As Assessment of People Wildlife Conflict in Lwang Sector of Annapurna Conservation Area

AN ASSESSMENT OF PEOPLE WILDLIFE CONFLICT

IN LWANG SECTOR OF ANNAPURNA CONSERVATION AREA

A Report Submitted to

KING MAHENDRA TRUST FOR NATURE CONSERVATION'S

ANNAPURNA CONSERVATION AREA PROJECT

Karun Pandit

July 2003

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In the first place, I am grateful to Annapurna Conservation Area Project for providing me

with the fund and opportunity to carry out this research. In this connection, I should

extend my heartfelt thanks to Mr. Gehendra Bahadur Gurung for his help as the director

of the project. Similarly, I am very much grateful to Mr. Roshan Sherchan, natural

Resource Conservation Officer, for his enormous guidance and help throughout the

research works and report writing. I am equally thankful to Mr. Nawaraj Chapagain, GIS

officer for his help and encouragement to do this work.

I would like to express by sincere thanks to all the ACAP staffs at the Lwang Sector for

their kind cooperation. Mr. Kirti Nath Paudel, Conservation Officer and Mr. Bhim

Poudel, Conservation Assistant deserve special thanks for their support and help in the

field without which I would not have been able to carry out my works in this way. I am

thankful to IOF faculties for their valuable guidance in the preparation of the report. My

colleagues who have always helped and inspired me throughout the field works to report

writing also deserve sincere thanks.

Last but not the least, I am sincerely thankful to all the village people whilom I met in

the study are during my field visit who not only provided me with their invaluable time

but also helped me by sharing their data, their experiences and many more information

during my field days.

Karun Pandit

July, 2003

ii

ABSTRACT

The study deals with the assessment of people wildlife conflict in Annapurna

Conservation Area (ACA). For the purpose of the study five villages from three different

VDCs of Lwang Sector in ACA were selected. Data collection method included

primarily questionnaire survey, key informant interview and group discussions.

Questionnaire was focused on damage made by problem animals in terms of crops,

livestock and human lives. Data analysis was done using descriptive and inferential

methods with the help of statistical software MS Excel and SPSS.

All five villages under the study are found to be seriously affected by the wildlife.

Common leopard is the major threat for the larger livestock while jackal is closely

associated with the smaller livestock. Total loss due to depredation per year per HH is

NRs. 1992.82 on an average, out of which NRs. 1861.54 is lost only by leopard. The

most vulnerable crop is the maize with highest degree of annual loss. Average total loss

of crops per year per HH is NRs. 1447.68 and the lost of maize only is NRs. 1102.00. No

losses of human lives are reported in the village though there were occasional attacks

made by bear and monkey that have resulted in human injuries.

Besides, preference ranking was also carried out to know how the people perceived the

differences between different wildlife species regarding their role in livestock

depredation and crop raiding. Leopard is ranked at the top for livestock depredation

followed by jackal, marten, jungle cat and squirrel. Monkey is ranked at the top for crop

raiding which is followed by Porcupine, Goral, Bear and other animals.

People are already adopting a variety of options to minimize the loss due to wild animals

however they could get rid of them. Some options suggested for reducing the livestock

depredation are; good arrangement of shepherd, construction of safe pen (Khor) and

allocation of relatively safer area for the domestic animals to graze in. In the case of crop

raiding, keeping guard dogs, changing in crop pattern and arrangements of Heralu are

the possible options. For the remedial measures, providing financial compensation for

the loss, supporting in community deveopement activities and in IGAs are the good

solutions.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………….…............. i

