Download - Global Tiger Initiative

kill and injure more people in the Bangladeshi Sundarbans than any other site in their range. Theprimary function of the rapid response teams is to reduce injury and death by separating humansand problem Tigers and in transporting wounded people to hospitals. Without the response teamit can take injured people more than a day to reach a medical facility.GovernanceBangladesh has several years experience with co-management at many of its protected areas and in2010 it is launching co-management in the Sundarbans. The goal of co-management is to haveshared responsibility for management of the Sundarbans and to incorporate local knowledge ofstakeholders such as fishermen, honey hunters and thatch cutters as well as local leaders andgovernment staff. There are two levels of co-management committees. At the higher level acommittee is being formed in each of the three districts that cover the Sundarbans. These teamsinclude provincial government, Forest Department staff, local school and university personnel,government agriculture and veterinarian extension workers, and local religious leaders. Under eachdistrict committee there are four local committees with a parallel stakeholder structure. However,the 12 local committees also manage teams of six staff who are the local rapid response teams.These teams are composed of forest rangers and villagers and they work closely with twoSundarbans-wide rapid response teams equipped with high speed motor boats and trainedimmobilization teams.ConclusionThe Bangladesh Sundarbans is possibly the largest Tiger population in South Asia so it clearlyrepresents a source population. It is also ecologically a very important population as it is the onlyTiger population living in mangrove forests. The Sunderbans forest is relatively secure sourcepopulation. Logging and harvest of wood for making news print has been halted. There is stillillegal felling of trees and an unknown level of meat poaching. Prey surveys indicate much lowerprey abundance in areas of reduced patrolling so there is a high priority to increase patrolling andto do this requires new sources of funds. The current estimate of approximately 300 adult sizedTigers could possibly be increased to approximately 420 animals if poaching of Tiger prey wasseriously curtailed. However to build local support to reduce poaching require co-managementwith strong local participation. Education, micro enterprise development and real co-managementare all keys to Tiger conservation in the Sundarbans. One unknown is the impact of rising sealevel. Some predict that as sea levels rise the Sundarbans will shrink; others hypothesize thataccretion that is now creating new islands will continue to spawn new land and raise the level ofthe land to keep pace with rising sea level67

Bangladesh Map.68

CAMBODIATiger Conservation BackgroundDuring the 1950’s, Charles Wharton conducted an ecological study of the Kouprey Bos sauveli inNorthern Cambodia, and observed herds of Eld’s Deer Cervus eldii, Gaur Bos gaurus, Banteng Bosjavanicus, and Wild Water Buffalo Bubalus bubalis in such numbers that he compared the area to thegame lands of East Africa (Wharton 1957).Through the 1960’s, Cambodia was an internationally famous big game hunting destination (Engle1981). A licensed hunter could shoot 14 heads of protected animals during the December-Mayperiod, including bull Asian Elephants, Gaur, Banteng and Wild Water Buffalo. Tigers andLeopard were so common they could be shot year round (Cambodia Ministere De L’Information1960.)Beginning in 1970, over 30 years of civil unrest put an end to sports hunting, and also drasticallyreduced the number of wild animals in Cambodia. During the period of unrest, various armedforces were based in and moved about the most remote areas. Extensive hunting was conductedfor meat and the international trade. Industrial scale logging was carried out. When the war ended,large numbers of people permanently moved into many of these areas, and poaching, land clearingand logging continued to decimate wildlife and degrade habitat. The Kouprey, Cambodia’sNational Animal, vanished forever during this period.Modern countrywide conservation in Cambodia formally began on 1st November 1994, whenKing Sihanouk signed a Royal Decree creating 23 protected areas around the country covering33,000 km 2 . A five-page Tiger Action Plan was prepared that year, noting that nothing was beingdone on the ground due to a lack of trained personnel and funding.At the same time a visit to wildlife markets in Phnom Penh and Poipet on the Thai border (Sabu1994) found 18 Tiger skins. Based on estimated turnover reported by the traders of 10 to 16 skinsper month, it appeared that 100 to 200 Tigers a year were being exported from Cambodia, sinceabout 1990. Most of the Tigers were brought in by soldiers posted to remote areas in theNorthern Plains and Cardamom Mountains. Skins sold for $150 to $1,200, depending on theircondition; bones sold for c. $100/kg. Live Tigers (presumably cubs) were regularly brought to thetraders and sold to Thailand for about $2,500 each.Initial identification of Tiger Conservation UnitsThe first systematic countrywide assessment of status and distribution of Tiger and prey wascarried out in 1998 by the Forestry Administration’s (FA) Wildlife Protection Office, which iscurrently being reorganized as the Department of Wildlife and Biodiversity. 153 hunters and 156district and province officials in 13 forested provinces were interviewed (Weiler et al. 1998 &Nowell et al. 1999). In 1999, the results of the survey were presented at six provincial workshopsattended by 209 provincial officials to obtain province-level input on a conservation strategy.The surveys and workshops determined that the best remaining Tiger Conservation Units (TCU)were the Northern Plains, Cardamom Mountains, and Eastern Plains. Three regional offices wereestablished by the Wildlife Protection Office which managed a Tiger and prey monitoring networkof community rangers from 2000 to 2005. NGO-supported conservation projects were alsodeveloped in all three TCUs during this period.Revision of Tiger Conservation UnitsIn response to the Save the Tiger Fund-led 2005 global Tiger Conservation Landscape (TCL)review and update, the Wildlife Protection Office initiated and supported supplementary analysisof TCUs/TCLs). A broad consortium of Tiger experts, field biologists, policy-makers, andconservation organizations were gathered together to review all relevant information, whichproduced a single Cambodia consensus TCL map and document, published as Appendix 6 in thefinal TCL document (Weiler et al. 2006).69

Revised TCLs were identified in the Cardamom Mountain Range evergreen forest, Eastern Plainsdry forest, and Virachey National Park mountainous evergreen forest (as part of the SouthernAnnamites Cambodia/Laos/Vietnam Trans-boundary TCL.) These were the only areas inCambodia with evidence that some Tigers remained. The survival of Tiger in these landscapes wasseverely threatened at that time, due primarily to poaching for the international trade, prey huntingand habitat loss. The Northern Plains TCU was not included in the revised TCL identificationbecause there was no confirmed evidence that any Tigers remained after 2003, and extensive landclearing and post-conflict re-settlements had greatly reduced the extent and quality of much of theTCL habitat.Government law enforcementThe Tiger is fully protected by the Cambodia Wildlife Protection Act (MAFF, 2007). Moreover,the Law of Forestry (2002) and Protected Areas (2008) prohibits hunting, killing, trading orexporting of Tiger. Any individual who has committed the offences shall be punished under"Class I Forest Offences" subject to 5-10 years in prison and confiscation of all evidence (ForestryLaw, 2002). Additionally, any individual who has committed the Class I offences multiple timesshall be penalized double the punishment stated.These regulations are enforced in Cambodia. Yor Ngon was interviewed in 1999 by the WPOCommunity Ranger project and identified as probably the most prolific large mammal hunter inCambodia. In 2004 he was finally detained by a FA team in north-eastern Cambodia and signed aNo Re-offence Contract.However, in March 2005 he was arrested by a FA team in the Cardamom Mountains transporting25 bear jaws and 82 bear paws and claws. The Court sentenced him 7 years in prison (Lic Vuthy2004). This is believed to have been the first significant jail sentence in Cambodia for a wildlifepoacher. Unfortunately the improved law enforcement evolved too late to prevent the crash ofTiger populations in Cambodia.Evaluation of current viability of Tiger populationsThe WPO national monitoring program has recorded a dramatic drop in Tiger poaching in everyregion from 1998-2009, based on data from DNCWS, DWB, CI, FFI, WA, and WCS.Cambodia Countrywide Known Tiger Poaching Totals70

Confirmed Tiger Records in Cambodia 2005-2009Cardamom Mountains TCL• The preceding photo is that of a Tiger shot by a district police office in 1997 in theCardamoms TCL and sold for $2400 for export to Thailand (Weiler et al. 2006).• No photo of a Tiger, dead or alive, has since been obtained anywhere in the CardamomsTCL, despite 10 years of camera trapping by 5 NGOs and 2 Government Ministries.• Central Cardamoms PF, Southern Cardamoms PF and Southern CardamomsPermanent Forest Estate: No confirmed records since 2005.• Botum Sokor NP and Phnom Samkos WS: No confirmed records since 2005.• Phnom Aural WS: Clear photographs of sets of tracks from 2008 were inspected andconfirmed to be Tiger (Weiler & Phirom 2009).Northern Plains TCL• Kulen Promtep WS & Preah Vihear PF: No confirmed records since 2003. Only onecamera trap photo ever obtained in the Northern Plains, in 2001 (WCS).Southern Annamites Cambodia/Laos/Vietnam Transboundary TCL• Virachey NP: Since 2005 no confirmed records. 3940 camera trap nights in 2000-2001produced 3 pictures of one individual Tiger (WWF).Eastern Plains TCL• Lomphat Wildlife Sanctuary: Tiger tracks in found in Lomphat in 2009. Casts made ofthe tracks (PRC & Freeland).• Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary: No photos ever obtained, despite years of extensivecamera trapping continuing to present. Some tracks and scat reported since 2005 (WWF).• Mondulkiri Protected Forest: The first Tiger photo taken in the Mondulkiri ProtectedForest was obtained in November/December 2005. A second picture of probably thesame Tiger in the same area was taken about 10 days later. Two more Tiger pictures weretaken in 2007 in the same general area. None have been obtained in the MPF since,despite extensive and continuing efforts (WWF).• Seima Protected Forest: Eight camera trap pictures obtained of at least three differentTigers in 2003. None have been obtained since, despite extensive and continuing efforts.Casts of confirmed Tiger tracks were made in 2007 (WCS).• Sniffer dogs were introduced in 2009 and are currently being employed in the EasternPlains landscape, but have not located any confirmed Tiger scat to date in the Mondulkiriand Seima Protected Forests and Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary (WWF & WCS).Potential TCL Source Sites in CambodiaAlthough it is likely that a few scattered individual Tigers remain in the Cardamoms and EasternPlains TCLs, and just possibly in Virachey National Park, there is no objective confirmed evidencethat a Source Site (as defined in this report) remains in any TCL in Cambodia. However, thisreport concludes that the Eastern Plains TCL has probably the best potential in Indochina forTiger reintroduction, due to a large area of suitable habitat within in a mosaic of interconnectedTiger permeable protected areas and forests under intensive long-term government managementwith strong NGO technical and financial support.71

