and 2)

and Katiyara beats of Kishanpur Range, all of which lie along the Karnali (Girwa) and

Kaudiyala Rivers (Figure 13).

The Khata male, a transient-aged tiger in Katerniaghat, was found to be the offspring of

a tigress who held a territory in the Khata corridor in 2012 (Figure 14). He was photocaptured

along with his mother and a female sibling in March, 2012. He was then

captured two months later in Katerniaghat WLS. The Khata male’s mother continued

to hold the same territory in Khata corridor as of yet in 2014. His sibling established a

territory close to her mother, extending from Khata to the lower stretch of the Karnali

fl ood plain inside Nepal. Both of them were captured in the Khata corridor in February

2014. However, we have not been able to trace the Khata male during the last one year

(June 2013 to June 2014).

The Khata male is with his mother and sibling in the fi rst two rows. He is in the

Khata corridor (fi rst photo in the third row) and Katerniaghat WLS (mid photo of

third row). The last photo in the third row shows Khata male’s mother in the Khata

corridor.

4.5.3. Shuklaphanta-Laggabagga-Pilibhit Complex

Two male tigers were found to occur both in Shuklaphanta and in Lagga-Bagga and

Tatarganj (North Kheri Forest Division). Both of these tigers were the adult males which

were captured in larger areas of Shuklaphanta WR (Figure 15).

4.5.4. Corridors: structural and functional connectivity

Of the nine corridors between Nepal and India shown in Figure 1, we have photographic

evidence for tiger movement in two, namely Bardia-Katerniaghat (Khata Corridor)

and Shuklaphanta-Pilibhit (Laggabagga-Tatarganj Corridor) from camera trap data

collected between 2012 and 2014. In addition, we found sparse tiger signs in three

other corridors (Kamdi, Laljhadi and Basanta), suggesting that tigers may occasionally

use these corridors. There was no evidence of presence/movement of tigers across the

Boom-Brahmadev corridors.

The Chitwan-Valmiki forest complex has a shared boundary of approximately 100 km,

and this area is a large forest tract, different portions of which are administered by the

two nations. However, we believe that in addition to the protected area complex, the

large forest patch of Someshwor hill forest may be serving as a corridor. This forest in

Nepal is currently in the buffer zone of central-south Chitwan NP, which may be linking

Chitwan NP with the north-eastern part of Valmiki TR (Figure 11). The size of the

Someshwor hill forest (buffer of Chitwan NP) is 145.89 km2; it links with Valmiki TR to

the south and with Chitwan NP along its east and west boundaries. However, this patch

is progressively shrinking and forests are gradually being cleared to accommodate new

settlements. Of particular concern is the Bandarjhula settlement west of Thori and

south-east of Madi valley where approximately 9.84 km2 of buffer zone forest has been

converted to other land uses in the last 10 years. With a growing human population in

the Madi valley and increasing pressure on the Someswar hill forest, there is a very real

threat that this forest patch between Chitwan NP and Valmiki TR will be eroded away

by human settlements unless signifi cant steps are taken to reverse the process.

Our fi ndings on the movement of tigers between Nepal and India suggest that tigers

appear to use corridors with intact forest cover (e.g. Khata) and avoid corridors that

have been disrupted by land-use change or are disturbed by intense human activity in

areas such as Brahmadev, Laljhadi, Basanta and Kamdi (Figure 2).

Camera trapping data also confi rmed the use of some corridors by elephant and rhino,

in addition to tiger. In particular, the Khata and Laggabagga-Tatarganj corridors appear

to provide suitable habitat routes for their movement. There is also evidence for the

movement of elephant in the Kamdi, Basanta, Laljhadi and Boom-Brahmadev corridors

in recent years. Unlike tigers, elephants seem able to move across human-dominated

matrix areas over short distances on occasion, although this movement is often

associated with signifi cant human-elephant confl ict. We have not documented specifi c

instances of elephant and rhino movement in these corridors in this tiger report.

5. DISCUSSION

The surveys in the transboundary TAL are likely to be among the

most extensive camera-trap surveys for tiger at the landscape

scale to date. They were undertaken collaboratively and involved

government staff, researchers, student volunteers, NGOs and

members of local communities from both India and Nepal. The results provide a

detailed ‘snapshot’ of the status of tigers in a 10,000 km2 section of the transboundary

Terai Arc Landscape, including tiger occurrence, population densities and movement

between transboundary habitat complexes.

5.1. TIGER AND PREY SPECIES DISTRIBUTION AND

ABUNDANCE

A total of 239 individual tigers were recorded, of which fi ve individuals were photocaptured

in both Nepal and India in 2013. Tiger densities ranged between 0.16/100 km2

in the newly-declared Banke NP to 4.92 tigers/100 km2 in Kishanpur WLS. The study

reveals that there is signifi cant spatial heterogeneity in the abundance and density of

tigers across the landscape. Tigers in Nepal are mostly concentrated in protected areas

and associated buffer zone forests (Figures 7 and 9). Tiger occupancy for grid cells

lying inside PAs was 0.75 (SE ± 0.003) while it was only 0.39 (SE ± 0.06) for cells lying

outside. However, similar patterns were not observed in the transboundary TAL in

India where some PAs had low tiger occupancy and abundance, while nearby Reserve

Forests appeared to harbour breeding populations of tigers.

Notable high-density areas are the northern fl ood-plains of Rapti, Reu and Narayani

rivers in Chitwan NP; the Karnali river fl ood plain; and areas along the Sharada River

in Pilibhit FD and Kishanpur WLS. Other areas with relatively high densities lie in the

Babai river valley in Bardia NP, the Khata corridor - Trans-Girwa and Katerniaghat

Range areas, and riparian habitats along the Suheli River in Dudhwa NP and Mala

River in Pilibhit FD. There were also many locations with low levels of tiger use in the

study. Unexpectedly, 63 % of our camera traps stations across the transboundary TAL

yielded no captures of tigers, indicating strong habitat selection. Variation in tiger

density is illustrated in Figure 9; from these results, it is apparent that riparian habitats

and fl ood-plains are the most productive tiger habitats in the TAL.

There is also wide variation in prey density. Prey densities are notably high in the old

and well established PAs of Nepal (i.e. Bardia, Shuklaphanta and Chitwan). They are

notably lower in the PAs of India, with the exception of Kishanpur WLS. While we have

not conducted any formal analysis to on the underlying causes of these differences, we

offer a few hypotheses.

First, we posit that prey species may achieve their highest densities in Terai-grassland

habitats, especially when the grasslands occur as mosaics of short and tall grass, their

growth being regulated by fl ooding, fi res, grazing herbivores and grass cutting by

people. Second, it appears that complex habitats (comprising both Terai and Shivalik-

Bhabar elements) may provide a variety of micro-habitats and better year-round food

availability than habitats that are more homogenous. Further, a number of studies

have indicated that homogenous Sal forests are associated with low densities of grazing

ungulates (Dinerstein 1979; Bhattarai and Kindlmann, 2012). While habitat differences

may account for these differences, it is also possible that elevated levels of protection

provided by the Nepal army and park staff to PAs have allowed the recovery of ungulate

populations in recent decades (Wegge et al., 2009). Moreover, sustained and positive

engagement between park personnel and communities in buffer zone management in

Bardia National Park in recent years appears to have benefi ted conservation. A clear

indication of this comes from villages along the northern boundary of the park who

practiced subsistence hunting in the past, but who surrendered more than 200 guns to

the park authorities in 2011 and 2012.

5.2. TRANSBOUNDARY CONNECTIVITY STATUS AND TIGER

MOVEMENT ACROSS BORDERS

The transboundary TAL spans 600 km of international border, of which approximately

250 km has forested habitat along the border, comprising PAs and surrounding forest.

This provides important opportunities for transboundary conservation of wildlife.