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………… iii

ACRONYMS…………………………………………………………………………………... v

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………... 1

1.1 Background…………………………………………………………………………… 1

1.2 Objectives…………………………………………………………………………….. 2

1.2.1 General Objective…………………………………………………………… 2

1.2.2 Specific Objectives………………………………………………………….. 2

1.3 Research Assumptions………………………………………………………………... 3

1.4 Research Limitations…………………………………………………………………. 3

2. METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………………..…… 4

2.1 Study Area……………………………………………………………………………. 4

2.2 Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………………. 4

2.3 Primary Data…………………………………………………………………………. 5

2.3.1 Household Selection………………………………………………………… 5

2.3.2 Questionnaire Format……………………………………………………….. 5

2.3.3 Variables Studied…………………………………………………………… 6

2.3.4 Group Discussions and Key Informant Interview…………………………... 6

2.4 Secondary Data……………………………………………………………………….. 6

2.5 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………. 7

2.6 Preference Ranking…………………………………………………………………... 7

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………. 8

3.1 General Information………………………………………………………………….. 8

3.1.1 Private Landholding………………………………………………………… 8

3.1.2 Livestock Farming………………………………………………………….. 9

3.1.3 Trend of Livestock Farming………………………………………………… 10

3.1.4 Sources of Income…………………………………………………………... 10

3.2 Extent and Nature of Livestock Depredation………………………………………… 11

3.2.1 Village Wise Depredation………………………………………………….. 11

3.2.2 Damage Made by Each Wildlife……………………………........................ 12

3.2.3 Domestic Animals Killed by Different Wildlife……………........................ 12

3.2.4 Season of Depredation………………………………………....................... 13

3.2.5 Time of Depredation……………………….……………………………….. 14

3.2.6 Location of Depredation ……………………………………………………. 15

3.2.7 Trend of Livestock Depredation ……….……………………….………….. 15

iv

3.3 Extent and Nature of Crop Raiding…………………………………...……………… 17

3.3.1 Village Wise Crop Raiding………………………………………………..... 17

3.3.2 Damage made to Crops by Each Wildlife………………………………….. 18

3.3.3 Vulnerable Stages of Each Crop……………………………………………. 18

3.4 Human Injuries……………………………………………………………………….. 19

3.5 Preference Ranking of Wildlife……………………………………………………… 20

3.5.1 Wildlife Responsible for Livestock Depredation………………………….. 20

3.5.2 Wildlife Responsible for Crop Raiding…………………………………….. 20

3.6 Measures adopted by Villagers……………………………………………………… 23

4. CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS……………………………………. 24

4.1 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………... 24

4.2 Management Options to Minimize Conflicts………………………………………… 25

4.2.1 Preventive Measures………………………………………………………... 25

4.2.2 Remedial Measures…………………………………………......................... 27

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………… 29

Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………… 30

Appendix 1. Questionnaire used in the Study…………….……………………………………. 30

Appendix 2. Checklist used for Key Informant Interview…..…………………………………. 37

List of Tables

1. Private Landholding and Family Size per HH……………………………………………..… 8

2. Average Number of Different Livestock per HH……………………………......................... 9

3. Percentage of Domestic Animals Killed by Different Wildlife……………………………… 11

4. Loss in NRs. by Each Wildlife per HH………………………………………………………. 12

5. Livestock Depredation in Different Seasons………………………………………………… 13

6. Annual Loss of Different Crops per HH in NRs……………………………………………... 17

7. Percentage of Different Crops Damaged by Different Wildlife……………………………... 18

8. Percentage of Vulnerable Stages of Different Crops………………………………………… 19

9. Preference Ranking of Wildlife Responsible for Livestock Depredation…………………… 21

10. Preference Ranking of Wildlife Responsible for Crop Raiding …………………………… 22

List of Figures

1. Interface Between Conservation Area and Local People…………………………………..... 4

2. Distribution of Male and Female Livestock…………………………………........................ 9

3. Percentage of Domestic Animals Killed by Leopard and Jackal…………………………...... 13

4. Time of Livestock Depredation……………………………………………………………… 14

5. Location of Livestock Depredation …………………………………………........................ 15

6. Trend of Wildlife Depredation ……………………………..……………………………….. 16

v

ACRONYMS

ACA Annapurna Conservation Area

ACAP Annapurna Conservation Area Project

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

CA Conservation Area

CAMC Conservation Area Management Committee

DAG Disadvantaged Group

FUG Forest User Group

HH Household

HMG/N His Majesty's Government of Nepal

IGA Income Generation Activity

IOF Institute of Forestry

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

VDC Village Development Committee

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Wildlife damage, as a source of conflict, is one of the most emerging issues

throughout the world today. Agricultural crop destruction, livestock depredation,

human injury or death and ruining of houses are some common types of damages

caused by wildlife. Conover et. al. (1995) have raised other issues, besides mentioned

above, like human illness and fatalities from wildlife related diseases, automobile

collisions with wildlife etc in United States.

In the Nepalese context also, wildlife caused damages has led to conflicts between

protected areas and the people residing nearby. A comprehensive household-level

survey of herders living in Nepal's Annapurna Conservation Area suggested that

predation accounted for 63% of all livestock mortality over a 18-24 month period,

mostly attributable to snow leopard (Jackson et al. 1996 cited in Jackson and

Wangchuk, 2000). Several times, different wildlife are killed by the local people as

retaliation of damage made by those wildlife in the periphery of protected areas. A

dead rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) was found at Naya Parsa of ward no. 6 of

Ratnagar Municipality, Chitwan on 20 July 1999. The rhinoceros is believed to have

been killed by local villages by electrocuting it for destroying their crop (HMG/N,

1999).

Annapurna Conservation Area, being immensely rich in biodiversity has a parallel;

problem of people-wildlife conflicts too. Project’s fifteen years of conservation

initiation has contributed in increase of some of wildlife numbers and improvement of

habitat but at the same time people wildlife conflicts have been observed. It has been

a problem to be addressed to ensure the people’s participation on which the success of

the project is premised. The problem is getting momentum every other year and

unless this is addressed it will have adverse impact on the overall protected area

system in conservation area.

2

The documentation of the views and perception of people towards nature and

conservation are very important in the context of linking conservation and

development. It is also sensible and useful to understand the socio-economic

processes which influence wildlife and human activities, along with the impact of the

establishment of the park and related conservation policies on the livelihood of the

local people (Nepal and Weber, 1993).

The resource conflicts between people and wildlife that occur in the vicinity of

conservation area have affected to the national economy. Any conservation strategies

may fail if they do not address such issues that cause environmental as well as socio-

economic impact. This makes understanding of the causes and effects of such

resource conflicts, particularly in and around conservation area. This field based

research may be valuable tools for consensus building in settling such disputes and

problems. The broad based information can be utilized in planning strategies for

conflict resolution.

1.2 Objectives

1.2.1 General Objectives

The overall objective of the study was to assess the dynamics of people-wildlife

conflict in Annapurna Conservation Area.

1.2.2 Specific Objectives

• To assess the extent and nature of loss by wildlife

• To identify the key problems animals on ranking basis

• To suggest the management options to minimize the conflicts

3

1.3 Research Assumptions:

a. The attitude and perception of local people towards conservation is governed

by socio-economic status, distance between household and the conservation

area, facilities/service obtained from the project, crop and animal damage by

wildlife.

b. Resource conflict -issues vary with its nature, degree and intensity that can be

valued and priorities

c. Access to resources and equitable benefit sharing help in motivating people to

manage the conflicts,

d. Provision of compensation in wildlife damage and assurance of people’s

wealth with community development minimize the level and extent of

conflict

1.4 Research Limitation

Research was solely based on socio-economic information gathered through

household survey and group discussion. It would have been better if these data were

complemented by the ones from direct field observation. The data on crop raiding and

depredation in the village for the last five years was influenced to some extent

peoples’ memory. At the same time, conversion of local units to standard ones might

have resulted in some distortions in the results. Research was focused on the damage

made by the wild animals to the local people. It did not take into consideration, in

explicit ways, the negative impacts of peoples’ several activities towards the wild

animals.

4

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Study Area

The study was carried out in Lwang sector of Annapurna Conservation Area. The

exact locations were determined after consultation with the ACAP officials. Based on

the records of incidents in the sector office and after a discussion with the staffs, some

of the problem areas were identified. Five villages were selected purposively so as to

represent different types and extents of the problem and to obtain the inference of the

Lwang sector as a whole at the same time.

Five villages selected for the study lie under three different VDCs in Lwang Sector.

Prumdung, Kalimati and Ghalel from Lwang; Meprang from Sardikhola and Rumja

from Machhapuchhre VDC were selected.