Eastern Plains*TCL Landscape Unit Government Size (km 2 ) Supporting NGODepartmentLomphat WS DNPWS** 2,500 PRC, BirdlifeMondulkiri PF DWB*** 4,300 WWFOyadav PF DWB 1,000 NonePhnom Prich WS DNPWS 2,220 WWFSeima PF DWB 3,050 WCSTotal km 2 13,070*See Cambodia Protected Area / Forest Map. **National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries are managed byDepartment of Nature Protection and Wildlife Sanctuaries, General Department for Administration of NatureConservation and Protection, Ministry of Environment. ***Protected Forests are managed by Department ofWildlife and Biodiversity, Forestry Administration, Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries.Effective on the ground law enforcement and monitoring have been established on the EasternPlains TCL with strong long-term support by conservation NGOs. Evidence that prey specieshave stopped declining and are possibly increasing in eastern Cambodia is starting to emerge. TheNational and Provincial governments are strongly committed to conservation is this region.This report has accordingly identified the Eastern Plains as a Potential Source Site. Conservationactivities should be continued and expanded to lay the groundwork for translocation of Tigers inaccordance with the criteria in the Reintroduction Chapter of this report.Cardamom MountainsLandscape UnitGovernment Size (km2) Conservation NGODepartmentBotum Sokor NP DNPWS 1,769 WACentral Cardamoms PF DWB 4,013 CIPhnom Aural WS DNPWS 2,538 NonePhnom Samkos WS DNPWS 3,338 FFISouthern Cardamoms PF DWB 1,442 WASouthern Cardamoms PFE DWB 5,052 WATotal km2 14,815It is questionable whether Cardamom Mountains TCL should be included as a Potential SourceSite. Development pressures are more intensive and problematic than those in the Eastern Plains,including government approval of dams on five major river valleys (Kileen 2009). The largelowland dry forest basins of Aural and Veal Veng adjoining the mountains have been heavilysettled since hostilities ended in 1998 and the mountains themselves have been extensively logged.Government approvals are underway for hydro-electric dams on five major mid level & lowlandriver valleys that were once prime Tiger habitat. Tiger prey has severely declined due tounrelenting snaring throughout the landscape.However, there is a large area of suitable though far from optimal habitat within a mosaic ofinterconnected Tiger permeable protected areas and forests, law enforcement is evolving, and72

long-term support is provided by NGOs. The Cardamoms were previously well known as Tigercountry. One major NGO (Wildlife Alliance) is specifically interested in reintroduction of Tigersto the Cardamoms. Confirmed Tiger tracks were confirmed on Phnom Aural in 2008. TheCardamoms could be identified as a Potential Source Site in the future. The issue will be addressedduring the 2010 preparation of the Cambodia National Tiger Action Plan.Southern Annamites Cambodia/Laos/Vietnam Transboundary TCLVirachey National ParkThe undisturbed areas of Virachey are too small for a Potential Source Site. Prey base is quite low,the steep mountainous habitat is sub-optimal and during the dry season only five streams havepermanent water. Management of Virachey has been limited due to difficult logistics. Poachingand illegal logging continue, and there is no substantial donor or NGO support at this time. Evenin the 1990s Tiger densities were reported to be very low.However, Virachey NP is an extension of a Potential Source Site centred in Laos within the largerCambodia/Laos/Vietnam Transboundary TCL. In southern Laos, the Dong Ampham NationalProtected Area is linked to the Nam Kong Provincial Protected Area, which borders the entirelength of Virachey NP along the Cambodia/Lao border. In Vietnam, Chu Mon Ray National Parkand adjacent forested areas are also contiguous with Virachey NP in Cambodia and Nam KongPPA in Laos.None of the Transboundary TCL is well protected at the present time, and most of it has not beensurveyed in any detail. However, under suitable management and strengthened protection effortsin all three countries, the Tri-border Potential Source Site could see migration of tigers acrossborders and the restoration of a viable transboundary population.Northern Plains TCLPreah Vihear PFSuitable Tiger habitat in this once vast dry forest TCL had been reduced to only 5,500 km 2 in thePVPF, and an area of adjacent evergreen forest. Tiger prey has vastly diminished even in this area.However, relic populations of Gaur, Banteng, Eld’s deer and Sambar remain in the core zone.Wild pig and Muntjac are common.Management has improved significantly with two multi-year donor supported NGO andgovernment projects. Law enforcement is effective across much of the site and here is potentialfor long term sustainable management. A comprehensive Forest Management Plan has recentlybeen completed. There is an effective wildlife monitoring programme which can be used to assesstiger prey numbers and feasibility of reintroduction/translocation in the future. The possibility ofeventually identifying the PVPF as a Potential Source Site will be further evaluated during the2010 development of the Cambodia National Tiger Action Plan.CostsAll major conservation management activities in Cambodia are currently supported by NGOsand/or international donors. Continued strong financial support from the internationalcommunity will be essential for restoring Tigers to the country. Government agencies have greatlyimproved their capacity for conservation management, and have initiated preparation of aNational Tiger Action Plan, to be completed in time to present in draft at the Global TigerSummit in Russia in September. The government plans to work closely with conservation NGOsand donors to develop long-term costs and sustainable funding of effective Tiger conservation.73

Cambodia Map74

INDIASummary Status and OverviewNowhere in the world is the Tiger so comprehensively embedded within the cultural, social,mythological, religious and even economic psyche of a country as in India, where it is the nationalanimal.Despite supporting population of over a billion people with a history of human occupationextending back over 50,000 years, and, a current economic growth rate of 8%, India still possessesabout 300,000 km 2 of potential habitat suitable for Tigers. This forms 33% of Tiger habitatassessed to be available globally (Dinerstein 2006). More than 50% of the world’s Tigers nowsurvive in India: an estimated ~ 2000 animals (including cubs) based on figures from a recentassessment (Jhala et al. 2008).Historically, as elsewhere in the world, Tigers have suffered a major range contraction (seeKaranth et al. 2009 for a recent analysis). However, enactment of the Wildlife Protection Act in1972, followed by creation of a network of wildlife reserves (Protected Areas), which cover about4% of land area, provide a strong legal framework and a discrete land-base for focused Tigerprotection. The Project Tiger scheme of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA)alone provides State Governments with INR 2.5 billion/year for managing 27 federally designatedTiger Reserves. These reserves cumulatively cover ~ 30,000km 2 area but several protected areasoutside these also harbour substantial numbers of Tigers. In addition to this, the stategovernments invest an even larger sum of money on wildlife protected areas from other state andfederal revenue sources.The Indian government’s overall policy towards Tiger management can be summarized asconsisting of following key elements: (1) On-the-ground anti-poaching and law enforcement inprotected areas and the control of Tiger-trade outside them (2) Habitat ‘enrichment’ work andvoluntary relocation of human settlements away out of these protected areas (3) In the post-1990period massive investments in ‘Eco-Development’ and other community-based work in bufferareas outside of these wildlife reserves.In response to actions taken under elements (1) and (2) mentioned above, from 1972 to the late1980’s, wild Tiger populations rebounded rapidly across India, except in the North Eastern HillStates. Here, strong local hunting culture and intolerance of wildlife reminiscent of other regionsof Asia continued, along with increasing pressures from civil strife, insurgency and semi-anarchicgovernance conditions lead to the near-extirpation of Tigers in these forests. Moreover, the Tigerpopulation resurgence between 1972-1990 was restricted primarily to wildlife reserves (both in andout of the designated ‘Tiger Reserve’ network) in north, central and southern India, while forestsoutside came under increasing pressure from land encroachments and biomass collection by localpeople, and were being increasingly fragmented by major developmental projects such as mines,hydro-power schemes, irrigation, railways, highways and ‘benign’ rural development activities suchas roads and communication and power supply lines.After the late 1980’s, India’s Tiger populations have been in serious decline in many landscapes(although Tigers have actually increased at some sites areas where source populations wereeffectively conserved, e.g. Bandipur-Nagarahole, Bhadra). A key factor in this Tiger decline hasbeen the collapse of official reserve-level leadership, which was induced by declining commitmentto strong protection that was the focus of earlier efforts. This managerial mission-drift away fromprotection has been driven by several complex social factors with the re-orientation of reservemanager’s focus being towards ‘eco-development’ across wider landscapes. As a result, protectedareas (wildlife reserves) in India are facing 50% staff vacancies and an aging work force, unlike inother branches of the forestry sector.Whatever the reason for slackening protection, the numbers of Tiger Source Sites withpopulations reproducing above replacement levels, which had provided an annual surplus ofTigers to populate wider landscapes (Karanth et al. 2004, 2006), appear to have shrunk steadily75