However, most of the large, intact habitats in the Terai are now concentrated within

protected areas and connectivity between these PAs has been compromised by forest

degradation and deforestation, large-scale encroachment of human settlements into

the forest, urbanization, and linear developments such as roads and highways. In TAL

there is therefore a major challenge to sustain healthy tiger populations given their

occurrence in small, isolated habitat patches.

Wildlife populations that are isolated or have a probability of exchanging less than

one individual per generation are vulnerable to inbreeding depression (Mills and Allendorf,

1996). In a simulation study involving cougar (Puma concolor) populations,

Beier (1993) showed that the addition of one to four immigrants over a decade into a

small population can signifi cantly increase its persistence. Similarly, the persistence

of tiger populations in TAL can be enhanced if these populations can be managed as a

meta-population, or a set of populations in different sites that are connected with one

another. The transboundary TAL thus presents us with a unique opportunity to conserve

tigers at the landscape scale by maintaining and restoring connectivity between

smaller habitat patches that support tiger populations.

An overarching vision for conservation in the TAL has consequently been to maintain

or restore connectivity between key habitat blocks to enable the persistence of large

mammals and the maintenance of key ecosystem functions and services. The results

of our study are encouraging in a number of ways – for instance, they demonstrate

that transboundary connectivity is still functioning well in three key places and being

used by tigers. Photographs of ten tigers found to use habitats in both Nepal and

India (over a two year period) provide evidence for the movement of tigers across the

border, and emphasizes the relevance of maintaining transboundary connectivity. Two

of these places involve forested corridors outside PAs, and have received protection

and restoration efforts with community stewardship (Wikramanayake et al., 2010).

However, while tiger movement was documented in some transboundary corridors,

others have been severely degraded by anthropogenic pressure. We failed to document

the movement of tigers between proximate areas in India and Nepal through corridors

such as Brahmadev, Basanta, Laljhadi and Kamdi, even though limited signs were

documented from these areas. There are daunting challenges to restore connectivity

41

between some habitat blocks where corridors have been degraded or where habitat

connectivity has been severed by expanding human settlements and road networks.

5.3. FRAGMENTATION, HABITAT LOSS AND DISTURBANCE

Fragmentation can severely impact wildlife populations and result in the local

extinction of species in a relatively short period of time (Gibson et al., 2013). Even if it

does not result in extinction it may impact species and populations in other ways. For

example, the wellbeing of large migratory species may be affected if they cannot access

critical resources such as water, food or breeding areas, or opportunities for dispersal. It

is well established that loss of connectivity can result in reduced genetic heterozygosity,

population persistence, evolutionary potential and individual fi tness (Garner et al.,

2005), and that such losses can be offset by the presence of functional corridors

(Sharma et al., 2013).

In another region of the TAL, the effects of fragmentation on tiger populations are

evident in a few sites. For example, in Rajaji National Park, western TAL, the loss of a

prominent forest corridor has divided the park in two. Both areas have high ungulate

densities. In the eastern part of the park there is a sizable tiger population; this area

has good connectivity with the Corbett Tiger Reserve. The western part of the park,

however, has witnessed the near extirpation of tigers. The corridor between the two

parts of the park has become dysfunctional due to the growth of Haridwar town and

other settlements, and a major highway (Harihar and Pandav, 2012).

We believe that fragmentation may have infl uenced the male-biased sex ratios of

tigers that we report from Dudhwa National Park and Katerniaghat WLS (Table

3 and Chanchani et al., 2014(b)). Another example is from Bardia National Park,

where 2008 surveys revealed a small population of 18 tigers (Karki et al., 2009). In

our recent surveys, we estimated the population size of tigers in Bardia to be 45-55

individuals. The recovery of this population in recent years is likely to have been

enabled by connectivity with Katerniaghat WLS through the Khata corridor, and by

effective protection and community engagement in northern sector of the park, where

previously there was signifi cant pressure on wildlife (WWF Nepal, 2012). Moreover,

fragmentation effects are visible in the sporadic distribution of mammalian species

across the landscape; rhinos, elephants, gaur and wild buffaloes that are absent from

some patches but present in others. Similarly, swamp deer, hog deer, black buck and

some other species that were once widely distributed in the TAL now occur patchily,

presumably on account of habitat fragmentation.

Recent development in the Laljhadi and Basanta corridors may have severed

connectivity between Dudhwa NP and the forests of Nepal. The Basanta corridor

has been eroded by the growth of settlements such as Ratnapur, Bhajani, Lalbojhi

and Pahalmanpur VDCs, whereas the Laljhadi corridor has been severely impacted

by growing settlements on the fringes of Dhangadhi town (Nepal). The loss of these

corridors is likely to have greatly reduced tiger movement between Dudhwa NP and the

Churia hills in Nepal. These areas are now enveloped by agriculture land and human

settlements. We reemphasize the recommendation of Jhala et al. (2011) that areas

identifi ed as corridors be declared eco-sensitive zones, and that land use change be

monitored and regulated in such areas.

5.4. ROAD AND RAILWAY PROJECTS

Previous sections have outlined how tiger conservation in the TAL will only be

successful in the long run if we can maintain connectivity between patches of habitat.

Thirteen years have elapsed since the establishment of the TAL conservation program.

While there have been some successes with corridor restoration (e.g. the Khata corridor

- see Wikramanayake et al., 2010 and results of this study), several other corridors

are more compromised today than they were a decade ago. As human populations

continue to grow, the task of securing corridors has become more daunting. Currently,

a most signifi cant threat to wildlife corridors stems from proposals for infrastructure

development in TAL – the Hulaki road in Nepal and the border road in India (Figure

16), and a railway line in Nepal. There is overwhelming evidence in the literature of the

adverse impacts of roads on large mammals in general, and specifi cally on tiger survival

(Fahrig and Rytwinski, 2009; Kerley et al., 2002).

These planned projects will pass through, dissect and fragment critical wildlife habitats

and disrupt transboundary corridors. Not only will there be direct impacts from

construction and use of the roads and railway: there is likely to be associated expansion

of settlements and new linear development along them. This will cause additional

pressure in these narrow, disturbed and ecologically fragile areas, including corridors

that have been carefully restored in recent years (e.g. Khata). There may be knockon

effects that also affect animal movement in othercorridors. Figure 16 shows the

proposed road along the Indo-Nepal border.

Infrastructure is already causing impacts. Indian rhinoceros (also known as onehorned

rhinoceros) have often been recorded moving from Chitwan NP towards the

Madanpur forest block of Valmiki TR in Bihar, India, and many rhinos have died from

collisions with trains on the existing Bagaha-Chhitauni railway line where it passes

through Valmiki forest. To minimise these mortalities the Railway Department is

constructing walls along the section of railway line passing through the forest (about 6

km). However, these colossal walls will act as a barrier for normal migration of wildlife,

including the highly endangered and wide-ranging rhino and tiger.

It is imperative that Government agencies investing in these projects consult with and

duly consider the recommendations of conservation agencies and Forest Departments.

Infrastructure that is causing confl ict should be realigned where possible, and new

projects should be aligned and designed in such a manner as to minimize adverse

impacts on vulnerable forests and wildlife species in general, and on corridors in

particular. Where re-alignment is not deemed feasible, we think it necessary to provide

adequate mitigation structures in the form of carefully sited and designed fl yovers,

underpasses etc. (WWF-India, 2014).

5.5. PROTECTION, POACHING AND TRADE

While habitat connectivity has played an important role in maintaining wildlife

populations, there are other factors that infl uence population size and species recovery.

Protection is an important variable. Wegge et al., 2009 have revealed a dramatic

increase in the population of prey in Bardia NP as a result of increased protection. On

the other hand, in Parsa WR (Nepal) and Suhelwa WLS (India), lack of manpower and

effective protection over the years has likely led to population declines. Although both

these sites form part of a larger forest complex, they do not appear to sustain viable

tiger populations at present. Evidence of poaching was found in camera trap data, and

on more than one occasion, survey teams encountered armed poachers in or near these

sites. We identify the Thori-Nirmal Basti area in Parsa and the area of Suhelwa-Dang

valley near the international border as areas where wildlife is highly susceptible to

poaching. We also obtained pictures of poachers in various sites in the Indian Terai,

and believe that the northern and western areas of Dudhwa NP near the international

border are particularly susceptible. It is imperative that tiger conservation efforts

recognize the magnitude of this problem, and measures be taken to enhance fi eld

patrolling and improve law enforcement.