2.2 Conceptual Framework

The interface between Conservation area particularly wildlife and the local people

residing the nearby villages is conceptualized below. Wildlife of the conservation area

will affect the local people through crop damage, livestock depredation and human

injuries/deaths and household damages. In turn, local people can affect the wildlife by

hunting/poaching or killing them as retaliation to their damages.

Fig 1 Interface Between Conservation Area and Local People

Conservation Area / Wildlife

Village/ Local People

Crop damage / Livestock depredation / Human injuries / Human death / Household damage

Hunting / Poaching / Killing of wildlife

⇓⇓⇓⇓

⇑⇑⇑⇑

5

2.3 Primary Data

2.3.1 Household Selection

Total household in each of the village of the study area constituted the sampling frame

for the respective village. Sample size was determined by the Cochran formula below

(Cochran 1977).

n = N t2pq/Nd2 + t2pq

Where ,

n = Sample Size

N = Total HHs

t = Abscissa of the normal curve

p = Proportion of sample of population estimated

q = 1 - p

d = Margin of error

Then, a simple random sampling was employed to identify households to be surveyed.

Each household was assigned a random number and drawing using random number

table. The selected household was surveyed using the questionnaire prepared for the

purpose.

2.3.2 Questionnaire Format

Questionnaire was focused to solicit information on the extent and nature of several

types of damage made by different wildlife for the last five years. Primary

information collected from the survey was:

a. Crop damage: It included type of wildlife, type of crop or cropping pattern,

quantity of crop damaged, most affected season/s and the distance of

household from the forest.

6

b. Livestock damage: It included type of wildlife, type of vulnerable livestock,

no. of livestock depredated.

c. Impact on human and household: It included type of wildlife, number of

injuries to human, number of human death, number of household damaged.

Other information on socioeconomic characteristics of the household was also sought

from the format.

2.3.3 Variables Studied

The study tried to focus in the variables below.

• Type of wildlife species that are problematic

• Domestic livestock being damaged.

• Crops being damaged.

• Season, time and location of livestock depredation

• Vulnerable stage of crops

2.3.4 Group Discussions and Key Informant Interview

Group discussions with the people in all the villages including the elder people,

women and DAGs were done. Key informant interview was carried out with selected

people from different aspects to gather more information in the concerned subject.

2.4 Secondary Data

Secondary data relevant for the study was obtained from the literatures and documents

available in related organizations like ACAP headquarter and field offices, VDCs

office of the study area, IOF Pokhara library, Forest research library Kathmandu.

7

2.5 Data Analysis

Data was analysed in two different ways; particularly in descriptive and inferential

way. Primary data obtained from the field were fed into softwares like SPSS and MS

Excel. Results from the descriptive analysis have been presented in tabular, chart and

bar formats to get better visual interpretation. Inferential statistics have been applied

to test the relationships between the variables (distance, season, crop type, livestock

type etc) under the study.

2.6 Preference Ranking

Preference ranking of wildlife responsible for livestock depredation and crop raiding

will be ranked based on the perception of the local people. Each of the respondents

was asked to list the most damaging three wildlife species responsible for livestock

depredation and separately for crop raiding. The three wildlife were ranked as most

damaging, second most damaging and third most damaging. The ranking of most

damaging species was done based on the combined rule of preference ranking as

described by Kapali, 1993.

• Listing of all the species mentioned was done.

• Values were given for the ranks from 1 to 3 for least preferred to most

preferred species.

• Adding the rank sums of all the respondents for each of the species.

• Arranging all species in descending order of rank sums.

• In the case where two or more species had equal rank sums a species with

higher number of response frequency had a higher rank.

The validity of the new rankings was tested by using Friedman chi-square test by

feeding the data to the SPSS software. The assumption before using the test here is

that each of the respondents was aware of all the species in the rank but due to the

limitation of mentioning only three they could not list all those. Hence, the value of

those that were not in the list was given zero value.

8

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The study carried out in the selected household of different villages in the Lwang

Sector of ACA provided with different types of information which are discussed

below under different headings.

3.1 General Information

3.1.1 Private Landholding

Average landholding size and average number of family members per HH of each

village under study is summarized in the Table 1. Family size of the whole study area

is 6.66 on an average. Each household on an average holds 0.15 ha of irrigated land

(Khet), 0.15 ha of non-irrigated land (Bari), 0.03 ha of Grassland (Kharbari) and 0.05

ha of forest land. The data suggests that irrigated land is highest in Ghalel and

Kalimati with 0.18 ha while it is lowest in Meprang with only 0.05 ha. On the other

hand, Rumja has maximum of average non irrigated land of 0.19 ha while Prumdung

has the minimum of the same with 0.09 ha.

Table 1 Private Landholding and Family Size per HH on an Average

Private land holdings ( ha) Village No. of family

members Irrigated land

(Khet)

Non-irrigated land

(Bari)

Grassland Forest

Prumdung 5.29 0.15 0.09 0.05 0.16

Kalimati 7.45 0.18 0.13 0.05 0.06

Ghalel 7.33 0.18 0.10 0.05 0.00

Meprang 6.50 0.05 0.16 0.00 0.00

Rumja 6.73 0.07 0.19 0.00 0.00

Average 6.66 0.13 0.13 0.03 0.05

9

3.1.2 Livestock Farming

Major livestock in the study area were cow, buffalo, goat and fowl. With the average

number of 2.94 per household cow is at the first place, followed by buffalo with an

average of 2.50 per household (Table 2). Average number of goat and fowl per

household are 1.35 and 2.81 respectively.

Table 2 Average Number of Different Livestock per HH in Different Villages

Cow Buffalo Goat Fowl Village

Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

Prumdung 2.71 3.43 6.14 0.43 1.86 2.29 0.00 0.29 0.29 4.57 1.86 6.43

Kalimati 0.36 1.45 1.82 0.00 4.09 4.09 0.73 0.73 1.45 0.00 0.09 0.09

Ghalel 0.83 2.00 2.83 0.33 1.33 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 1.33 3.00

Meprang 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.75 1.75 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.50 1.75 3.25

Rumja 1.27 1.64 2.91 0.91 1.82 2.73 2.55 1.73 4.27 1.00 0.27 1.27

Average 1.04 1.90 2.94 0.33 2.17 2.50 0.70 0.65 1.35 1.75 1.06 2.81

Table 2 shows average number of livestock per HH for each of the villages studied.