since late 1980’s. It is now officially acknowledged by NTCA that over a third of the designatedTiger reserves have either lost their Tigers, or, in the final throes of losing them. This scenarioseems to be true for protected areas outside the Project Tiger Reserve system as well.Although highlighted repeatedly by conservationists, the decline of Tigers during the 1990’s wasnot officially acknowledged until 2004. The Tiger decline was conveniently obscured by theapplication of an un-scientific and flawed Tiger population monitoring method called the “pugmarkcensus”, which repeatedly showed increasing Tiger numbers in reserves and widerlandscapes. Finally, a Prime Ministerial Commission - the Tiger Task Force - compelled theabandonment of the pugmark census. A countrywide assessment was commissioned by NTCA in2005-2006 period (Jhala et al. 2008). Although based on a population sampling methodology thatis likely undergo further improvements this first-ever nation-wide sampling based effort showsbroad spatial patterns reflecting the ground reality reasonably well. They present a dismayingoverall picture.All of India’s large, demographically viable Tiger source populations (>25 breeding females;Karanth and Stith 1999) are now restricted to three areas: Western Ghats (particularly KarnatakaState), Kanha-Pench landscape and adjacent forests in Madhya Pradesh/Maharashtra, and, an arcof alluvial grassland/forest patches stretching from Corbett in Uttarakhand to Kaziranga inAssam. Forest-cover maps show that all these three forested tracts are heavily fragmented. Theyare also amidst regions of high human population density, fast economic growth, with resultinghigh negative impacts from both these factors. Yet Tigers are faring much better in these threebroad regions than elsewhere in India and across most of Asia. This is primarily because ofpresence of a few effectively protected wildlife reserves, which are embedded within largerlandscapes under multiple uses. Prey-rich wildlife reserves such as Nagarahole-Bandipur; Kanha-Pench, Kaziranga and Corbett, also support large Tiger populations of Tigers in which residentfemale Tigers can maintain several territories and successfully raise a surplus of cubs annually todisperse out into the surrounding population ‘sinks’ in wider landscapes (Karanth et al. 2004,2006). The strong focus and effort on these Source Sites appear to be the key to their success.Conversely, larger, less fragmented Tiger Conservation Landscapes (TCLs) in the states of AndhraPradesh, Orissa, Chattisgarh and Northeastern Hill States (Dinerstein et al. 2007) have becomenearly devoid of Tigers as, for various reasons, wildlife authorities have not been able to maintainstrictly protected Source Sites for Tigers. It is clear from this pattern of Tiger distribution andsurvival in India, that mere presence of TCLs does not correspond to persistence of viable Tigerpopulations on-the-ground, whereas presence of effectively protected Tiger source populations ineven a relatively small fraction of the landscape strongly corresponds with the prospects for Tigersurvival and recovery.The land cover matrix in India (in contrast, say, to the Russian Far East) can be clearly partitionedinto three categories (1) landscapes where Tigers are already extinct or nearly so (2) areas whereTigers survive but are not reproducing above replacement levels in a sustained manner, and (3)well-protected enclaves where Tigers are reproducing above replacement levels. The bestperforming conservation landscapes at the moment in India are those that typically support Tigermeta-populations with one or more source populations in category (3), with the rest of thelandscape being relative sinks under category (2). Our focus in this report is on identifying SourceSites that are assessed to contain demographically viable populations and that are practicallyfeasible to defend, in order to stem the ongoing decline of Tigers. We believe, based on strongscientific evidence for potentially high densities attainable (Karanth et al. 2004) and high mortalityand recruitment rates in protected Tiger populations (Karanth et al. 2006), maintenance of suchSource Sites with reproduction rates substantially above replacement levels hold the key forlandscape-scale Tiger recovery.76

Tiger Source Populations in IndiaThe report’s overall definition for Source Sites is consistent and relevant to the Indian context,combining practical biological and social criteria (rather than engage in a theoretical exercisearound concepts of population viability under various paradigms of conservation genetics). Onlyminor edits have been made to be consistent with language more commonly used in the regionand in Indian publications. Thus a Source Site is a discretely identifiable geographic area, locatedfully or partially within or adjacent to an identified Tiger conservation landscape, and whichpossesses all of the following essential features.1. Tiger population/s at apparently higher density than in the landscape within which the source isembedded, and which shows evidence of current Tiger reproduction.2. The site is of sufficient size to potentially maintain a cluster of >25 breeding females (Karanthand Stith 1999), estimated based on maximum attainable Tiger densities for that habitat type(Karanth et al. 2004, Ranganathan et al. 2008) under optimal management. This Source Site shouldbe free of human settlements and intensive extractive uses, or at least, must have a clear, agreedupon, reasonable plan for making it free of these pressures, within a short time span (say 5-10years).3. Presence of a management authority and legal framework already in place to prevent poachingof Tigers as well as over-hunting of their principal prey (large ungulates). Additionally, possess atleast some enforcement capacity and some degree of political-social support on ground toimplement protection measures.It is desirable, but not essential, that a Source Site is embedded within a larger landscape matrixthat has the potential capacity to support an overall population of >50-100 breeding females (150-300 Tigers >1 year age) in the form of one or more source populations inter-connected within a‘Tiger permeable’ land cover type.Therefore, in this appraisal, we have focused on identifying existing key Tiger source populationswithin India (Table-1) as targets for urgent, focused protection and conservation interventions.The physical extent of these source areas is based on the extent of legally designated wildlifereserves involved or our best judgement, and excludes wider forest areas designated for multipleuses (e.g reserved forests, Tiger reserve buffer zones etc.)We acknowledge that there are possibly more such Source Sites. For example, extensive Tigerlandscapes in and around Nagarajuna Sagar-Gundla Brahmeshwara wildlife reserves in AndhraPradesh, Kudremukh-Someshwara and Anshi-Dandeli reserves in Karnataka, Mukurthi-Nilamburarea of Tamil Nadu etc. are likely to have reproducing Tiger populations. However, such clustersof female Tigers, wherever they occur now, are likely to be smaller, and only sporadicallyproductive and not easily identifiable as true sources using our criteria. We have termed theseareas as Potential Source Sites (PSS) which are listed separately (Table-2).For density estimates of Tigers used in assessing current Tiger population sizes, we have primarilyrelied on published, peer-reviewed data where they are available (Karanth et al. 2004, Ranganathanet al. 2008, Harihar et al. 2009). Where published estimates are not available form individual sites,or are obviously outdated, we have relied on the NTCA survey report of Jhala et al. (2008). If noneof these data were available, we have made educated guesses based on available estimates forsimilar habitats published from Indian or even South East Asia (Kawanishi and Sunquist 2004,Rayan et al. 2009).Based on our above analysis (Table-1), identified Tiger Source Sites cover an area of about 16,000km 2 with likely Tiger population of about 1,000 animals of over 1 year age. These Source Sites, ifoptimally managed, can support an estimated 1,500 Tigers. These Tiger numbers should beviewed in the overall context that these Source Sites comprises only 0.5% of India’s land area, andonly 5% of assessed maximum Tiger habitat available (Jhala et al. 2008). If potential sourcepopulations (Table-2) are also included in the analysis, estimated habitat and Tiger numberpotential for the country increases to ~ 31,000 km 2 , and, 3,000 Tigers, but yet forms only 10% ofsuitable habitat, and, merely 1% of the land area. It is our case that interventions and investmentsshould be focused on these Source Sites rather than dissipated over wider landscapes.77

Costs of Optimally Managing Tiger Source PopulationsProtected areas harbouring Tigers are managed by India’s Forest Department personnel indifferent states. While the Union (Federal) government sets policies and provides partial fundingunder the aegis of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), different Stategovernments actually manage the reserves and also invest their own funds. Typically in eachreserve, there is Reserve Director (at the Chief Conservator or Conservator level), one or twodeputy directors (at Conservator or Deputy Conservator level) forming the higher management.The field executives consist of Assistant Directors (Assistant Conservators), one two under eachDeputy Director. The Range Forest Officers (six to ten depending on reserve size) who actuallyimplement law enforcement and conservation measures, typically over areas of 100-200 km 2 , arekeystones of the system. Under each Range Forest officer, a well-managed reserve will have about20 armed law-enforcement staff (in Deputy Ranger, Forest Guard and Forest Watcher ranks).Additionally, there are costs of fuel, maintenance of vehicles, field anti-poaching camps,communication systems, and additional cost of fire protection using temporary labourers duringsummer in fire-prone areas etc. In working out such costs, we have used current salary and otherexpenditure levels as assessed in consultations experienced professional managers (e.g. P.K. Sen,personal communication). Although most management costs/unit area, are uniform across thecountry, two factors substantially increase the variance of these costs Tiger protection: The degreeof lack of tolerance for wildlife or equivalently a social tendency to hunt large mammals (Karanthet al. 2009a) and nature of topography and adverse terrain in terms of logistics. We have used thesetwo factors to ‘adjust’ the enforcement cost/unit area in the main report. We have categorized thisintolerance/hunting pressure factor at 2 levels, as low or high, among the source populations acrossIndia. We clarify that even more intensive market/consumption driven pressure on wildlife andsevere intolerance does occur in North Eastern Hill regions of India. Probably as a consequence,not a single Tiger site in these areas is now indisputably identifiable as a distinct Source Site.Whatever Tiger reproduction is now going on appears to be sporadic and isolated, not beingtraceable to a cluster of identifiable female territories as in the case of sources identified in themain report. We have additionally categorized logistical difficulty and related costs of Tigerprotection as: low (in flat terrain with good road access); medium (in some hilly terrain and pooreraccess) and high (mountainous terrain, major rivers, high rainfall), respectively. The averagecountrywide costs have been adjusted upward for each site using these factorsAn additional cost factor that needs serious consideration in India is implementation of fair andgenerous voluntary relocation of human settlements out of these source areas. This is a part ofIndian Government policy, for which the Tiger Task Force identified the financial need of aroundINR 100 million (US$2.18 billion) on a conservative basis. A policy of paying compensation forINR 1 million for every family willing to relocate is already in place. There have been successfulexamples of implementation as well as past failures from which much can be learned (Karanth andKaranth 2007). This critical funding for voluntary relocations also needs to be considered as a partof future Tiger recovery plans for India, though is not included at a site level here.ConclusionsAmong all Tiger range countries, for a quarter century or more, India has continued to exhibit thehighest level of political commitment and support for Tiger conservation. It has also put in placestrong legislation and has built up a national scientific capacity for Tiger conservation that is quiteadvanced. There is also substantial (if somewhat urban-based) social support for Tigerconservation. However, because of pressures of human demography and rapid economicdevelopment, combined with a broader mission-drift away from serious protection of Source Sitesthat characterized the earlier Tiger recovery of the 1970’s and 1980’s, several Tiger populationshave been lost across India and many more are on the brink.India provides powerful, contrasting examples of what works and what does not for saving Tigers.Where Source Sites have been the focus of sustained efforts and have received both strongprotection and monitoring, Tigers flourish like nowhere else on earth. Where priorities areconfused, focus is too broad, and will is lacking, it leads to poor protection and monitoring, with78