It is deeply worrying that a number of forest tracts that were associated with large tiger

populations until a few decades ago (e.g. Suhelwa WLS - Dang) now no longer seem to

support viable tiger populations. Further, survey results suggest that both tigers and

prey are occurring at densities that are lower than the habitat-based carrying capacity

at several sites in the TAL, including several PAs in India and in Nepal. The reasons

for this can be many fold, but the routine recovery of tiger skins, traps and snares for

carnivores and ungulates, and the arrest of poachers operating in this landscape serve

as a reminder that wild mammal populations face a persistent threat from poaching.

The landscape is particularly challenging to protect, given its long, thin shape and

hence high boundary:area ratio; involvement of several law enforcement bodies in two

countries; and the very porous international border between Nepal and India.

TIGERS OF THE TRANSBOUNDARY

TERAI ARC LANDSCAPE

The multi-billion dollar illegal wildlife trade is a global crisis that not only threatens the

conservation of protected species but also has deep implications for peace and security

in nations across the world. As wildlife traffi cking becomes more organized and illegal

trade of wildlife continues to fl ourish on the ground and in cyberspace, there is an

urgent need for a stronger concerted international effort to gather and share wildlife

crime information among law enforcement and policymakers, empowering them to

stem the tide of wildlife traffi cking. There are several good examples of existing efforts,

primarily by the Convention on International Trade in Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES);

South Asian Wildlife Enforcement Network (SAWEN); and INTERPOL; and the India

and Nepal governments to combat poaching and illegal transboundary wildlife trade.

Co-ordinated patrolling by Indian and Nepalese agencies and intelligence sharing in the

transboundary TAL are important steps towards this goal.

5.6. HABITAT QUALITY, AND IMPACTS OF HYDROPOWER

DEVELOPMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

As mentioned previously, some habitats are more productive for tigers and their prey

than others, such as alluvial grasslands versus Sal-dominated forests (Wikramanayake

et al., 2011, Dinerstein 1979). The quality of vegetation in these habitats is also a key

variable for wildlife populations. In recent years wetlands in many parts of TAL have

been drying up, or becoming engulfed by species such as Ipomoea cornea, Eichhornia

crassipes, Nelumbo nucifera, Nymphaea nouchali, Hydrilla verticillata, and Nymphoides

hydrophyllum which are destroying wildlife habitats. These areas require regular

management to arrest the growth of these species. In Shuklaphanta WS and other

PAs, some grasslands have to be actively managed to prevent encroachment of woody

vegetation. The spread of Tiliocora acuminata in the understorey of Sal forests in DNP

and other PAs in India is a cause of concern. While the causes of some existing changes

are poorly understood, major forces are at play both within and beyond the TAL which

can have huge effects on these habitats in the future. In Nepal the rapid development

of hydropower in the upper catchments of the major rivers fl owing through TAL is

likely to have big impacts on the fl oodplains and grasslands that sustain tiger and prey

populations: for example, in the Gandaki and Karnali basins. Storage reservoirs in particular

are likely to reduce stream fl ows and extent of fl ooding, and hence could cause

the conversion of wetland to grassland, and grassland to woody vegetation and forest.

Extraction of water for irrigation and other purposes may compound falls in water table

level. Deforestation higher in the catchments also affects stream fl ow, including in the

fragile Churia. Unfortunately TAL boundaries do not include the headwaters of several

major catchments.

As climate change advances it is likely to bring additional impacts for tiger and prey

populations, and their habitats. Increasing climate variability is likely to result in

more extreme weather events, which could include longer drought periods as well

as an increase in fl ooding. Water availability could become an issue for tiger and

prey species in the dry season, possibly bringing wildlife into increasing confl ict with

people and domestic livestock. Increased contact could increase transfer of zoonotic

diseases among wildlife, livestock and people. Impacts of extreme fl ooding are already

being seen on vulnerable people and wildlife, and affected people are increasingly

likely to move around and rely on forests as they seek safer locations and more

45

resilient livelihoods. In the longer term rising temperatures due to climate change will

impact vegetation types and species, and may result in major shifts in the wetlandgrassland-

forest balance as well as changes in forest type (Gokarna et al. 2014). Fire

could be a major factor: uncontrolled fi res may become more frequent and intense

as temperatures rise and relative humidity decreases, and this may be particularly

important outside protected areas where there is no fi re management regime.

A recent climate vulnerability assessment for the Nepal TAL (Hariyo Ban Program,

in prep.) contains detailed recommendations on building resilience and promoting

climate adaptation in TAL. Recommendations relevant to this report include:

Identify large, climate resilient patches of forest and prioritize them for

conservation

Maintain ecological connectivity of major blocks of wildlife habitat through

corridors, and ensure connectivity with climate refugia

Manage wetlands and waterholes to prevent them from silting and drying up;

consider restoring natural ecological communities such as wild water buffalo to

help maintain them

Enhance active management and monitoring of grassland to maintain the desired

spatial confi guration and extent of grassland communities, especially in PAs and

refugia

Restore degraded watersheds in the Churia hills to reduce impacts of extreme

weather events such as droughts, fl oods and landslides

Identify areas that are safe from climate related disasters such as fl oods to which

climate affected or vulnerable people can relocate in a planned way; restore fl oodvulnerable

vacated lands to increase resilience, for example restoring fl oodplain

function to buffer the impacts of fl oods and river cutting

Support local communities to build resilience and adapt to climate change, for

example through use of climate-adapted crop varieties.

5.7. CATTLE GRAZING

Livestock in tiger habitats is pervasive in the TAL but grazing pressure is particularly

severe in certain sites. Large herds of grazing livestock are common in Katerniaghat

WLS especially in Seed Farm areas of the Sanctuary and the Trans-Girwa region. It is

likely that >40,000 cattle enter the sanctuary each day. Similarly, high grazing pressure

exists in Suhelwa WLS, Banke National Park, Shuklaphanta Wildlife Reserve, Mahof

and Deoria Ranges of Pilibhit Forest Division, and the southern boundary of DNP. All

the corridor forests (Basanta, Laljhadi, Karnali, Kamdi and Laggabagga-Tatarganj) and

buffer zones forests in this landscape are also subject to heavy grazing by cattle, buffalo

and goats. Cattle grazing pressure is especially severe along river and stream courses.

This is most detrimental to wildlife in areas where water availability is limited. An

example is Suhelwa WLS, where the few perennially fl owing streams and ponds face

relentless pressure from cattle. In several overgrazed sites, grassland patches and forest

understorey have been degraded, resulting in loss of ground cover and suppressedregeneration. In addition, areas with intense grazing pressure are associated with rampant

proliferation of invasive species such as Senna tora. Studies from other regions

in India have shown that cattle may compete for forage resources with wild ungulates,

especially those that are true grazers such as chital (Madhusudan, 2004; Harihar et al.,

2009). 5.8. ENCROACHMENT

The conversion of forest land to other land-uses is one of the biggest threats to the

continued existence of large mammal species in TAL. Encroachment has spread rapidly

in Nepal’s corridor forests, buffer zone and national forest. In some areas this is due to

lack of a clear policy and coordination between governments departments. For example,

the Land Survey Department surveys forest land including land that is already vested

with local communities and managed as community forest. Following this, land holding

cards are distributed to landless muktakamiyas (freed bonded labourers), a category

of landless people in Nepal. Land allocation by the Survey Department in this manner

seems to undermine the authority of the Department of Forests, under which the land

is offi cially vested. Therefore, there is an urgent need for inter-agency coordination to

determine where land can be allocated for landless people, people displaced by fl oods

and landslides, and other groups; and which critical areas should be retained for conservation,

especially corridors and buffer zone forests. Land granted to these groups

should be clearly demarcated so the forests of the Terai do not become encroached and

fragmented by haphazard development.