The Figure 2 below depicts clearly that the number of female buffalo is very high as

compared to their males.

Figure 2 Distribution of Male and Female Livestock

Average L ivestock num ber

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

C ow Buffa lo G oat Fowl

Livestock

Nu

mb

er

Male Fem ale Total

10

Similarly, though not in the same ratio as that of buffalo, the number of female cow is

also higher than the males. In the case of goat there is only a slight difference among

male and female while in the case of fowl male number is higher.

3.1.3 Trend of Livestock Farming

From the group discussion with the villagers, it is found that the general trend in

livestock keeping has changed a lot. There are lesser livestock in the area at present as

compared to that of 15 years ago. There has been variation in the types of livestock as

well. Tendency of keeping cow has decreased sharply. Unlike cow, the number of

goats is more or less similar with that in the past. 92% of the households practice

partial stall feeding system while only 8% of households practice complete stall

feeding system. There is trend of shift from free grazing to partial stall feeding and

from partial stall feeding to complete stall feeding system. Practice of keeping Goth in

the forest and grazing land has been largely reduced. For instance, there are only two

Goths in the whole Meprang village.

3.1.4 Sources of Income

The major source of income in the area is agriculture and livestock farming which

covers 93.75 % of household under study followed by jobs in foreign country with

4.17 % while service and wage labor carries only 2.08%. The alternative source of

income is dominated by foreign jobs. 18.75% of household surveyed have their

alternative sources of income from foreign jobs. One or two members of the

households have been to different parts of world in search of jobs. 4.17 % of

household have their alternative source of income of service and wage labor.

11

3.2 Extent and Nature of Livestock Depredation

3.2.1 Village Wise Depredation

In all the villages under study there is a severe problem of livestock depredation by

wildlife. Result shows that sub-adult (< 3 yrs) cow constitutes a major share of

31.65% of the total depredation in last 5 years within the surveyed households.

Nearest followers are fowl with 26.61 % and adult goat (≥ 1 yr) with 23.85%. We can

say that sub-adult cow is the most vulnerable domestic animal only under the

assumption that there is no significant difference between the total number of each

type of animals being kept in the villages. The detail of percentage of domestic

animals killed by different wildlife in last 5 years for each of the village is

summarized in the Table 3 below.

Table 3 Percentage of Domestic Animals Killed by Different Wildlife in the Last 5 Years

Village Cow Buffalo Goat Fowl

Adult

(≥ 3 yrs)

Sub-adult

(<3 yrs)

Adult

(≥ 3 yrs)

Sub-adult

(< 3 yrs)

Adult

(≥ 1 yr)

Sub-adult

(< 1 yr)

Prumdung 16.67

(3)

83.33

(15)

0.00

(0)

0.00

(0)

0.00

(0)

0.00

(0)

0.00

(0)

Kalimati 4.23

(3)

45.07

(32)

2.82

(2)

7.04

(5)

40.85

(29)

0.00

(0)

0.00

(0)

Ghalel 2.63

(1)

7.89

(3)

0.00

(0)

0.00

(0)

0.00

(0)

0.00

(0)

89.47

(34)

Meprang 0.00

(0)

0.00

(0)

13.33

(4)

0.00

(0)

50.00

(15)

0.00

(0)

36.67

(11)

Rumja 4.92

(3)

31.15

(19)

0.00

(0)

6.56

(4)

13.11

(8)

22.95

(14)

21.31

(13)

Total 4.59

(10)

31.65

(69)

2.75

(6)

4.13

(9)

23.85

(52)

6.42

(14)

26.61

(58)

Note: Figure in the parenthesis indicates the actual number of domestic animals killed.

12

3.2.2 Damage by Different Wildlife

Damage made by Leopard is very high as compared to that by other animals. Leopard

generally attacks and kills larger domestic animals with higher economical value,

which results in higher amount of financial loss. The number of fowls killed by jackal

is not much less but it falls quite behind the leopard since the fowls carry very low

price. The loss in NRs. per household per year is highest in Meprang, which is closely

followed by that in Kalimati and Rumja (Table 4). The least loss is seen in Ghalel.

Table 4 Loss in NRs. by Different Wildlife per HH in Different Villages

Villages Loss in NRs. by depredation per HH for a single year

Leopard Jackal Marten Jungle Cat Unidentified

Total

(of all wildlife)

Prumdung 857.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 857.14

Kalimati 2554.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2554.55

Ghalel 266.67 20.00 126.67 80.00 0.00 493.33

Meprang 3475.00 110.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3585.00

Rumja 2090.91 65.45 0.00 0.00 236.36 2392.73

Average 1861.54 32.82 19.49 12.31 66.67 1992.82

3.2.3 Domestic Animals Killed by Different Wildlife

Leopard does damage to a variety of domestic animals. Sub adult cow is most

vulnerable to the leopard with a major share of 44% of the total damage followed by

adult goat and adult cow. Jackal does damage to sub-adult goats and chickens only.

Jungle cat and Marten are found to kill only chicken.

13

3.2.4 Season of Depredation

Seasonal depredation pattern of different wildlife was studied by taking into

consideration of the data from last five years.

Table 5 Livestock Depredation in Different Seasons

Wildlife Summer Autumn Winter Spring

Leopard 31.94 (46) 21.53 (31) 23.61 (34) 22.92 (33)

Jackal 13.79 (4) 20.69 (6) 10.34 (3) 55.17 (16)

Marten 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 100.00 (19) 0.00 (0)

Jungle Cat 0.00 (0) 75.00 (9) 25.00 (3) 0.00 (0)

Unidentified 0.00 (0) 21.43 (3) 35.71 (5) 42.86 (6)

Note: Figure in the parentheses indicates the actual number of depredation

Adult Cow13%

Subadult Cow44%

Adult Buffalo9%

Subadult Buffalo7%

AdultGoat25%

Subadult Goat2%

By Leopard

Fowl90%

Subadult Goat10%

By Jackal

Figure 3 Percentage of Domestic Animals Killed by Leopard and Jackal

14

The variation of livestock depredation between different seasons, irrespective of types

of wildlife, is not significant at 5% or 10% level of significance. From the one-way

ANOVA run between different seasons the F-value calculated viz. 0.129 is very low

as compared to the critical values at 5% or 10% level of significance. The variation

between seasons is not significant for the depredation by leopard or jackal only. The

F-value calculated for leopard and jackal were 0.60 and 0.64 respectively which are

again very low in comparison to the critical F value at even 10% level of significance.