Tigers suffering the ultimate fate. While there are many regional, national and even local-levelfactors that distinguish other sites across the Tiger’s range from India, the fundamentals remainthe same. Today, many large, relatively intact ‘Tiger landscapes’ are virtually devoid of Tigers,despite appearing as huge swathes of green on remotely-sensed forest cover maps (Dinerstein et al.2006) after having millions of dollars poured into them at a broad and diffuse scale.Our recommendation in this context is that India should re-emphasize its traditional commitmentto protection of Source Sites even more strongly. We highlight the fact that if India’s Source Sitesare managed optimally even just they themselves can maintain >2000 Tigers, and if PotentialSource Sites are also so be well-managed, this goes up to >3000 wild Tigers, just inside protectedareas. This number alone would be approximately three times the world’s current Tiger populationoutside India, a massive contribution to species survival. Furthermore, these sources can thengradually produce surpluses to repopulate wider landscapes that can be built outwards as ishappening today in the Western Ghats. Therefore, it is critical that limited resources available nowshould be applied to recovery of these source populations. WCS recognizes this as a missioncriticalfirst step in ‘re-building Tiger populations outwards locally’- to achieve ‘landscape levelrecoveries of Tigers globally’.79

India Map 1. All sites80

India Map 2. India South81

India Map 3. India North82

India Map 4. India Northeast83

INDONESIAOverviewThe Sumatran Tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae) is the only one of three Indonesian Tiger subspeciesthat survives today. Despite legal protection from the Government of Indonesia (Regulation No.7/2009) the remaining habitats and populations are in decline from continued conflict withhuman interests. The majority of Tigers that remain persist in 12 Tiger Conservation Landscapes(TCL) covering ~88,000 km² and approximately 42% of this area lies within National Parks 1, 2 .Despite these large areas of legally protected forest, increasing levels of habitat loss andfragmentation in recent years 4 threaten to undermine the integrity of these landscapes 4, 5,6,7 . Inaddition, continued demand for Tiger body parts 9 conflict over crops and livestock 10 and nonselectiveungulate snares kill large numbers of wild Tigers throughout Sumatra every year. As aconsequence of these threats, previous estimates of the total Sumatran Tiger numbers were as lowas 400-500 individuals 11 . A preliminary analysis of recent Sumatra island-wide survey coveringapproximately 80% of the remaining habitats suggests that Tigers occupy 73 – 82% of the totalsurveyed areas 10 . In 2007, the Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia launched the second NationalStrategy and Action Plan for the Conservation of Sumatran Tiger: 2007 – 2017 (NSAP: 2007 –2017) revising the previous NSAP of 1994 1 . The key strategies of the action plan include: 1)maintain and stabilize the remaining Sumatran Tiger population and their landscapes acrossSumatra, 2) strengthen the capacity of the Ministry of Forestry in evaluating Sumatran Tigerconservation efforts, 3) strengthen the management of Sumatran Tiger in non-protectedlandscapes, 4) improve inter-institutional conservation network, and 5) improve the ex-situprograms that benefit in-situ Tiger conservation efforts.LandscapesDespite such prominent threats, considerable potential remains for the preservation of viableTiger populations on Sumatra. The largest remaining populations are found in the rugged forestsof the Barisan mountain range that runs along the western edge of the island. While these tropicalmontane forests do not naturally support high densities of Tigers, the sheer size of theselandscapes and their inaccessible rugged terrain may provide the best long-term prospects forpopulation security. The three most significant populations and landscapes of Sumatran Tigers arethe Leuser-Ulu Masen Mega landscape in the north of the island and the Kerinci Seblat and BukitTigapuluh landscapes in the centre. These three landscapes are designated as TCL global priorityand level I, occupying vast tracts of more than 69,300 km 2 .Leuser – Ulu Masen MegalandscapeThe Leuser–Ulu Masen Megalandscape (~34,000 km 2 ) is a newly designated, level 1 TCL in thenorth of Sumatra. This TCL was delineated by combing the boundaries of the Leuser Ecosystemand the contiguous Ulu Masen forest complex. The sheer size of this site and its largelycontiguous forests support one of the most important Tiger populations on the island.Approximately 32% of this landscape lies within Gunung Leuser National Park (GLNP, ~10,000km 2 ) in the southeast portion of the region. Much of the TCL is under the authority of theProvincial Government of Aceh with NGO support provided largely by Fauna & FloraInternational (FFI) in Ulu Masen and the Leuser International Foundation (LIF) in the GunungLeuser Ecosystem. In 2007, the Wildlife Conservation Society–Indonesia Program (WCS-IP)started its Tigers Forever initiative in this landscape while working in close collaboration with LIFand the GLNP. In 2007, the Government of Aceh established a management body, BadanPengelola Kawasan Leuser (BPKEL), charged with managing the Leuser Ecosystem. However,the GLNP remains under the authority of the central government of Indonesia.10 A collaborative effort by the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature conservation, theMinistry of Forestry of Indonesia, Wildlife Conservation Society, Fauna & Flora International, LeuserInternational Foundation, and Rhino foundation of Indonesia.84

Kerinci Seblat LandscapeThe Kerinci Seblat landscape (~28,000 km 2 ) occupies much of west Sumatra and lies in the centralportion of the Barisan Mountain Range. Approximately 49% of the overall TCL lies within theKerinci Seblat National Park (KSNP, ~13,800 km 2 ), the largest national park on Sumatra.Between 1997 and 2002, the Government of Indonesia implemented the World Bank/IntegratedConservation and Development Project (ICDP) in an effort to address the prolific deforestationof this region. Despite considerable input from partners that included the World Bank/GlobalEnvironment Facility (WB/GEF), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and WarungKonservasi (WARSI), deforestation continues to be a significant threat in this region 8 . In 2000,FFI started a Tiger specific conservation program in the Kerinci Seblat Landscape and to this daythey are the only major NGO working to conserve Tigers in this National Park and the widerlandscape.Bukit Tigapuluh LandscapeThe Bukit Tigapuluh landscape (7,100 km 2 ) is located in central Sumatra. Approximately 20% ofthe overall Tiger Conservation Landscape lies within the Bukit Tigapuluh National Park (BTNP,1,400 km 2 ). Within the BTNP there are currently four NGO partners running well-establishedfield projects. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Yayasan Perlindungan dan KonservasiHarimau Sumatra (PKHS) focus their resources on Tiger protection units, park management,human-wildlife conflict, and community outreach. In addition, the Forest Fire Prevention andSuppression Program (FFPS) works to limit habitat losses from fires and the Frankfurt ZoologicalSociety (FZS) run an Orangutan rehabilitation and reintroduction program.Bukit Barisan Selatan / Bukit Balai Rejang SelatanThe Bukit Barisan Selatan/Bukit Balai Rejang landscape (henceforth BBS landscape) is situated inthe south east tip of Sumatra and covers an area of approximately 2,100 km 2 . Unlike the otherlandscapes described here, the BBS landscape does not encompass an entire National Park and ismuch smaller than the Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park (BBSNP, 3,500 km 2 ). Fifty-ninepercent of this National Park is designated as a level III TCL, mainly due to extensivedeforestation in the mid section of the park that has effectively bisected the available habitat. In1995, the Indonesian Department of Forestry, supported by the UNDP/GEF and theInternational Rhino Foundation started operating four rhino protection units (enforcementteams). In 2007, the Rhino Foundation of Indonesia began managing and operating eight rhinoprotection units. WCS-IP has run Tiger conservation programs in this landscape since 1998;focusing on long-term population monitoring, Tiger protection units, park management, andwildlife–human conflict mitigation. In 2000, WWF started working in the landscape focusing onwildlife and park management, and community empowerment. Additionally, Warga Pencinta Alam(Watala), a Lampung-based NGO, has worked intensively in the national park since the early1990s, largely focusing on rural development projects.The Bukit Balai Rejang Selatan landscape is a 3,884 km 2 TCL, designated as regional priority andlevel II, in the north of BBSNP. Less than a half of the landscape is the BBSNP. Between 2007and 2008, WCS-IP carried out a rapid presence/absence survey to assess Tiger and prey status inthe landscape. This was the first ever systematic survey in the landscape and resulted in numerousdiscoveries of Tiger signs. Today, WCS-IP is the only NGO working in the area with its ongoingcarbon project initiative.85