Some corridors have been severely affected by recent episodes of unplanned

development. In particular, we stress the need to restore Nepal’s Boom-Brahmadev,

Laljhadi, Mohana, and Basanta areas in the western block, and the eastern Khata and

Kamdi corridors in the central block of transboundary TAL.

A geospatial comparison of forest cover in the Basanta Corridor between 1999 and

2010 reveals that the forest area decreased by 10% (36.4 km2) with a corresponding

increase in agricultural lands by 25% (47.2 km2). This suggests that agricultural lands

are expanding every decade engulfi ng forest areas (Ratnapur-ward nos. 5, 6, Khailadward

nos. 2, 3, 7, 9, Pahalmanpur-ward no. 2 and Masuriya-ward no. 2) and other

habitats like grassland and shrub land. Kailali district alone has the most encroached

lands in Nepal, totalling about 21,000 hectares, causing fragmentation of the Basanta

corridor into several smaller forest patches. In the Laljhadi-Mohana corridor, while

there has been no signifi cant change in forest cover in the last decade the grassland area

has decreased by 44% (10.5 km2). Encroachment of forest land in Kanchanpur district

occupies an area of 109.6 km2. Here, encroachment has been particularly problematic

in Kubgada, Eklegada, Chiurigada, Sundariphanta, Bhetghatshivir, Dokebazar and

Naurangaun villages of the Laljhadi-Mohana corridors. Encroachment has also

proliferated in the Brahmadev corridor where 2,400 households have settled illegally

in hamlets such as Khallamacheti, Tudikhel, Lipna and Bagun, reducing grassland

cover by 33% (32.9 km2). Similarly, the Kamdi corridor has been encroached upon by

more than 700 households in 222 ha of previously forested habitat in areas such as

Buchapur, Ghopte, Balapur, Perani, Milaniya, Nanapur, Babhanpuruwa, Pashupati and

Kalaphanta (WWF Nepal, 2012).

In the transboundary TAL landscape of India, conversion of forest land to agriculture

occurred primarily in the pre-independence years. However, encroachment continues

to be a problem in some areas. This has led to a loss of east-west connectivity between

PAs in India such as Kishanpur, Dudhwa and Katerniaghat. Formerly, a network of

drainage features and associated grasslands existed between these forests patches,

and these may have served as migration and dispersal routes for species such as

swamp deer and tigers. Such swamp areas have now been converted into productive

agricultural land. This is most severe in marginal forest patches (or Forest Department

land) that lies along important major rivers: for example, the Dudhwa-Katerniaghat

corridor that lies along the Mohana River. While patches of grassland and riparian

habitat formerly connected these two parks, forest land along these ‘corridors’ has been

encroached by sugarcane farmers. Several areas along the Sharada River in North Kheri

Forest Division have also been encroached and similar problems are reported in Terai

East Forest Division in Uttarakhand. The expansion of Tanakpur town has affected

connectivity in the lower reaches of the Boom-Brahmadev corridor. The presence

and expansion of some illegal settlements in forests (such as the village of Bichiya in

Katerniaghat WLS) needs to be addressed. Similarly, Valmiki Tiger Reserve is facing

encroachment from the state of Uttar Pradesh and from within Bihar. There are some

temporary settlements on the western boundary of Madanpur forest block which could

fl ourish if not controlled properly, leading to unplanned and unwanted developments.

5.9. HUMAN-TIGER CONFLICT

Human-tiger confl ict is more evident in areas with high density of tigers, especially

in Rapti, Reu and Narayani fl ood plains of Chitwan National Park in Nepal. Annually

an average of two to three tigers are reported to be pushed out by dominant males

and often end up going to the fringe areas and villages where they may kill livestock

and people. This is likely to escalate as the tiger population increases in the Karnali

fl ood plains and other high density tiger areas, as Nepal strives to meet its global

commitment to doubling its tiger numbers by 2022. There is a need to systematically

document incidences of confl ict; develop and implement timely strategic mitigation

measures to reduce confl ict; address incidences of injury, and loss of human life and

property; and rescue and rehabilitate tigers. Ignoring these larger issues will result in

much human hardship and suffering, and greatly compromise conservation in long run.

In India, the areas along the Suheli River at the southern boundary of Dudhwa NP

and the Trans-Girwa region of Katerniaghat WLS have high human-tiger confl ict,

particularly for cattle attacks. WWF-India and the State Forest Department offer some

compensation for cattle lifting by tigers (particularly when such events occur outside

forests). Similarly, the Government of Nepal has endorsed a relief scheme for human

death, injury and livestock killing by nine large mammals including tiger; however, the

scheme pays much less than the value of the loss and the process is bureaucratic and

lengthy, which limits its effectiveness.

The surveys of tiger and other wildlife species in the

TAL have generated fi ne-scale information on the

occurrence and abundance of these species, enabling

the following conclusions on the status of tigers in the

landscape and their movement across transboundary

corridors:

(i) Breeding populations of tigers continue to persist in the larger habitat patches of

the landscape, including prominent PAs: Chitwan NP, Bardia NP, Shuklaphanta

WR, Parsa WR, eastern Dudhwa NP, Katerniaghat WLS, Valmiki TR, Kishanpur

WLS, and Pilibhit Tiger Reserve.

(ii) Tigers sporadically use the highly disturbed and fragmented patches in the

landscape (e.g. Basanta, Laljhadi, Brahmadev and Kamdi); their populations have

severely declined in some areas (e.g. Suhelwa Wildlife Sanctuary and Parsa Wildlife

Reserve), possibly because of the poaching of wild mammals at unsustainable

levels.

(iii) By examining tiger data collected over a three-year period and developing

individual identities, we were able to document tiger movement between habitat

areas in India and Nepal. However, documented movement of this nature was

observed only for forests that are contiguous on both sites of the border, or in sites

that are well connected by forested corridors (e.g. Khata), or in some cases small

patches of sugarcane plantations (Shuklaphanta - North-Kheri). This confi rms the

importance of maintaining and restoring corridors between sites.

(iv) There are notable differences in the densities of ungulate prey species between

sites. Enhanced protection appears to have been benefi cial for the recovery of

prey populations in Bardia NP and other sites in Nepal. The key to the recovery of

depleted tiger populations in the transboundary TAL will be the recovery of prey

populations.

(v) This study once again underscores the importance of riparian tracts and other

grasslands, and early-succession stage forests as important habitats for tigers and

their ungulate prey. Densities of tiger and prey are several-fold higher in such

habitats than in Sal-dominated deciduous forests. The protection and management

of these habitats in particular should be prioritized.

(vi) Community stewardship in the restoration and protection of habitats and wildlife

can play a major role in the conservation of tigers and other species (e.g. Khata

corridor, and community managed forests in buffer zones of Chitwan NP such as

Bagmara and Kumroj CF). We therefore emphasise the importance of strategic

restoration through people’s participation to maintain and restore habitat

connectivity, and regular monitoring of the intervention sites.

(vii) This study has identifi ed some key tiger and prey recovery sites: Parsa WR and

its extended habitat to east; Banke National Park, Kamdi corridor, Dang forest

and Suhelwa WLS in central trans-border TAL; and Shuklaphanta WR, Dudhwa

National Park and Pilibhit Tiger Reserve in the western transboundary area. The

current issues in each of these sites have already been highlighted in the discussion

section, and are covered in the recommendation in Appendix I.

6. CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

The surveys of tiger and other wildlife species in the

TAL have generated fi ne-scale information on the

occurrence and abundance of these species, enabling

the following conclusions on the status of tigers in the

landscape and their movement across transboundary

corridors:

(i) Breeding populations of tigers continue to persist in the larger habitat patches of

the landscape, including prominent PAs: Chitwan NP, Bardia NP, Shuklaphanta

WR, Parsa WR, eastern Dudhwa NP, Katerniaghat WLS, Valmiki TR, Kishanpur

WLS, and Pilibhit Tiger Reserve.