3.2.5 Time of Depredation

Most of the incidences took place at night and covered 61.01% of the total. 71.24% of

total animals killed by Leopard are killed at night time only. Marten and Jungle cat

have killed all the fowls at the night time as found out from the study. In contrast,

Jackal has killed most of the animals (62.96%) at the day time. The variation of

depredation by the wild animals between two times is not found to be significant as

indicated by t-test.

Time of depredation

28.76

62.96

83.33

71.24

37.04

100.00 100.00

16.67

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Tiger Jackal Malsanpro Jungle Cat Unidentified

Wildlife

Per

cen

tag

e

Day Night

Fig 4 Time of Livestock Depredation

15

3.2.6 Location of Depredation

In overall, the depredation is highest in the Pen (Khor). The cases of depredation in

pen occupy 63.30% of the total figure. The percentage in the Goth is 26.15 while that

is least in Bari land with only 10.55%. The figure above shows explicitly the details

of location of livestock depredation by different wildlife in the study area. Major

locations for Leopard are Khor and Goth and in the cases of Jackal, Marten and

Jungle Cat most of the killings are in the Khor. However, the variation between the

locations for the leopard or jackal is not significant as tested by ANOVA at even 10%

significance level.

28.57

100

100

93.10

52.78

63.3

0.00

26.15

71.43

7.64

10.55

0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unidentified

Jungle Cat

Martin

Jackal

Leopard

Overall

Wild

life

Percentage

Pen near house Shed at distant Farmland

Fig 6: Location of Livestock Depredation

3.2.7 Trend of Livestock Depredation

The trend of depredation of domestic animals (excluding the fowls) as inferred from

the data from all the five villages shows that the rate has increased drastically since

last three years as compared to the earlier years. The number of depredation has

peaked to 47 in the year 2057 and it has slightly inclined down to 38 in the year 2058.

In the year 2059, it has again climbed up to 43.

16

Figure 5: Trend of Wildlife Depredation for the Last Five Years

Trend of domestic animal depredation

43

14

18

38

47

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060

year

num

ber

of a

nim

als

17

3.3 Extent and Nature of Crop Raiding

3.3.1 Village Wise Crop Raiding

The table below explains the pattern of loss of crops due to the raiding by wildlife.

The result shows that maize stays above of all in the list of crops being raided. Millet

and Paddy come after the maize but remain far behind. Wheat comes at the last

position among the cereal crops.

Table 6: Annual Loss of Different Crops per HH in NRs. due to Raiding by Wildlife

Total loss due to crop raiding in NRs. per yr Village

Maize Millet Wheat Paddy Total

Prumdung 588.57 314.29 114.29 0.00 1,017.15

Kalimati 2200.00 523.64 0.00 240.00 2,963.64

Ghalel 666.67 0.00 0.00 100.00 766.67

Meprang 1000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.00

Rumja 1054.55 0.00 0.00 320.00 1,374.55

Average 1,102.00 167.60 22.80 155.28 1,447.68

Other crops being raided could not be quantified because of the difficulty in getting

the actual area covered. Such a high rate of damage to the maize is the cumulated

effect of two different factors. One is that the most damaging animal in the area is

monkey and the monkey in turn prefers maize. Another is that the damage is

associated with the proportional area of each crop being raised in the area. Maize

which is grown in larger extent of the area provides a better advantage to the raiding

animals.

18

3.3.2 Damage Made to Crops by Each Wildlife

On the basis of frequency of the raiding done by different wildlife towards each of the

crop species, a table has been prepared to show the favoritism of the wildlife for the

crops. People said that 42.31% of the total raiding done by monkey in the farm land is

directed towards maize only followed by paddy with 26.92%. Similarly, in the case of

porcupine 77.78% of the total raiding done is the case with maize. Deer and Goral, in

contrast, are not reported to have any raiding incidence with the maize. Deer are told

to damage millet immediately followed by paddy while Goral shares a majority

portion with paddy followed by millet. Pheasant seems to prefer paddy than any other

cereal crops.

Table 7: Percentage of Different Crops Damaged with respect to Wildlife Type

Wildlife Maize Millet Paddy Wheat Other

Monkey 42.31 15.38 26.92 11.26 4.12

Porcupine 77.78 10.67 9.38 0.00 2.17

Deer 0.00 51.62 47.24 0.00 1.14

Goral 0.00 33.22 64.54 0.00 2.24

Bear 73.48 25.31 0.00 0.00 1.21

Pheasant 0.00 23.60 76.40 0.00 0.00

3.3.3 Vulnerable Stages of Different Crops

From the household survey in the study area, some inferences have been drawn

regarding the stages of different crops that are more vulnerable to the raiding. The

percentage of maize being raided is highest at the ripe stage. Millet also is vulnerable

at ripe stage. Paddy is more susceptible at the seedling stage. In the case of wheat,

however, both seedling and ripe stage carry almost similar weight.

19

Table 8: Percentage of Vulnerable Stages of Different Crops

Crop Stage of crops Percentage

(within each crop)

Established (Node formation) 14.28

Flowering and Fruiting 16.67

Maize

Ripe/Harvestable 69.05

Seedling 26.19 Millet


Seedling 78.57 Paddy


Seedling 54.76 Wheat


3.4 Human Injuries

No cases are found in the area where the wild animals have directly killed the human

beings. Monkey is reported to make frequent attacks to the children causing injuries to

some extent. Similarly, there are one or two cases when bear attacked human beings

and made injured.

20

3.5 Preference Ranking of Wildlife

3.5.1 Wildlife Responsible for Livestock Depredation

Based on the peoples’ perception wildlife those are responsible for depredation have

been ranked as shown in the table for each village and also for the overall area.

Leopard is ranked number 1 in all the villages so it comes at rank one in overall.