Source SitesThe Sumatran Source Sites are areas of legally protected land nested within three of the island'sTiger conservation landscapes. If the habitat, prey base and Tigers are effectively protected withinthese Source Sites, then we expect the local Tiger populations to both persist long term andultimately feed Tigers into the wider landscapes where it is currently not feasible to provideconsistent and stringent enough protection.These were chosen as areas in the most viable Tiger landscapes within which to concentrateground level conservation interventions. We have emphasized protected forests of the BarisanMountain Range because although research has demonstrated that Tigers often occur outside ofprotected areas, they are more vulnerable to poaching and Tiger-human conflict in unprotectedareas. In addition, these human-dominated landscapes are almost always subject to ongoingchange to meet the needs of burgeoning local human populations. To secure Tiger populations inthe long-term, we must ensure that protected areas serve as Source Sites for Tigers; that is, theyprovide sufficient refugia from anthropogenic threats to both Tigers and prey so that Tigersreproduce above replacement levels. The immediate protection of Source Sites within these largerlandscapes is essential if these landscapes are to support viable populations in the long term.It is important to note that despite their current size, these landscapes are seriously threatened byillegal encroachment at their margins and fragmentation from new roads through their interiors.In addition, the highly concentrated rural communities that surround and often colonize theselandscapes place considerable strain on the natural resources, including both Tigers and their prey.Tigers and people often come into contact in the mixture of degraded forests and ruralsettlements bordering protected areas, so human-Tiger conflict mitigation must focus on theseareas. If not, it is likely that the direct persecution of Tigers and prey will undermine the efforts tomaintain viable populations in these sites.The prolific landscape change following Indonesian rural development projects on Sumatra hasfragmented Tiger habitats, likely creating numerous sub-populations. The Source Sites described inthis document can loosely be described as the largest populations in the most contiguous habitats,but this does not address the existence of numerous other “potential” Source Sites. The mostimportant of these sites may lie in the gaps between current Source Sites, and these are thedispersal landscapes through which sub-adult Tigers will pass to move between major forestblocks. Suppressing human-Tiger conflict and trade in these landscapes should be a priority tomaintain genetic connectivity between populations.Financial cost of Tiger conservationTo calculate the cost of Tiger conservation at the Source Sites, we first modeled an idealdeployment of resources based on tried-and-tested interventions. This consisted of amanagement team for each site plus operations, infrastructure, and a variable number of technicaland task-oriented teams. The ‘ideal’ numbers of teams at each site was estimated based on the areaand perimeter of each site with adjustments made for any known special conditions. Thefunctional units used in the financial assessment were as follows:• Management team (1): Leader, assistants, finance and administrative staff, together withthe bulk of routine administrative costs. Infrastructure includes office equipment and vehicles.• Technical team (1-2): Technical support staff, equipment, operational costs, andspecialists, Including paralegal, veterinarian, GIS, database officers, and assistants.• Outreach team (1-2): Leader, assistants, vehicle, equipment and operational costsdedicated to outreach and awareness activities outside of the area boundary.• Wildlife crime team (1-2): Leader, assistant, vehicles, equipment and operational costs,including costs of informant network, joint agency operations, roadblocks, and legalprosecutions. Dedicated to detecting, investigating and prosecuting wildlife crime and outsideof the area boundary.86

Table 2. Estimated costs of optimal Tiger conservation. Operational and infrastructure costs are shownseparately. All costs in USD. Total operational costs equals $12,217,780. Total infrastructure costs equals andadditional $4,353,000.CategoryUSD TotalSS1 SS2 SS3 SS4 SS5 SS6 SS7 SS8Staffing 1,679,000 1,793,000 811,000 1,098,000 1,048,000 811,000 881,000 881,000Equipment 124,000 131,200 64,900 83,200 79,100 64,900 68,900 68,900Travel 90,000 97,200 43,200 61,200 57,600 43,200 46,800 46,800Supplies 189,600 217,200 88,200 121,200 119,400 88,200 90,000 90,000Operational 182,400 182,400 101,520 137,760 119,760 101,520 107,760 107,760Sub-total noninfrastructure2,265,000 2,421,000 1,108,820 1,501,360 1,423,860 1,108,820 1,194,460 1,194,460Infrastructure 818,500 899,500 364,000 542,500 527,500 364,000 418,500 418,500Total 3,083,500 3,320,500 1,472,820 2,043,860 1,951,360 1,472,820 1,612,960 1,612,960Existing financial resourcesCurrently the financial resources potentially available to Tiger conservation at the selected sitesequals or exceeds the resources estimated to be required. The bulk of this money is available throughthe public-money funding of both national parks and regional conservation offices. Additionalresources being provided by non-governmental organizations are small in comparison. Table 3shows a rough estimation of current funds available for the implementation of the conservationinterventions budgeted here.Table 3. Estimated financial resources currently available in selected sitesStakeholder Comments Annual (USD)Forestry-PHKA National parks & regional offices (BKSDA) $13,000,000WCS Tiger conservation in south and north Sumatra $300,000Other NGOs Estimated dedicated to Tiger conservation $700,000Local Government Variable, mostly indirect UnknownOther agencies Including police, judiciary, customs & excise UnknownTotal $14,000,000Resource requirementsIt can be seen that while the costs of optimal Tiger conservation are high, they are by no meanshigh compared to existing resources. The most urgent need for Tiger conservation in the selectedSumatran sites is more effective use of existing money.Most pressing is the need for the principal management agency responsible for Tiger conservationin Sumatra, PHKA, to improve the efficiency of its operation. Measures should include improvedfinancial and operational planning, greater accountability in financial and operational performance,orientation to achieving and monitoring defined targets, improved communication, improvedhuman resource management and dedicated and clear leadership from the top. At many sites, it iscurrently non-governmental organizations that provide both the leadership and on-the-groundpresence that drives effective Tiger conservation. Such organizations are typically operating withbudgets and staffing levels less than 10% of that available to national parks and regionalconservation offices in the same areas.88

GovernanceUltimately, the key to securing a future for wild Sumatran Tigers rests with the Government ofIndonesia (GoI) recognizing their responsibility to protect this species and the habitats on which itdepends. In order to do this we must recognize that one of the key non-financial requirements foreffective conservation is strong leadership. This is as true for state Government officials as it is forindividual protected area managers. In addition, there is a need for increased accountability, bothof the individuals and of groups working toward the conservation of Tigers. This transparencywill allow good work to receive due recognition but equally, will allow poor performances to beidentified and dealt with quickly. In order to instill these traits within key individuals andorganizations, a process of peer review may prove very beneficial.Given the severity of the situation facing wild Tigers today, the GoI must now direct its resources,particularly human resources, to the active protection of the remaining populations. In addition,they must set definitive deadlines by which they will have eradicated the following key threats fromSource Sites: hunting of Tigers, hunting of prey species, and the loss of habitats within SourceSites and surrounding National Parks. There must be a clear statement of consequence if thesedeadlines are not met.ConclusionThe Source Sites described here indicate tangible areas within Sumatra’s wider Tiger ConservationLandscapes in which practical conservation measures should be focused, but not limited to. Theassociated financial analysis indicates the scale of costs associated with the protection of thesesites totaling over two million hectares in area.Effective management of Tigers within the identified Source Sites should enable Tigers to persistwithin Sumatra and for the sites to perform as a source for a wider landscape. Realizing this goalhowever requires two important considerations. Firstly these may not be the only sites thatperform as ‘sources’ in the strict ecological sense (population growth exceeds carrying capacityand so drives dispersal). For this reason the identification of Source Sites will continue as thequality of data available increases and should be seen as a dynamic process. Secondly for SourceSites to be effective in the very long term they must have functional connectivity to a wider areaof suitable habitat, and to each other.When considering both the issues of site selection and of dispersal there are two importantcharacteristics of Sumatra that should be taken into account. First, although Sumatra still has largetracts of Tiger habitat, a large proportion of this is tropical montane forest; a habitat that naturallysupports only low densities of Tigers and their prey. Accordingly, very large areas are required tosupport sufficient individuals to create self-sustaining populations. Secondly, many of Sumatra'slarge tracts of montane forest do not have ‘hard edges’. Instead we see the boundary of core areasgraduating into a matrix of degraded natural vegetation, rural settlement and both small- andindustrial-scale agriculture. The last 20 years has witnessed the encroachment of such habitats intoremaining forest, and this trend looks set to continue. This situation contrasts with the situation inIndia, for example, in which a prolific loss of forest during the second world war has led to manySource Sites being defined by protected areas with a sharp, but stable, boundaries between naturalforest and human-dominated landscapes. Combining the low densities of Tigers with Sumatranforests, with prolific encroachment requires that we give equal importance to protectingconnectivity as well as conserving large tracts of forest.To supplement the analysis presented here on potential Source Sites we are currently working toidentify key areas of connectivity within the larger forest blocks of the Sumatra, particularlywithin the Barisan mountain range that forms the largest continuous area of suitable habitat. Bytargeting additional resources to areas of habitat connectivity we will be able to maintainfunctional links between sub-populations and ensure that these landscapes do not degenerate intoa series of small, isolated fragments that are unable to support meaningful populations.89