(ii) Tigers sporadically use the highly disturbed and fragmented patches in the

landscape (e.g. Basanta, Laljhadi, Brahmadev and Kamdi); their populations have

severely declined in some areas (e.g. Suhelwa Wildlife Sanctuary and Parsa Wildlife

Reserve), possibly because of the poaching of wild mammals at unsustainable

levels.

(iii) By examining tiger data collected over a three-year period and developing

individual identities, we were able to document tiger movement between habitat

areas in India and Nepal. However, documented movement of this nature was

observed only for forests that are contiguous on both sites of the border, or in sites

that are well connected by forested corridors (e.g. Khata), or in some cases small

patches of sugarcane plantations (Shuklaphanta - North-Kheri). This confi rms the

importance of maintaining and restoring corridors between sites.

(iv) There are notable differences in the densities of ungulate prey species between

sites. Enhanced protection appears to have been benefi cial for the recovery of

prey populations in Bardia NP and other sites in Nepal. The key to the recovery of

depleted tiger populations in the transboundary TAL will be the recovery of prey

populations.

(v) This study once again underscores the importance of riparian tracts and other

grasslands, and early-succession stage forests as important habitats for tigers and

their ungulate prey. Densities of tiger and prey are several-fold higher in such

habitats than in Sal-dominated deciduous forests. The protection and management

of these habitats in particular should be prioritized.

(vi) Community stewardship in the restoration and protection of habitats and wildlife

can play a major role in the conservation of tigers and other species (e.g. Khata

corridor, and community managed forests in buffer zones of Chitwan NP such as

Bagmara and Kumroj CF). We therefore emphasise the importance of strategic

restoration through people’s participation to maintain and restore habitat

connectivity, and regular monitoring of the intervention sites.

(vii) This study has identifi ed some key tiger and prey recovery sites: Parsa WR and

its extended habitat to east; Banke National Park, Kamdi corridor, Dang forest

and Suhelwa WLS in central trans-border TAL; and Shuklaphanta WR, Dudhwa

National Park and Pilibhit Tiger Reserve in the western transboundary area. The

current issues in each of these sites have already been highlighted in the discussion

section, and are covered in the recommendation in Appendix I.

We believe that conservation in the Transboundary TAL over the next decade should be

strategized and addressed through the following fi ve major areas of interventions:

1. Advocacy and policy interventions

2. Strategic restoration and management of key habitats, corridors and connectivity

3. Strengthening of protection to deter poaching in both core, buffer-zone and

corridor areas

4. Community stewardship in conservation;

5. Monitoring and research activities.

6.1. ADVOCACY AND POLICY INTERVENTIONS

Advocacy and policy interventions are required to enable conditions for maintaining

corridors and connectivity in transboundary TAL. The following actions are

recommended:

Recognize corridors as areas of conservation importance and give them the status

of no-development zones.

Provide strong administrative support at all levels to evict illegal settlements from

forest lands and prevent further encroachment in areas that forest departments

have jurisdiction over. Instant enquiry is recommended for any illegal movements,

and action should be taken immediately.

Lobby to prevent the development of roads and other infrastructure in key wildlife

habitats or corridor areas, and to minimize impacts of developments upstream

such as hydropower and irrigation that can affect transboundary TAL. Work with

responsible agencies to fi nd alternatives and mitigate potential impacts.

Support expansion and modernization of Protected Areas and wildlife department/

forest department infrastructure to enable effective protection and habitat

management.

Encourage and facilitate science and research to monitor the effectiveness of

interventions.

Build development programs to ensure equity, sustainable livelihoods and good

stewardship for groups that are dependent on forests and other wilderness areas.

In addition to conservation efforts by each country in TAL, continue to promote

and commit to transboundary collaboration between India and Nepal in managing

the shared resources and ecosystem services of the TAL at local and central levels,

sharing information and results, and making use of the comparative advantages of

both countries.

6.2. STRATEGIC RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT OF KEY

HABITAT, CORRIDORS AND CONNECTIVITY

Conservation targets in the TAL can only be met if concerted and well-coordinated

efforts are made towards these ends, both in India and in Nepal. For example, the

recovery of tiger and prey populations in one site, but ineffective conservation and

management in another adjacent site can result in a situation where dispersing tigers

end up being poached or becoming confl ict animals, rather than establishing territories

and contributing to population recovery. The sharing of information, knowledge,

experience and dedicated efforts to maintain and restore corridors and habitats will

go long way in safeguarding the future of tigers in a rapidly changing landscape. We

emphasize the following:

Ensure continuous management of habitats associated with breeding tiger

populations and high prey densities so that they remain productive and are not

degraded.

Enhance understanding of climate change vulnerability of tiger and prey

populations, including potential impacts on protected areas, corridors and

habitats, and local communities, and incorporate resilience building and

adaptation measures into the management of transboundary TAL.

Take proactive measures to restore key wildlife corridors (Figures 17 to 20);

acquisition of land and voluntary resettlement of populations need to be

considered.

Restore habitats in PAs, buffer zones and along wildlife corridors where they have

been degraded as a result of cattle grazing, encroachment and other disturbance

(Figures 17 to 20).

Strengthen and extend support to the Forest Department in both countries to

prevent the encroachment of settlements on forest lands and restore forests that

have been encroached. Recommendations for specifi c areas are outlined below.

TIGERS OF THE TRANSBOUNDARY

TERAI ARC LANDSCAPE

The Basanta corridor in Nepal is now divided into three distinct narrow strips of forest

and currently has no connectivity with Indian forests. Three sites (restoration sites

1, 2 and 3) have been identifi ed in both Nepal and Indian TAL. Three sites have been

identifi ed for connecting Laljhadi (restoration sites 4 and 5) with Dudhwa NP and

Shuklaphanta via south-eastern buffer zone (Restoration site 6). Laggabagga-Tatargunj

corridor between Pilibhit FD and Shuklaphanta WR is highly disturbed and needs

immediate protection. Restoration site 7 has been identifi ed to restore connectivity

between Nandhaur WLS and Brahmadev which is currently encroached. There is a need for community engagement in the settlements indicated in Figure 19,

and along the forest border area in TAL. Proposed restoration/village relocation sites

are sensitive wildlife zones, fl ood prone areas where communities are vulnerable,

and/or degraded forest or encroached areas. Four sites are identifi ed in Karnali river

corridor, nine sites in Khata corridor, one site in Babai river corridor (that links Babai

valley with Katerniaghat WS via Khata corridor) and fi ve sites in Kamdi corridor and

Banke National Park. Settlements shown in white in Dang forest along the border

of Suhelwa WLS and along the river valleys south of Deukhuri valley need further

assessment.

The forest east and south of Parsa WR faces intensive logging. Community engagement

should be focused in these settlements and along the forest border in TAL. Forests

north-west of Chitwan NP are rapidly becoming more fragmented and require

restoration at several points to repair lost connectivity. Six restoration sites are

identifi ed north-west of CNP which will connect the fi ve smaller fragmented forest

patches with western CNP and Barandabhar corridor. Two restoration sites are

identifi ed along the Parsa-Valmiki border and Chitwan-Valmiki near BhiknaThori area.

Someshwor hill forest has high potential to sustain dispersing tigers from both CNP and

Valmiki but is gradually being cleared from south of Madi valley and south-eastern side

of CNP buffer-zone, and needs immediate protection. Though there are no protected areas in this block, some patches of forest in Dang,

Rupendehi, Kapilvastu and Nawalparasi are large enough to support breeding tiger

populations if prey populations could be restored in these areas. The areas also act as

extended habitat for dispersing tigers. The areas in yellow and white are settlements

and towns; community engagement is recommended around these settlements and

along the forest border from Rupendehi to Nawalparasi.