Jackal is ranked 2 in four of the villages and 3 in the remaining one village with

overall second rank. Marten has been ranked in third number as it came in second

place in one, third number in three and fourth number in one of the village. In the

same way, Jungle cat has been placed in rank four while in the fifth rank is Squirrel.

Since, the Friedman chi-square values for the ranking were significant for all the

villages and overall area we can say that the ranking is valid.

3.5.2 Wildlife Responsible for Crop Raiding

The wildlife responsible for crop raiding have also been ranked on the basis of

peoples perception and preference. In crop raiding, monkey is at the foremost position

in three villages while it is at the second position in the remaining two villages. Goral

is at the topmost rank of damaging wildlife in Ghalel. People told that the steep

sloppy terrain in the village is much favourable to the Goral that is why their number

is growing rapidly. Different to the monkey they are rather sedentary. In Meprang,

Porcupine is found as the most damaging animal. Again, this ranking is also valid, as

the Friedman chi-square values are significant.

21

Table 9 Preference Ranking of Wildlife Responsible for Livestock Depredation

Rank of wildlife Villages

1 2 3 4 5

Friedman

Chi-square

P-Value

Prumdung Leopard Jackal Marten 10.90 0.004**

Kalimati Leopard Jackal Marten Jungle Cat Squirrel 37.98 0.000**

Ghalel Leopard Marten Jackal Jungle Cat Squirrel 15.29 0.004**

Meprang Leopard Jackal Marten Jungle Cat 6.60 0.086*

Rumja Leopard Jackal Jungle Cat Marten Squirrel 22.45 0.000**

Average Leopard Jackal Marten Jungle Cat Squirrel 111.861 0.000**

* denotes the value is significant at 10% level and ** denotes the value is significant at 5% level.

22

Table 10 Preference Ranking of Wildlife Responsible for Crop Raiding

Rank of wildlife Villages

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Friedman

Chi-square

P-Value

Prumdung Monkey Dumsi Deer Goral Pheasant Crow 21.42 0.001**

Kalimati Monkey Dumsi Deer Goral Hare Pheasant Bear/Crow 50.72 0.000**

Ghalel Goral Monkey Dumsi Bear Deer 11.34 0.023**

Meprang Dumsi Monkey Deer Crow Bear 17.51 0.002**

Rumja Monkey Dumsi Bear Deer Crow Hare Goral Pheasant 52.56 0.000**

Average Monkey Dumsi Ghoral Deer Bear Crow Pheasant Hare 174.59 0.000**

* denotes the value is significant at 10% level and ** denotes the value is significant at 5% level.

23

3.6 Measures Adopted by Villagers

Before the establishment of the conservation area, people used to give time, as per

necessary, to kill the monkey and this activity is commonly known as Jhara Laune.

Besides, people used to keep dogs, which would help to whip the monkey away and

to kill the deer. But such practices are no more in use at present.

Villagers are using very few measures to cope with the livestock depredation and crop

raiding by the wildlife. To protect their domestic animals people look after them while

grazing. But enough manpower is not deployed for the large herd of livestock.

To get rid of crop raiding, people should give their time to look after the crops. At

least, one adult person is required to stay in the farm in the season when the maize

ripens. Even in this situation there is crop raiding all the time, as the local people

coded. Whipping away the wildlife is also in practice to make those animals escape

away. Somewhere, special structures are placed in the field to fright the animals.

Mukhundo is used to frighten the monkey. To stop the nuisance activities of

porcupine, options like fencing, trapping and smoking at holes are being tried by the

local people but none of them are effective according to them.

Change or modification in cropping pattern is found almost nil in the area. Any

departure from the prevailing pattern and structure of cropping style demands a

certain degree of economic risk. Poor people who are dependent on agriculture solely

can not afford such risk and are thus forced not to adopt any innovative type of

cropping system. Rather, some people are compelled to leave their raiding prone area

barren while others have no option than to migrate to other places due to the problem.

24

4. CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

4.1 Conclusions

The problem of wildlife damage prevails in all the villages under study. There are

severe problems related to livestock depredation and crop raiding while there are only

few cases of human injuries by the wildlife attacks. People feel that after the

establishment of ACAP there has been a significant increase in the number of wild

animals and the trend of wildlife damage is increasing. The result obtained from the

actual loss confirms people's preference ranking of different wild animals for

livestock depredation and crop raiding separately.

Common leopard and Jackal are the major actors in the livestock depredation. The

leopard mostly attacks larger animals like cow and buffalo while Jackal is more

associated with goat and fowl. Subadult cow are found most vulnerable to the leopard.

Slight differences in livestock depredation by wildlife with respect to seasons, time

and location, are observed but are not valid statistically even at 10% confidence

interval.

Monkey, Porcupine, Deer, Goral, Bear and Pheasants are the major threats to the

crops. Among them monkey comes at the first place, which has comparatively higher

rate of damage. From the vulnerability point of view maize comes above all the cereal

crops followed by millet and paddy. Most of these are crops are vulnerable at the time

of seedling and later when they are ripe.

People say they are almost helpless against the leopard and no significant efforts are

being undertaken by the people to reduce its impact. People, however, are applying a

variety of preventive measures to control the crop damage. They look after the crop in

the field at the susceptible seasons, they whip and escape away the raiders, and they

have created frightening structures in the field. Still, they are not able to completely

check the damage and there is a certain degree of damage every year. People perceive

monkey as their closest enemy and when asked about the possible solutions they see

no other option than to kill them. Few management options are recommended

hereafter so that there could be a decrease in the rate of wildlife damage.