Indonesia Map90

LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICWildlife in LaosUnique to South-east Asia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (hereafter called Laos) stillcombines extensive habitat for Tiger and their prey, with a multiple-use protected area systemcovering 13% of the country and a human population density that is the lowest in the region. Thenation harbours a rich fauna with numerous species of global conservation importance and severalTiger conservation landscapes of global and regional significance (Duckworth et al., 1999).Overhunting for illegal trade, and to a lesser degree for subsistence, is the greatest immediatethreat to wildlife - including Tigers and their prey (Nooren and Claridge, 2001; World Bank 2005).At the same time, habitat loss driven by shifting cultivation, logging for timber, and conversion ofnatural forests to cash crops and plantations, is proceeding at an unprecedented rate (GoL 2005).Urgent effective conservation action is needed to halt unmanaged hunting and land use if we areto successfully arrest the current decline of wild Tigers, prey and their habitat in Laos.Status of Tigers and their conservation in LaosAlthough Laos still contains extensive habitat in several Tiger conservation landscapes that couldpotentially harbour populations of at least 50 breeding females, the status of the Tiger populationin the majority of these landscapes remains unknown (Vongkhamheng and Johnson 2009). Thepaucity of information is attributed to the fact that Tigers have received little conservationattention in the last decade due to a lack of financial support and national capacity to undertakeTiger research and conservation. However, existing data from field surveys during the 1990s,recent research and monitoring in a few national protected areas and anecdotal reports fromothers indicate that wild Tigers do still occur in Lao PDR, but at seemingly very low numbers.In 1998, Duckworth and Hedges mapped 64 Tiger records spread over the country, of which only21 were confirmed records based on sightings or remains of Tigers. Based on these data andhabitat availability they suggested only five areas that showed particular potential for harbouringviable Tiger populations. These areas were (Figure 1):i) Northern Laos including three non-contiguous areas: Nam Et-Phou Louey NPAs, NamKan NPA and Nam Phoun NPAii) Central Laos in the Nam Theun basin including the contiguous area between Nakai-NamTheun (including Nakai Plateau), Nam Kading, Khammouan Limestone and Hin NamnoNPAs.iii) Southern Laos including the contiguous area on the slopes of the Bolavenh Plateaubetween Xe Pian, Dong Hua Sao and Dong Ampham NPAs, Xe Khampho and NamKong PPAs and the Xe Kong basin.In 2006, Dinerstein et al. mapped approximately 175 Tiger point locations recorded from 1995-2005 in Laos. These records combined with recent land cover and human influence data wereused to demarcate six TCLs and three potential landscapes of priority for Tiger conservation andsurveys (Figure 1).Recent records of Tigers from 2006-2009 were compiled by Vonkhamheng and Johnson (2009)from two sources, i) written reports of field research projects and, ii) standardized interviews inSeptember 2009 with local wildlife conservation workers including protected area staff, foresters,and/or NGO staff who have worked or have experience in particular areas for at least two years.Pre-prepared data forms were faxed or e-mailed to those concerned people and then followed upby phone calls. The data form included questions about the evidence of: i) Tiger signs/sightingswith a detailed description of the evidence, location and date, ii) Tiger human conflict with adescription of the human killing or type of livestock killed, description of the evidence for eachcase, and date, and iii) threats to Tigers including direct killing and date, presence of hunting ofprey or habitat loss and description. The likelihood that reports represented actual Tiger presencewere ranked as follows: Confirmed: Tigers were photographed by camera traps or identified by91

DNA analysis of scats; Likely: report of Tiger killed; track width equal to or greater than 10cm orpad width equal to or greater than 7.5cm; Possible: report of depredation of adult buffalo or ahuman killed by Tiger; and Uncertain: report of tracks less than 10cm wide or pad less than 7.5cmwide; report of a Tiger sighting; report of other signs or depredation of a cow.The results indicated that Tigers may still occur in several landscapes (Table 1), but Tigersare confirmed from only one protected area (Nam Et-Phou Louey) in TCL35 with likelyevidence of their presence reported from thirteen other protected areas in the other five TCLs. Inall other locations, the presence of Tiger is uncertain or absent. Given this information, Tigerabundance appears to have declined over the last decade throughout Laos and Tigers may now beextirpated in some areas based on the following evidence:• Rarity of sightings of Tigers in the forest. Out of 35 interviews with people working in landscapes inLaos, there were only eight reports of sightings of Tigers since 2005.• Rarity of camera-trap photos in key areas surveyed since 2005. In Nakai Nam Theun NPA (TCL27;Figure 1) where sightings of Tigers were once regularly reported by field workers during 1990s(Duckworth et al., 1999), no Tigers have been photographed since 2006 despite extensive cameratrap surveys (11,870 camera trap days) across 20% of the NPA (Johnson and Johnston 2007;Smith 2008). In the same TCL in the Nam Kading NPA, no Tigers have been photographed since2007 during 6,357 camera trap days across 25% of the NPA (WCS unpublished data).• Reports of Tiger poaching. There are reports of at least 23 Tigers being poached from eight NPAssince 2003, which are only those that local authorities have strong evidence of (Vongkhamhengand Johnson 2009). The number of actual kills across the country is uncertain. Given the smallnumbers of Tigers that likely remain in Laos, this level of poaching suggests that Tigers may bevulnerable to extirpation in many areas.• Prey depletion. Large prey (i.e. bovids and cervids) have been heavily hunted; muntjac and wildpig are now probably the key prey (Johnson et al., 2006, Johnson and Johnston 2007, WCSunpublished data). In the present situation, Tigers may be approaching to a hypothetical ‘muntjaconlyscenario’, where small prey (

Potential for Tiger recovery in LaosOur review of Tigers and their status in Laos highlights the significance of the NEPL Source Sitenot only to the recovery and conservation of Tigers in Laos but to the entire Indochina region,where no other Source Sites of similar potential are presently known. Although Tiger numbers inNEPL are currently low, given the high resilience and fecundity of Tigers, there is enormouspotential for significantly increasing Tiger density in NEPL in the future. For example, if secureadequate funding is available for protection of the 300,000 ha NEPL core zone, the habitat issuitable for achieving a 15-fold increase in Tigers - from an estimated 10-20 individuals today toup 150 individuals in the long term. Thus, relative to high-density Tiger sites elsewhere in Asia,Laos offers some of the highest potential for relatively large increases in Tiger populations withinthe coming decade if adequate funding for protection and monitoring is forthcoming.Furthermore, the success of existing on-the-ground management activities in NEPL to stabilizeTiger populations and reduce threats at the site since 2005 is a testimony to the fact thatmeasurable Tiger conservation can be achieved at Source Sites in Laos if appropriate financial andtechnical support is provided to do so. The NEPL NPA has successfully trained and deployed thefirst extensive field-based enforcement system in the country to over 200,000 ha of the NPA corezone. Systematic law enforcement monitoring since 2007 indicates that the increased patrol effortin the core zone is having the desired effect of lowering the index of hunting per km patrolled inthe core zone. As evidence of their commitment to conservation, the GoL has adopted theenforcement, outreach and monitoring models being trialled in NEPL and, with internationalpartners, is now implementing similar management interventions in six other national protectedareas and six provincial protected areas in the country.Other features of Laos that will facilitate large increases in Tiger populations if adequate supportfor on-the-ground conservation is present are:i) Low human population density: Laos has a human population density of only 22 persons per km 2 ascompared with other Tiger range states in Indochina (263 people/km 2 for Vietnam, 128people/km 2 for Thailand, 80 people/km 2 in Cambodia).ii) High forest cover: The country has over 40% forest cover, which provides large extensive habitatthat could support viable populations of Tigers and prey.iii) Extensive coverage of protected areas: There are 21 relatively large national protected areas ranging insize from 700 to 3,500 km 2 , covering 14% of the country’s land area, as well as over 50 provincialprotected areas that can, with adequate protection, serve as recovery sites for Tigers and prey.iv) Habitat quality: Tigers require a mosaic of vegetation and adequate prey densities. In Laos, anextensive mosaic of vegetation exists in primary forests where forest edges abut grasslands andriverine zones, and in human-disturbed areas where secondary forests lie adjacent to settled orcleared areas. Ungulates such as Gaur, Sambar, Southern Serow, wild pigs, and muntjacs stillpersist in most protected areas and with adequate protection, could rebound relatively quickly ashabitat and other required resources are still available.v) National policies that promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in place, as well as thedissemination of national laws addressing wildlife protection. The Lao PDR’s Constitution (1991) states that“all organizations and citizens must protect the environment and the natural resources including:land, underground minerals, forests, fauna, water sources and the atmosphere” (Article 17). Morerecently, the law on aquatic and terrestrial wildlife states that Tigers and their larger prey (Gaur,Banteng, Sambar, Southern Serow) are listed as protected (GoL 2007). On the 3rd of April 2007the Prime Minister also signed an urgent agreement No. 25/PM, to increase effectiveness of forestmanagement throughout the country. This agreement states how the nation’s economicdevelopment is linked to the country’s environmental status. Additionally, Lao is a signatory to theConvention on Biological Diversity (1994) and the Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (2004).94

vi) The role of Tigers in economic development. Economically, tourism is one of the fastest growingindustries in the country, contributing substantially to the overall growth of the national economyof Laos. Ecotourism development is a government priority (GoL 2004) and there are initiativesunderway already in some protected areas that could provide incentives for protection of wildTigers and their habitats.CostsCapitalizing on the opportunities for conserving Tigers at the NEPL Source Site in Laos, which isessential for the recovery of Tigers across Indochina, is dependent on increasing financial supportfor key elements of Tiger conservation – enforcement and monitoring. Laos is ranked as amedium-developed country, with a human development index of 133 out of 182 (UNDP 2008),where annual per capita income is only $US583 per year (World Bank 2008). Under theserestricted economic conditions, the current level of government support for the relatively vastnational protected area system is only $US11/km 2 with less than five government staff on averagein each of the 21 protected areas, which range in size from 700 to 5,950 km 2 .To effectively protect and recover Tigers in the 5,950 km 2 Nam Et-Phou Louey Source Site, weestimate that at least 27 times that amount ($US295/km 2 ) for reoccurring costs per annum isneeded in addition to a one-off minimum investment of $US4.7 million for infrastructure andequipment. $US295/km 2 equates to an annual recurring budget for the NEPL NPA of $US1.8million to cover NPA management, enforcement (including public relations and village outreach)and monitoring. Fifteen percent of this total recurring cost is met with government contributionsto staff salaries with the remaining needed from other sources.95