6.3. STRENGTHENING OF PROTECTION TO DETER POACHING

IN CORE, BUFFER-ZONE AND CORRIDOR AREAS

We identifi ed those areas where wildlife is highly susceptible to poaching: Thori-Nirmal

Basti area in Parsa; international-border area of Suhelwa-Dang valley; northern and

western areas of Dudhwa NP; and areas along the Sharda River (near Pilibhit Tiger

Reserve, North Kheri Forest Division and Nandhaur WLS-Brahmadev). Protection

measures need to be strengthened in these areas. However, poaching can shift over

time and space, and therefore we recommend the following:

Identify areas where animals are most susceptible to hunting and support the

development and expansion of law enforcement there.

Build the capacity of protected area staff. We also recommend enhancing the

capacities of forest department personnel to effectively patrol and protect wildlife,

through approaches such as MsTRIPES/SMART patrolling.

CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Strengthen mechanism of patrolling along the international border to curb illegal

trade in wildlife products.

Develop computer-aided tools to enable strategic data sharing on law enforcement.

Develop effective patrolling mechanisms for corridors and other critical sites that

may serve as corridors, including mobilization and strengthening of communitybased

antipoaching units in Nepal.

Improve patrolling in the monsoon months, when access to many areas becomes

harder for law enforcement personnel.

6.4. COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP IN CONSERVATION

Community activities have been implemented in transboundary TAL for over a decade.

We recommend carrying out a detailed assessment of the effectiveness and lessons

of this community engagement and interventions. This will aid in learning from the

past and improving the design of programs that promote community stewardship of

biodiversity and natural resources, and support the livelihoods and wellbeing of people

without contradicting with the conservation goals of TAL. In addition we recommend

the following in transboundary TAL:

Design and implement specifi c programs for communities living in key and

sensitive areas such as corridors and buffer-zones as a means to reduce pressure on

forests and promote community stewardship, and set smart indicators to measure

conservation goals (e.g. set up programs to work on intensifying and adding value

in agriculture in key areas to ensure cover and protection for wildlife).

Support and strengthen community linkages in conservation and wildlife tourism

to create sustainable livelihoods.

Identify communities and areas where dependence on forest resources is high, and

work with agencies specialized in poverty alleviation, or the development of cost

and energy effi cient technologies to reduce dependence on fuel-wood, and other

forest resources.

Promote improved governance of local groups and ensure that the most

marginalized and vulnerable people and women are empowered to take part in

decision-making, benefi t from alternative livelihoods, and share forest benefi ts.

Design programs that support communities to safeguard crops, livestock and

property, and entrust them with responsibility to manage and maintain the

prevention or mitigation measures. Set up effi cient compensation schemes for

loss of life, injury, and damage to crops and property by wildlife, with effective

mechanisms to engage with families persecuted by wildlife.

Develop specialized capacity to address human-wildlife confl ict involving injury

and loss of human life, and the capture and rehabilitation of problem animals.

Set up a panel to study and redress confl icts between members of local

communities and government personnel working for the forest departments.

6.5. RESEARCH AND MONITORING

While we have gained knowledge of the status of tigers and other mammals in the

TAL in recent years, this report also highlights the fact that much remains unknown.

Effective conservation must be informed by reliably estimated population trends,

and an understanding of the environmental and anthropogenic factors that infl uence

the abundance and distribution of endangered species at local and landscape scales.

We also recommend that conservation planning increasingly relies on planning and

managing for communities of plants and animals rather than single species, and there

is a need to generate information on the ecology and status of other species that share

or contribute to the habitats of tigers, as well as the impacts of threats and other land

uses. In this context, we recommend the following:

Conduct long-term ecological monitoring to understand population trends and

estimate demographic parameters for tigers and other endangered wildlife in the

Terai.

Undertake intensive research on transboundary movement of tigers and the use of

corridors, buffer-zones and human land-use areas through radio telemetry studies.

Fill knowledge gaps on the status and ecology of endangered species, such as

foraging and reproductive ecology.

Conduct monitoring for each site where restoration, relocation or other notable

management interventions have occurred, to track and measure their progress.

Assess habitat use, movement, dispersal and spatial ecology of transboundary

corridors by other large mammals including rhinoceros, elephant, swamp deer and

aquatic species like dolphin and crocodiles.

Conduct studies on the scale, extent and local variations in the intensity of humanwildlife

confl ict (tiger, elephants, ungulates) to identify and design effective

mediation measures.

Promote studies on impacts of land use change, infrastructure and other

development on wildlife populations.

Undertake a climate vulnerability assessment for the tiger population in the Terai,

building on the Nepal TAL and other vulnerability assessments and taking into

account human vulnerability.

Establish long-term monitoring programs to understand vegetation dynamics in

TAL in response to specifi c management practices, altered hydrological regimes,

and climate change impacts.

Undertake detailed studies on ungulate-habitat relationships and the feeding

ecology of ungulates.

Develop studies on the socio-economic and cultural drivers of human-nature

interactions in the TAL, and promote synergies between ecological and socioeconomic

research.

Appendix 1 provides detailed recommendations for key activities and targets in each of

the major TAL sites in India and Nepal, drawing on the major recommendations in thissection. It is intended to provide broad guidance for conservation in the sites, and we

recommend that agencies and organizations working in transboundary TAL, and in the

Terai Arc Landscape Program in particular, set tangible and achievable targets to fulfi l

these conservation objectives.

The tiger populations, associated wildlife assemblages and habitats of the

transboundary TAL represent a tremendous shared resource of regional and global

conservation importance. Nepal and India have a joint responsibility to conserve

the heritage of TAL for future generations, drawing benefi ts from the plentiful

opportunities that this rich landscape offers. At the same time, emerging threats

are combining with old ones to pose a serious test to conservation agencies. New

approaches and collaboration across boundaries and disciplines will be needed at many

levels to ensure that the tigers of TAL not only survive but thrive.

REFERENCES

1. Barber-Meyer, S.M., Jnawali, S.R., Karki, J.B., Khanal, P., Lohani,

S., Long, B., MacKenzie, D.I., Pandav, B., Pradhan, N.M.B.,

Shrestha, R., Subedi, N., Thapa, G., Thapa, K. & Wikramanayake,

E. (2013). Infl uence of prey depletion and human disturbance on

tiger occupancy in Nepal. Journal of Zoology, 289 (1): 10-18.

2. Basnet, K. (1992). Conservation practices in Nepal: past and present. Ambio 21 (6):

390- 393.

3. Beier, P. (1993). Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for

cougars. Conservation Biology 7: (1), pp 94-108.

4. Bhattarai, B.P. & Kindlmann, P. (2012). Habitat heterogeneity as the key determinant

of the abundance and habitat preference of prey species of tiger in the

Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Acta Theriologica 57 (1): 89-97.

5. Borchers, D.L. & Efford, M.G. 2008. Spatially explicit maximum likelihood methods

for capture–recapture studies. Biometrics 64: 377-385.

6. Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., & Laake, J.L. (2005). Distance

sampling. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chichester, UK.

7. Burnham, K.P. & Anderson, D.R. (2002). Model Selection and Multimodel Inference:

A Practical Information-Theoretical Approach. 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag, New

York, USA.

8. CBS. (2011). National Population and Housing Census 2011 (National Report),

Central Bureau of Statistics, Kathmandu, Nepal.

9. Chanchani, P., Warrier, R., Bista, A., Nair, S., Lodhi, N. & Gupta, M. (2014a). Between

the Mala and The Sharda: Status of tigers in Pilibhit Forest Division. WWF

India, New Delhi, India.

10. Chanchani, P., Bista, A., Warrier, R., Nair, S., Sharma, R., Hassan, D. and Gupta,

M. (2014b). Status and conservation of tigers and their prey in the Uttar Pradesh

Terai. WWF-India, New Delhi, India.

11. Cooch, E. & White, G. (2010). Program MARK: a gentle introduction. Available

online with the MARK programme, 7. <http://www.phidot.org/software/mark/

docs/book/> Accessed on February 2014.