25

4.2 Management Options to Minimize the Conflicts

4.2.1 Preventive Measures

A. For Livestock Depredation

i. Shepherd

There is no good mechanism of looking after the domestic animals by the shepherd

while grazing them. In some cases, people do show little care in this matter. While in

most of the cases, large herd of animals should be looked after by a single person

where the effectiveness of the work is under question. People felt that looking after

the animals against leopard is not a good solution.

ii. Safe Pens (Khor)

The result from the study shows that most of the incidences took place in the Khor,

even the statement is true for leopard. In some cases, even there were surplus killings

by the wildlife due to the lack of safe pens. Hence, the recommendation to come out

with predator proof pens seems pretty rational in these circumstances.

iii. Allocating Safer Grazing Area for the Domestic Animals

ACA authorities should ponder the option of allocating safe area for grazing the

domestic animals. In the case, different areas will be distinguished; people will not

graze their animals in the core areas where there will be higher chances of

confrontation with the wild animals. Jackson et. al. (1996) had also recommended to

create core areas for snow leopard and blue sheep as an option in reducing livestock

depredation. Simailarly, Kharel (1997), has recommended land-use zoning in the

Langtang National Park, Nepal to establish ecological barriers between the core

wildlife habitat and human settlements, thereby reducing tensions.

26

B. For Crop Raiding

In all the villages, most of people told that the only option to get rid of the monkey is

to kill them. From their perception, it seems reasonable because they have already

applied different sorts of options and still could not get out of this nuisance

disturbances.

Porcupine which is the next damaging animal has also harassed the people almost at

the level the monkey does. People couldn’t find any solution to keep the animal under

control that is why people were all the time asking if the ACA personnel have any

technique to solve the problem.

i. Guard Dogs

As people told, they used to keep the guard dogs in the early days, to care their

animals against the crop raiders. The revival of the same practice once again will be

helpful in the reduction in crop raiding. Improved breeds of guard dogs can be useful

even to check the livestock depredation to some extent.

ii. Change in Cropping Pattern

Changing of cropping pattern from more palatable species or varieties to less

palatable types will be a major preventive measure in crop raiding. As mentioned

above, people are not in the condition to take any risk for the adoption of new ways in

cropping. Intervention by the ACA to help people in this regard seems a good option.

Experience of the local people says that some varieties of crops (especially the paddy)

are more favored by the wild animals than the others. Likewise, mustard is the least

preferred crop amongst the crops being planted currently. Raising of unpalatable

crops at the edges of the cultivated land will distract the animals from entering the

area. The mixture of soyabean with paddy has resulted in disastrous consequences.

Therefore, a shift from cropping mixture and cropping pattern might also work, but it

should be recommended only after a good deal of researches and studies.

27

iii. Arrangements of People (heralu)

People are doing hard effort to look after the crops, especially when they are ripe. To

look after the monkey only they have to deploy at least one person for almost 18

hours a day in the farmland for more than one month. Even though, they are unable to

protect their crops at the utmost level and every year there is damage to some extent.

People who have their parcels of lands at the middle of the arable land show little

concern for the others who suffer more just because their lands fall at the edges of

forest or grassland. A community effort is necessary to look after the crops in an

efficient way and there should be such arrangements that everybody in the village will

feel his/her responsibility in minimizing the crop loss.

iv. Others

There are some ways to escape away the animals, which are rather supplementary to

the previous options. Making special structures or fabrications by plastics, old clothes

etc that resembles to human being and other animals will frighten the raiding animals

especially the birds. Similarly, use of some musical instruments can make the wild

animals afraid. Use of Madal (a musical instrument) is said to be quite helpful to whip

away the monkey.

4.2.2 Remedial Measures

i. Compensation for Loss

People were inquisitive if the ACA authority will bring any system of compensation

for them and they will feel relieved. Every time they mentioned the amount of loss to

their livestock and crops they expressed their hopes that they will be compensated

with the money. The logic behind claiming the compensation sounds real if there is

not any mistake from the people’s part viz. they had adopted all the safety measures

against predation or crop raiding and the sole responsibility is of the ACA.

28

ii. Community Development and IGAs

The indirect method of resolving the conflict may be through the community

development and Income Generation Activities (IGAs). The ACA management can

provide supports for the development of different sectors in the villages. On the other

hand, programs and trainings on IGAs could be launched so that people will be

benefited. Alternative sources of income will make the people relieve from the

problems of damaging animals. This will also help to minimize the attack made to the

wild animals by people as retaliation for their damage.

29

REFERENCES

Cochran, G. W. 1977. Sampling Techniques. Wilson publications.

Conover, M.R., Pitt, W.C., Kessler, K.K., DuBow, T.J. and Sanborn, W. A. 1995.

Review of human injuries, illness and economic losses caused by Wildlife in

the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 1995. 23 (3): 407-414.

HMG Nepal. 2001. Annual Report 2000-2001 (Shrawan 2057-Asadh 2058).

Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation. Kathmandu. Nepal

Jackson, R and Wangchuk, R. 2000. People-wildlife conflicts in the trans-Himalaya.

Paper presented at the Management Planning Workshop for the Trans-

Himalayan Protected Areas, 25-29 August, 2000, Leh, Ladakh.

Jackson, R. M., Ahlborn, G. G., Gurung, M. and Ale, S. 1996. Reducing Livestock

Depredation Losses in The Nepalese Himalaya. In Proc. 17th Vertebr. Pest

Conf. (R. M. Timm & A.C. Crabb, Eds). Univ. of Alif., Davis. Pp 241-247.

Kapali, S. P. 1993. Statistical analysis of most used fodder tree species. Banko

Janakari, Vol. 3, No. 3.

Kharel, F. R. 1997. Agricultural Crop and Livestock Depredation by Wildlife in

Langtang National Park, Nepal. Mountain Research and Development, Vol.

17, No. 2, pp. 127-134

Nepal, S. K. and Weber, K. E. 1993. Struggle For Existence. Park-People Conflict in

the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Asian Institute of Technology,

Bangkok, Thailand.

30

Appendix 1.