Lao People’s Democratic Republic Map.96

Prior to 2005 to present 2 (level of confidence)No TCL Name of Protected Area2005 1 Confirmed Likely Possible Uncertain Sources17 34 Upper Nam Ngem Watershed - - - SN WCS staff18 34 Upper Nam Chouan Watershed - - - SN WCS staff19 34 Special Zone (Xaysomboun) - - - SN WCS staff20 26 Dong Khanthoung X - - - -III. Class 3 Landscapes21 36 Nam Ha NPA X - TK,TG BD RS,CD NPA staff22 36 Nam Kan NPA X - TK,TG BD, HK CD NPA/DAFO staff23 33 Hin Nam Nor NPA X - TG BD RS NPA /IUCN staff24 33 Phou Xanghe NPA X - TG BD TL,SN NPA staff25 33 Lavin-Laveun PPA - - - SN WCS staffIV. Potential Landscapes26 32 Xe Bangnouan NPA X - TG,TK BD CD NPA staff27 32 Phou Xiengthong NPA X - TG BD CD NPA staff28 - Nam Phoun (Poui) NPA X - TG,TK BD TL,CD NPA, DAFO staff29 - Phou Phanang NPA ? - - - - NPA staff30 - Phou Dendin NPA ? - TK - TL,CD NPA staff1Records prior to 2005 from Duckworth & Hedges (1998): ? - Tiger presence based on provisional report, x - Tiger presence based on signs, sighting2Degree of confidence of Tiger report from 2005 to present:Confirmed: Tigers were photographed by camera traps (PHO) or identified by DNA analysis of scats (DNA)Likely: report of Tiger killed (TK); tracks >10 cm wide or pad >7.5 cm wide (TG)Possible: report of depredation of adult buffalo (BD) or a human killed (HK)Uncertain: reports of cat tracks

MALAYSIAOverviewThe Tiger is the national animal of Malaysia. Tigers only inhabit the peninsula of Malaysia, being naturallyabsent from the island of Borneo. In the 1950s, the number of wild Tigers in Malaysia was estimated tobe around 3,000 animals (Locke, 1954). By 1990, the official estimate of wild Tigers surviving in Malaysiawas around 500 animals (Khan, 1987; Topani, 1990). Since then field surveys have been undertaken atsites across the country, providing more accurate estimates for parts of the forest estate (e.g. Kawanishiand Sunquist, 2004; Lynam et al. 2007). Under the National Tiger Action Plan for Malaysia 2008-2020,prepared by the Malaysian Government, in cooperation with Malaysian Nature Society, TRAFFICSoutheast Asia, Wildlife Conservation Society Malaysia Program and World Wide Fund for NatureMalaysia, the Malaysian Government set an ambitious but attainable target of increasing the officialnumber to 1,000 wild Tigers throughout its protected areas and its permanent reserve forests.Towards securing this 1,000 wild Tigers by 2020 are four main objectives:1. Secure the Central Forest Spine with strictly protected priority areas (Source Sites) in landscapesconnected with corridors.2. Provide effective and long-term protection of Tigers and their prey.3. Promote and practice ecologically sound land-use, compatible with Tiger conservation outside thepriority areas.4. Apply science in monitoring the efficacy of conservation actions and improving the knowledge ofTiger ecology.The definitions of ‘Core Priority Areas’ by the Government of Malaysia’s National Tiger Action Plan(Department of Wildlife and National Parks, 2008) closely match the Source Site definition used here.The only difference between the Source Sites and the Core Priority Areas is in the Endau RompinComplex. Here the Source Site is larger than the Core Priority Area as it follows new data on Tigers andtheir prey and the Johor Government’s long-term initiative and commitment to protection andconservation under the Johor Wildlife Conservation Project (WCS Malaysia, 2009).LandscapesThe Central Forest Spine is connected by four sites, which fall into three broad landscapes the MainRange (20,000 sq km), Greater Taman Negara (15,000 sq km) and the Southern Forest (10,000 sq km).Native forests predominate throughout these three major landscapes, which are spread across severalstates, among them Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Perak, Selangor and Terengganu.Management of these forests and the wildlife are the responsibility of the Forest Departments andDepartments of Wildlife and National Parks within each individual state respectively.The state-based governance system for forests wildlife is important to understand in the context ofMalaysia and this is discussed further in the Governance section below.Source SitesAs mentioned Source Sites in this report are almost akin to the Core Priority Area under the NationalTiger Action Plan, except for the updated boundaries of the Endau Rompin Complex. We also concurwith the Governments of Malaysia’s selection of which sites are likely to have the highest potential forconservation success and which can become (if they are not already) sources for Tigers repopulating orsupplementing the wider landscapes.Source Sites are located in the native forest landscape and away from major towns and cities. Forexample, the closest large town from the Endau-Rompin complex is Kluang (~ 250,000 residents) and itis about 2 hours drive from the boundary of the Site. Both Belum-Temenggor Complex and Taman99

Negara are also remote and several hours drive away from major towns. The Belum-Temenggor Complexis a contiguous block of Permanent Reserve Forests in northern Peninsular Malaysia which is in fact alsocontiguous with the Protected Areas of Thailand, i.e. the Hala-Bala Wildlife Sanctuary and the Bang LangNational Park. To the south, the Belum-Temenggor Complex is also contiguous with the main range ofthe Central Forest Spine, which in turn is connected by forests to Taman Negara. Meanwhile TamanNegara itself is surrounded by Permanent Reserve Forests. The Endau Rompin-Complex is alsoconnected to the Southeast Pahang peat swamp forests (Pekan and Nenasi), which in turn is connectedChini-Bera forests (DTCP, 2005). However, all these forest complexes have human settlements andconverted lands for plantations, rice paddy and other crops adjacent to them so that human activity mustbe closely managed to be compatible with Tiger conservation.The Endau Rompin Complex has been the most recent site to be identified as a priority for Malaysia’sTigers and high-intensity Tiger-focussed work has only recently started in the state of Johor. Since thepublication of the Action Plan, Johor Government-led targeted research has focussed conservation andprotection activities on a Tiger-occupied area that is actually larger than depicted under the National TigerAction Plan (WCS Malaysia 2009).Area of each Source Site• Belum-Temenggor Complex - 3,546 sq km• Taman Negara – 4,343 sq km• Endau Rompin Complex – 3,558 sq kmThe National Tiger Action Plan for Malaysia was written using the latest and most accurate data available,provided from a number of government and non-governmental sources. These Priority Areas werechosen after various consultations, a major specialists workshop and subsequent revisions andrefinements between November 2006 and July 2007. The main aim of choosing the Core Priority Areaswas to determine the areas with most demographically robust Tiger populations with sufficientmanagement and protected area structure to best protect Tigers in Malaysia. The sources for this analysisinclude, but are not restricted to the following: Kawanishi et al. (2003), Kawanishi and Sunquist (2004)and Department of Wildlife and National Parks (2008). A full reference list is provided at the end of thischapter.Source Sites include existing protected areas, such as Endau Rompin Johor National Park, Taman Negara,Royal Belum State Park and also sustainably managed logged-over areas, also termed as PermanentReserve Forests. Tigers survive and breed in these sustainably managed logged-over forests as have beenshown in the Endau Rompin Complex and Belum-Temenggor Complex. If these sites are suitablyprotected from illegal hunting, encroachment and fragmentation then they present a massive opportunityfor Malaysia’s Tigers as the area not only contains regionally significant Tigers now, but the selectivelylogged forests offer a far greater carrying capacity for Tiger prey, thereby allowing for a greater density ofTigers. The fact that this Protected Area and forest reserves are contiguous merely adds to the value ofthe landscape and the robustness of the collective Tiger populations.Through estimates of potential Tiger density we have calculated that the protection of these Source Sitescould secure at least 260 wild Tigers, of which more than 80 could be breeding females (see Table 1).There is little value in speculating exactly what proportion of the current Tiger populations thisrepresents, given that overall estimates are predominantly speculative, but it is certainly greater than 50%and would be second only to the Tennasserim Forest Complex of Thailand/Myanmar in the whole ofmainland South East Asia. More importantly, these Source Sites themselves would, if protected, likelyrepresent demographically viable populations in themselves, a feature that should not be underestimated.Some of the current Tiger conservation activities at the Source Sites include:• Belum-Temenggor – community outreach, market intelligence, patrolling and camera-trappingsurveys of Tigers in parts of the Source Site• Taman Negara – community outreach, patrolling, camera-trapping surveys of Tigers and proposedprey occupancy surveys• Endau Rompin Complex – community outreach, checkpoints, market intelligence, patrolling,pursuit teams, prey-occupancy surveys (in State of Johor) and camera trapping surveys of Tigers (inState of Johor).100