12. Dinerstein, E. (1979). An ecological survey of the Royal Karnali-Bardia Wildlife

Reserve, Nepal. Part I: Vegetation, modifying factors, and successional relationships.

Biological Conservation, 15 (2): 127-150.

13. Dinerstein, E., & Price, L. (1991). Demography and habitat use by greater onehorned

rhinoceros in Nepal. Journal of Wildlife Management 55 (3): 401-411.

14. Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E., Robinson, J., Karanth, U., Rabinowitz, A., Olson,

D., Mathew, T., Hedao, P. & Connor, M. (1997). A Framework for Identifying

High Priority Areas and Actions for the Conservation of Tigers in the Wild. World

Wildlife Fund-US and Wildlife Conservation Society, Washington DC and New

York, USA.

15. Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C., Wikramanayake, E., Ginsberg, J., Sanderson, E., Seidensticker,

J., Forrest, J., ryja, G., Heydlauff, A., Klenzendorf, S., Leimgruber, P., Mills,

J., O’Brien, T. G., Shrestha, M., Simons, R., & Songer, M. (2007). The fate of wild

tigers. BioScience 57 (6): 508-514. 16. DNPWC (2009). Tiger and their prey base abundance in Terai Arc Landscape,

Nepal. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation and Department

of Forests, Kathmandu, Nepal.

17. DNPWC (2014). Monitoring Tiger and Prey Populations of the Terai Arc Landscape,

Nepal. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu

(unpublished).

18. Fahrig, L., & Rytwinski, T. (2009). Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical

review and synthesis. Ecology & Society. 14 (1): 21.

19. Fleming, R.L., Sr, Fleming, R.L., Jr & Bangdel, L.S. (1976). Birds of Nepal with

reference to Kashmir and Sikkim. Adarsh Books. Kathmandu, Nepal.

20. Garner, A., Rachlow, J.L. & Hicks, J.F. (2005). Patterns of genetic diversity and its

loss in mammalian populations. Conservation Biology 19: 1215-1221.

21. Gibson, L., Lynam, A.J., Bradshaw, C.J., He, F., Bickford, D.P., Woodruff, D.S.,

Bumrungsri, S. & Laurance, W.F. (2013). Near-complete extinction of native small

mammal fauna 25 years after forest fragmentation. Science 341 (6153): 1508-1510.

22. Gopalaswamy A.M., Royle J.A., Hines J.E., Singh P., Jathana D., Kumar N.S. &

Karanth K.U. (2012a). Program SPACECAP: software for estimating animal density

using spatially explicit capture-recapture models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution

3: 1067-1072.

23. Gopalaswamy, A.M., Royle, J.A., Delampady, M., Nichols, J.D., Karanth, K.U. &

Macdonald, D.W. (2012b). Density estimation in tiger populations: combining

information for strong inference. Ecology 93: 1741-1751.

24. GON (2010). National Tiger Recovery Program: T x 2 by 2022 – Nepal. Government

of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.

25. GoN (2013). Summary Report: Status of tiger and Prey-Base Populations in Nepal,

2013. Government of Nepal/Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu,

Nepal.

26. Harihar, A., Pandav, B., & Goyal, S.P. (2009). Responses of tiger (Panthera tigris)

and their prey to removal of anthropogenic infl uences in Rajaji National Park,

India. European Journal of Wildlife Research 55 (2): 97-105.

27. Harihar, A., & Pandav, B. (2012). Infl uence of connectivity, wild prey and disturbance

on occupancy of tigers in the human-dominated western Terai Arc Landscape.

PloS one 7 (7): e40105.

28. Hariyo Ban Program (in prep.) Climate vulnerability assessment in the Terai Arc

Landscape, Nepal. Hariyo Ban Program, WWF Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.

29. Hiby, L., Lovell, P., Patil, N., Kumar, N.S., Gopalaswamy, A.M., & Karanth, K.U.

(2009). A tiger cannot change its stripes: using a three-dimensional model to

match images of living tigers and tiger skins. Biology Letters 5 ( 3): 383-386.

30. Hines, J.E. (2006). PRESENCE- Software to estimate patch occupancy and related

parameters. USGS-PWRC. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/software/presence.

html.

31. Hines, J.E., Nichols, J.D., Royle, J.A., MacKenzie, D.I., Gopalaswamy, A.M., Kumar,

N.S. & Karanth, K.U. (2010). Tigers on trails: occupancy modeling for cluster

sampling. Ecological Applications 20: 1456–1466. 32. Inskipp, C. & Inskipp T. (1991). A Guide to the Birds of Nepal. Christopher Helm,

London, UK.

33. Jhala, Y.V., Gopal, R. and Qureshi, Q (eds.) (2008). Status of tigers, co-predators

and prey in India.TR08/001, National Tiger Conservation Authority and Wildlife

Institute of India. Print Vision, Dehradun, India. Pp. 164.

34. Jhala Y.V., Qureshi Q., Gopal R., & P.R. Sinha (Eds.) (2011). Status of the Tigers,

Co-predators, and Prey in India, 2010. TR 2011/003 pp-302.National Tiger

Conservation Authority, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and Wildlife Institute of India,

Dehradun, India.

35. Jnawali, S.R. (1995). Population ecology of greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros

unicornis) with particular emphasis on habitat preference, food ecology and

ranging behavior of an reintroduced population in Royal Bardia National Park in

lowland Nepal. Agricultural University of Norway, Aas, Norway.

36. Johnsingh, A.J.T., Ramesh K., Qureshi Q., David, A. Goyal, S.P., Rawat, G.S.,

Rajapandian, K. & Prasad, S. (2004). Conservation status of tiger and associated

species in the Terai Arc Landscape, India. RR-04/001, Wildlife Institute of India,

Dehradun, India.

37. Karanth, U., & Nichols, J.D. (1998). Estimation of tiger densities in India using

photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79 (8): 2852-2862.

38. Karanth, U. & Nicholas, J.D. (2002). Monitoring Tigers and their Prey: Manual for

Researchers, Managers, and Conservationists in Tropical Asia. Center for Wildlife

Studies, India.

39. Karki J.B., Jnawali S.R., Shrestha R., Pandey M.B., Gurung, G., Thapa (Karki) M.

(2009). Tiger and their prey base abundance in Terai Arc Landscape Nepal. Department

of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation and Department of Forests,

Kathmandu, Nepal.

40. Karki, J.B., Pandav, B., Jnawali, S.R., Shrestha, R., Pradhan, N.M.B., Lamichhane,

B.R., Khanal, P., Subedi, N. & Jhala, Y.V. (2013). Estimating the abundance

of Nepal’s largest population of tigers Panthera tigris. Oryx. doi:10.1017/

S0030605313000471: pp1-7.

41. Kerley, L.L., Goodrich, J.M., Miquelle, D.G., Smirnov, E.N., Quigley, H.B., & Hornocker,

M.G. (2002). Effects of roads and human disturbance on Amur tigers. Conservation

Biology 16 (1): 97-108.

42. Laurie, W.A. (1978). The Ecology of the Greater One-horned Rhinoceros. Unpublished

PhD dissertation. University of Cambridge, UK. 450 pp.

43. MacKenzie, D.I., Nichols, J.D., Lachman, G.B., Droege, S., Royle, J.A., &

Langtimm, C.A. (2002). Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities

are less than one. Ecology 83 (8): 2248-2255.

44. Madhusudan, M.D. (2004). Recovery of wild large herbivores following livestock

decline in a tropical Indian wildlife reserve. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41 (5):

858-869.

45. Maskey, T.M. (1989). Movement and survival of captive-reared gharial Gavialis

gangeticus in the Narayani River, Nepal. Doctoral dissertation, University of

Florida, USA. 46. Maurya, K.K. & Borah, J. (2013). Status of Tigers in Valmiki Tiger Reserve, Uttar

Pradesh, India. WWF-India, New Delhi, India.