Questionnaire Used in the Study

Date ________________

i. General Information

1. VDC ________________ 2. Village _______________ 3. Ward No. ___________________

4. Name of the respondent ___________________________ 5. Age ________________________

4. Sex of the respondent ____________________________ 6. No. of family members ________

6. Distance of HH from the nearby forest ______________________________________________

7. Present status of private landholdings

Land type Area in ropani Land type Area in ropani

Irrigated land (Khet) Kharbari

Non irrigated land (Bari) Forest land

Grazing land Others

8. Shortest distance to the nearby forest from agricultural land______________________________

9. Cropping pattern

Current Practice Practice 5 years before

Land type Crop

type

Season/ Months

(From – to - )

Area Land type Crop

type

Season/ Months

(From – to - )

Area

Irrigated

land

Irrigated

land

N-irrigated

land

N-irrigated

land

Others Others

31

10. Other sources of income

__________________________________

__________________________________

ii. Livestock Farming

1. Livestock Ownership at present

Age distribution Type of Livestock Sex

< 1 yr 1-2 yr 2-3 yr > 3 yr

Total

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

2. Livestock Ownership 5 years ago

Age distribution Type of Livestock Sex

< 1 yr 1-2 yr 2-3 yr > 3 yr

Total

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

32

3. What type of livestock farming system do you practice, currently?

a. Stall feeding b. Partial Stall feeding c. Free grazing d. Others__________

4. What type of livestock farming system did you practice, five years ago?

a. Stall feeding b. Partial Stall feeding c. Free grazing d. Others__________

iii. Livestock Depredation and Crop Raiding

1. Which is the most damaging wildlife? Rank if more than one.

Livestock depredation Crop raiding

a. ___________________ a. ___________________

b. ___________________ b. ___________________

c. ___________________ c. ___________________

2. Which livestock/crop is/are the most vulnerable? List if more than one in decreasing intensity.

Vulnerable Livestock Vulnerable Crop

a. ___________________ a. ___________________

b. ___________________ b. ___________________

c. ___________________ c. ___________________

3. Which is the most vulnerable season? List if more than one in descending order.


a. ___________________ a. ___________________

b. ___________________ b. ___________________

c. ___________________ c. ___________________

4. Do you think there is any specific location/s for livestock depredation and crop raiding? If yes,

where?


a. ___________________ a. ___________________

b. ___________________ b. ___________________

5. Do you practice keeping livestock in Goth?

__________________________________________

33

6. What is the rate of livestock depredation in Goth as compared to others?

a. High b. Low c. Same d. don’t know

7. If different, what might be the probable reasons?

8. How is the general trend of livestock depredation and crop raiding, in your locality/area?


a. Increasing a. Increasing

b. Decreasing b. Decreasing

c. Same c. Same

9. What do you think is/are major responsible factor/s for such trend?


a. ___________________ a. ___________________

b. ___________________ b. ___________________

10. Measures adopted by you to control livestock depredation, if any.


a. ___________________ a. ___________________

b. ___________________ b. ___________________

11. Measures adopted by others in your village, as far as you know


a. ___________________ a. ___________________

b. ___________________ b. ___________________

34

iv. Miscellaneous

1. Do you feel any change in number of wildlife in this area? If yes, please enter the table below.

Wildlife Increased/ Decreased Reason

2. Please rank the possible ways to minimize the livestock depredation and crop raiding by wildlife.

Give number 1 for best option, number 2 for next best option and so on.

Possible ways Ranking Possible ways Ranking

Use of household shepherd Use of community hired shepherd

Use of guard dogs Avoiding areas with high predation risk

Trapping/killing of problem animal Others _________________________

Others __________________ Others _________________________

3. Have you any suggestions to minimize the prevailing conflict between conservation area

authority and local people.

1. ___________________________________________________________________________

2. ___________________________________________________________________________

3. ___________________________________________________________________________

35

v. Livestock Depredation for last five years

Male Female S.N. Date

(yy-mm–dd)

Depredat

ing

Wildlife

Livestock K/Ia Total

No. Age No. Age No.

Tot

al lo

ss in

Rs.

Sea

son b

(1/2

/3/4

)

Tim

e c (1

/2)

Got

h or

not

G/N

Loca

tion

( P

lain

, val

ley,

cliff

, riv

erbe

d

etc.

) D

ista

nce

from

near

by fo

rest

Rem

arks

Note:

a. Denote killed with K and injured with I.

b. Season: Baishak to Ashadh – 1, Shrawan to Ashwin – 2, Kartik to Poush – 3, Magh to Chaitra – 4.

c. Time: Day – 1, Night – 2.

d. Mention in the remarks if the depredating wildlife is unknown, livestock was/were ill or weak and other information as well.

36

vi. Crop raiding for the last five years S

N

Dat

e

(yy-

mm

-

dd)

Rai

ding

Wild

life

Cro

p

raid

ed

Sta

ge o

f

the

crop

a

(1/2

/3/4

)

Typ

e of

land

Sea

sonb

(1/2

/3/4

)

Tim

ec

(1/2

/3)

Dis

tanc

e

from

fore

st

boun

dary

(KM

) / (

in

Affe

cted

Are

a

(Hec

tare

)

Am

ount

dam

aged

(Qui

ntal

)

Loss

(Rs.

)

Note:

a. Stage of the crop; Seed – 1, Seedling – 2, Established -3, Flowering – 4, Ripe/Harvestable – 5.

b. Season: Baishak to Ashadh – 1, Shrawan to Ashwin – 2, Kartik to Poush – 3, Magh to Chaitra – 4.

c. Time: Day – 1, Night – 2, Both day and night – 3.

37

Appendix 2.

Checklist for Key Informant Interview

1. Trend of livestock and crop depredation

a. Trend of livestock depredation

b. Trend of crop depredation

c. Problem animal

2. Wildlife Status and Trend

a. Wildlife population

b. Habitat change

c. Change in food behavior

3. Impact of local people and their livestock farming on wildlife

a. Grazing pattern of livestock

b. Illegal hunting and poaching of wildlife by local people

c. Trapping/Killing as retaliation

4. Practice of Goth

a. Rate of livestock depredation in Goth

b. Trend of livestock keeping in the Goth

c. Seasonal/Year round

5. Measures taken by conservation area to minimize the livestock and crop depredation

a. Measures undertaken

b. Efficiency of such measures

c. Plan for future

6. Measures taken to minimize the park people conflict generated by livestock and crop depredation

a. Measures taken (Financial compensation, Income generation activities etc.)

b. Efficiency of such measures

c. Future plan

7. Involvement of any CBOs in this concern

a. Name of CBOs

b. Coverage, Working field and Duration

c. Major activities and involvement in this concern

8. Management options should be

a. Problem animal specific

b. Victim area specific ie. Close distance to the forest

As Assessment of People Wildlife Conflict in Lwang Sector of Annapurna Conservation Area

Documents