47. Mills, L.S. & Allendorf, F.W. (1996). The one-migrant-per-generation rule in conservation

and management. Conservation Biology 10: 1509-1518.

48. MFSC (Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation). (2010). Nepal’s REDD Readiness

Proposal 2010-2013. Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.

49. NTCA (National Tiger Conservation Authority). (2012). A protocol on phase IV

monitoring. (Continuous monitoring of tiger reserves/tiger source areas). Technical

document no. 1/2011. Pp 51.

50. NTRP (National Tiger Recovery Program) (2010). National Tiger Recovery Program:

T x 2 by 2022 Nepal. Government of Nepal, MFSC, Kathmandu, Nepal.

51. Olson, D.M., & Dinerstein, E. (1998). The Global 200: a representation approach

to conserving the Earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conservation Biology,

12 (3): 502-515.

52. Ranganathan, J., Chan, K., Karanth, K.U., & Smith, J.L.D. (2008). Where can

tigers persist in the future? A landscape-scale, density-based population model for

the Indian subcontinent. Biological Conservation 141 (1): 67-77.

53. Royle, J.A., Nichols, J.D., Karanth, K.U., and Gopalaswamy, M. (2009a). A hierarchical

model for estimating density in camera trap studies. Journal of Applied

Ecology, 46: 118-127.

54. Royle, J.A., Karanth, K.U., Gopalaswamy, A.M., & Kumar, N.S. (2009b). Bayesian

inference in camera trapping studies for a class of spatial capture-recapture models.

Ecology 90 (11): 3233-3244.

55. Royle, J.A., Chandler, R., Sollman, R., and Gardner, B. (2013). Spatial Capture

Recapture. Academic Press, Wyman Street, Waltham, USA.

56. Sanderson, E., Forrest, J., Loucks C. et al. (2006). Setting priorities for the conservation

and recovery of wild tigers: 2005–2015. The technical assessment. WCS,

WWF, Smithsonian, and NFWF-STF, New York, Washington, D.C., USA.

57. Seidensticker, J. (1976). On the ecological separation between tigers and leopards.

Biotropica, 8 (4): 225-234.

58. Shah, K. (1995). Enumeration of the Amphibians and Reptiles of Nepal. Biodiversity

Profi le Project Publication, (2), HMG’s Department of National Parks and

Wildlife Conservation Kathmandu, Nepal.

59. Sharma, S., Dutta, T., Maldonado, J.E., Wood, T.C., Panwar, H.S. and Seidensticker.

J. (2013). Forest corridors maintain historical gene fl ow in a tiger meta-population

in the highlands of central India. Proceedings of the Royal Society Bulletin

280: 20131506.

60. Smith, B.N., & Brown, W.V. (1973). The Kranz syndrome in the Gramineae as indicated

by carbon isotopic ratios. American Journal of Botany, 60 (6): 505-513.

61. Smythies E.A. (1942). Big game shooting in Nepal (with leaves from the maharaja’s

sporting diary).Thacker, Spink and Co., Culcutta, India. 62. Sunquist, M.E. (1981). The social organization of tigers (Panthera tigris) in Royal

Chitawan National Park, Nepal. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.,

USA.

63. Sunquist, M.E. (2010). Tigers: Ecology and behavior. Pp. 19-33 In: Tigers of the

World: The science, politics and conservation of Panthera tigris. (eds. R. Tilson &

P.J. Nyhus), Elsevier, San Diego, USA.

64. Suwal, R.N. & Verheugt W.J.M. (1995). Enumeration of the mammals of Nepal.

Biodiversity Profi le Project, technical publication (6), Department of National

Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.

65. Thapa G., Wikramanayake, E.D. & Forrest J. (2013). Climate change impacts on

the biodiversity of the Terai Arc Landscape and Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape.

Hariyo Ban Program, WWF Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.

66. Thomas, L., Buckland, S.T., Rexstad, E.A., Laake, J.L., Strindberg, S., Hedley, S.L.,

Bishop, J.R.B., Marques, T.A. and Burnham, K.P. (2010). Distance software: design

and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size. Journal

of Applied Ecology 47: 5-14.

67. Wegge, P., Odden, M., Pokharel, C.P. & Storaas, T. (2009). Predator-prey relationships

and responses of ungulates and their predators to the establishment of

protected areas: A case study of tigers, leopards and their prey in Bardia National

Park, Nepal. Biological Conservation, 142 (1): 189-202.

68. Wikramanayake, E.D., Dinerstein, E., Robinson, J.G., Karanth, U., Rabinowitz, A.,

Olson, D., & Bolze, D. (1998). An ecology_based method for defi ning priorities for

large mammal conservation: the tiger as case study. Conservation Biology, 12 (4):

865-878.

69. Wikramanayake, E., McKnight, M., Dinerstein, E., Joshi, A., Gurung, B., & Smith,

D. (2004). Designing a conservation landscape for tigers in human_dominated

environments. Conservation Biology 18 (3): 839-844.

70. Wikramanayake, E.D., Manandhar, A., Bajimaya, S., Nepal, S., Thapa, G. & Thapa,

K. (2010). The Terai Arc Landscape: A tiger conservation success story in a humandominated

landscape. Pp. 163-173 In: Tigers of the World: The science, politics and

conservation of Panthera tigris. (eds. R. Tilson & P.J. Nyhus). Elsevier, San Diego,

USA.

71. Wikramanayake, E., Dinerstein, E., Seidensticker, J., Lumpkin, S., Pandav, B.,

Shrestha, M. Mishra, H., Ballou, J., Johnsingh, A.J.T., Chestin, I., Sunarto, S.,

Thinley, P., Thapa, K., Jiang, G., Elagupillay, S., Kafl ey, H., Pradhan, N. M. B.,

Jigme, K., Teak, S., Cutter, P., Aziz, M. A. & Than, U. (2011). A landscape based

conservation strategy to double the wild tiger population. Conservation Letters 4:

219-227.

72. WWF, 2000. Tiger Landscape profi les. WWF Global Tiger Conservation Strategy

Workshop, Anyer, Java, Indonesia.

73. WWF-India (2014). Terai Arc Landscape: securing corridors, curbing poaching and

mitigating HWC. Available online: http://wwf.panda.org/who_we_are/wwf_offi

ces/india/?uProjectID=IN0961 (Accessed on February, 2014)

74. WWF Nepal (2012). WWF Nepal strategic plan 2012-2016. Expanding our horizon.

WWF Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.

APPENDIX – II

Tiger abundance and density estimates in the PAs of transboundary TAL

We report parameter estimates for abundance from spatially explicit capture-recapture

(SECR) models implemented in the R package SPACECAP (Gopalaswamy et al., 2012a)

and from closed capture recapture models implemented in program MARK using the

full likelihood/ Huggins parameterizations of closed-population capture recaptures

models using heterogeneity effects (Cooch and White, 2010). For analysis in program

MARK, given that the data for each site was are derived from multiple sampling blocks,

we ‘collapsed’ data from multiple blocks, into a single block (Karanth and Nichols,

2002, “design IV”). Abundance was estimated by allowing capture probabilities (p)

and recapture probabilities (c) to vary by time, behaviour and individual heterogeneity

among tigers that encountered camera traps. Results from these analyses can also

be found in DNPWC 2014, Chanchani et al. (2014), and Maurya and Borah (2014).

Detailed descriptions of these models are available in Royle et al. (2013), and Cooch

and White (2010).

In addition to site-specifi c estimates of population size of tigers (estimated in program

MARK), estimates of the “super population”(Nsuper) of tigers from Bayesian capturerecapture

analyses associated with each site have also been reported. The superpopulation

refers to the number of tiger activity (home-range) centres distributed

within the sampled area (park/PA) and additional outlying areas categorized as habitat

and lying within the buffered area for spatially explicit capture-recapture analysis.

For more details on Bayesian SECR models please refer Royle et al. (2009 a,b) and

Gopalaswamy et al. (2012 a,b).