However, due to the severity of the threats to Malaysia’s Tigers, the intensity of these current activitiesneeds to be increased. At present, some of the patrolling activities are sometimes conducted once amonth and often in the most accessible sites, i.e. within the protected area boundaries and not within thePermanent Reserve Forests. Poachers’ activities are relentless as shown by the numbers of snaresremoved from e.g. Belum-Temenggor each month. There is thus a need to deter these poachers fromeven entering the site. Some extra proposed activities could be checkpoints along roads, boundary patrolsand formation of armed pursuit teams.Table 1. – Source Sites and estimated carrying capacity of TigersSource Site (SS) Name AREAPotential Tigerdensity/1,000 sq kmPotential numberof Tigers by SSBelum-Temenggor Complex 3,546 26 92 32Taman Negara 4,343 20 87 26Endau Rompin Complex(Johor and Pahang) 3,55820 in Park and 26 inPRF 81 25260 83Potential breedingfemales by SSSource of potential densities in Table 1: Kawanishi and Sunquist (2004), Darmaraj and Wan Sharif (2009). The potential Tigerdensity of 26/1000 sq km is from Kawanishi and Sunquist’s (2004) research in the primary rainforests of Taman Negara, whereas thedensity of 26 Tigers/1000 sq km is quoted from Darmaraj and Wan Sharif’s (2009) surveys in logged-over forests.CostingGiven the dramatic declines of Tigers across Asia, even from some Protected Areas, it is essential thatMalaysia learns from these losses and ensures that the same does not happen on the peninsula. This isnow important, not just for Malaysia, but for the species as a whole, as it now probably has one of thetwo most significant Tiger populations in mainland Southeast Asia.The cost of protecting Tigers in Malaysia includes the following: management and operational costs forthe protected areas, patrolling, enforcement, market surveillance, intelligence gathering, monitoring ofTigers and prey and community outreach. At present, there is both Malaysian Federal and State financialsupport for the management of Protected Areas as well as the Permanent Reserve Forests. There is alsoNGO and corporate support for these Source Sites and some of these are project-driven, annual funds.Some multi-year support is available, but is considered insufficient to cover the gamut of activities neededto protect this species.Table 2. presents the cost of effectively protecting Tigers and their prey in the three Source Sites inMalaysia. It is important to note that there may well be other essential costs for Tiger conservation thatare not included here and that these figures are considered a minimum.As can be seen, the cost of protecting this species is high in Malaysia as compared with other Tiger-rangecountries. This is partly due to the high cost of living in Malaysia, which means labour costs, especiallyfield labourers, are invariably much higher than in neighbouring countries. The cost estimates hereinclude not only salaries for staff members but also the associated costs of maintaining those individualsin the field, such as per diems, stipends, and food and equipment costs. There are also some differencesin the cost of protecting Tigers in the three Source Sites. Part of the difference in costs is because of thenature and geography of the sites themselves, the threats to the area, access and existing managementstructure. Some cost differences are also due to the alternative perceived needs of what is necessary inorder to fully protect Tigers, often relating to the number of staff and intensity of protection.101

Table 2 – Cost of protecting each Source Site per year (not including one-off investment costs)Source Site Name AREA Cost of protecting SS (USD)Belum-Temenggor 3,546 $2,503,476.00Taman Negara National Park 4,343 $3,066,120.00Endau Rompin (Johor and Pahang) 3,558 $4,018,208.75$9,587,804.75Note: At present, the commitment from the Government of Malaysia towards protection of some areas within the three Source Sites is:Taman Negara (USD1.51 million) (Elangipullay, pers. comm.) and Endau Rompin Johor National Park (USD 660,000)(Hasnizam, pers. comm.).GovernanceTigers are considered Totally Protected animals under the Protection of Wildlife Act 1972 [Act 76].National parks and state parks protect the habitats and all species of wildlife within their boundaries. InPermanent Reserve Forests, entry into these sites is supposed to be restricted, unless with the issuance ofpermits. Unlike national and state parks, not all prey are totally protected or protected within thesePermanent Reserve Forests. Among those that are protected are Serow Capricornis sumatrensis (TotallyProtected) and Gaur Bos gaurus (Protected and not issued with any licenses to hunt this species). SambarCervus unicolor and Red Muntjac Muntiacus muntjac are recent additions to a two-year moratorium onissuance of hunting licenses for them.Apart from the state of Johor, licences to hunt pigs and deer outside of national and state parks cangenerally be granted when requested. In terms of patrolling and enforcement, staff of the Department ofWildlife and National Parks from each state are tasked and empowered for such duties. A Wildlife CrimeUnit exists under the Department of Wildlife and National Parks. The Unit has the power to investigateand arrest throughout peninsular Malaysia.Several issues regarding governance needs to be addressed:a. Legalising powers of arrests for state park management authorities on illegal encroachments intostate parks;b. Legalising powers of entry and arrests for federal authorities to help with enforcement into stateparks;c. Increased frequency and effectiveness of patrols, checkpoints and market intelligence;d. Lengthening of the ban on hunting for prey species, especially Sambar and Red Muntjac, and theinclusion of Bearded Pigs Sus barbatus into this hunting ban;e. Increased community outreach to improve communication and hence governance withcommunities that have privileges into the Source Sites.ConclusionSource Sites are almost synonymous with ‘Core Priority Areas’ within the National Tiger Action Plan forMalaysia. The long-term survival and recovery of Malaysia’s Tigers relies on the strength of these SourceSites and therefore deserve significantly greater attention and support. Tigers are not just the nationalsymbol on the Malaysian crest but are also the corporate symbol for many high-profile, Malaysian multinationalconglomerates with a presence within the country as well as abroad.Protecting and saving this species in Malaysia is achievable but will be challenging and require substantialcommitment from all stakeholders. The country has everything in place: a network of Source Sitesembedded within Tiger-permeable landscapes; national and state governments with the physical capacityand technical skills to be able to implement what is necessary; a strong, influential and vibrant middleclass driving a new environmentally aware society and, crucially in the region, a government that isprosperous and wealthy enough to achieve all that is needed without the aid of the internationalcommunity.102

Stopping all poaching, trafficking and trade of Tigers and reducing the harvest of Tiger prey, protectingits habitat and rigorously monitoring Tiger and prey populations is now vital if this species is to survivetill the next millennia. The first stage of this is to ensure that their Source Sites are fully protected andfilling the larger landscapes with both Tigers and their prey. Through this approach Malaysia will achieveand surpass its target of 1,000 Tigers and be at the forefront of the global collective of saving this iconicspecies.In preparing the country profile, cost estimates and feedback were given by many, but special thanks toSivanathan Elagupillay, Hasnizam Hamzah, Ruben Clement, Kae Kawanishi, Song Horng Neo Liang andLoretta Ann Shephard.103

Malaysia Map104

MYANMAROverviewIn Myanmar, Tigers are thought to have the best chances of survival in two large and relatively sparselyhuman-settled forested landscapes; the Northern Forest Complex (>30,000km 2 ) with links to forests inNorthern India, and forest reserves in Taninthayi Division, southern Myanmar (>12,000km 2 ) which lieadjacent to Thailand’s Western Forest Complex and Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex. Tigers occur at lowdensity in these landscapes due to intense hunting pressure for commercial trade. Numbers of Tigers arestill unknown but low, although few sites in Asia have such abundant suitable habitat and prey availability.A National Tiger Action Plan (NTAP) was drawn-up seven years ago, the product of a uniquecollaboration between the Forest Department and WCS (Lynam 2003). The nine-point strategy aims tostabilize and restore Tiger populations by stopping the killing and trade of Tigers, reducing trade in Tigerprey species, improving forestry management to stop further loss of habitat and reduce intrusion ofpeople into Tiger habitats, establishing new protected areas, and priority management areas for Tigers,maintaining connectivity of habitat across international boundaries, monitoring Tiger and preypopulations, and defining roles and responsibilities for Tiger conservation staff.A national Tiger survey programme during 1999-2002 confirmed Tigers from just four of 17 potentialTiger locations in three landscapes across the country.(1) Tigers occur in the Northern Forest Complex, a landscape comprising the Hukaung Valley andadjacent forested areas, in Kachin State. At least seven Tigers roamed the core zone (1,800 km 2 ) of thislandscape in recent years (Lynam et al. 2009). The Forest Department declared the Hukaung ValleyWildlife Sanctuary (6,371 km 2 ) in 2004 as a Tiger Source Site. An additional 15,431 km 2 of Potential Tigerhabitat exists around the protected area, which, together with the Wildlife Sanctuary, has been proposedas the Hukaung Tiger Reserve, making it the largest single Tiger reserve in Asia. Of this, approximately11,000 km 2 has been set-aside for conservation activities and proposed as an extension to the existingprotected area.(2) Tigers occur in forest reserves in northern and southern Taninthayi Division, also known as theTenasserim Hills (>12,000km 2 ). Together with Source Sites in Thailand, these forests represent thelargest, intact habitats for Tigers in Mainland Southeast Asia (>34,000km 2 ). Taninthayi Nature Reserve(1,700 km 2 ) was gazetted in 2004 and is a potential Tiger Source Site. Although formal surveys are yet tobe undertaken, there are unconfirmed recent local reports of Tigers from inside and outside of thereserve.(3) Tigers formerly had a stronghold in Thamanthi Wildlife Sanctuary and adjacent forest reserves(Rabinowitz et al. 1995). Now due to habitat clearance for a major hydroelectric project, and uncontrolledhunting, the Tiger population has been decimated and may number just a few individuals.(4) A few Tigers may remain in the Rakhine Yoma range and Chin Hills areas of western Myanmar.(5) A few Tigers may remain in the Central Bago Yoma range.Government strategyA National Tiger Action Plan for the Union of Myanmar was developed by the Myanmar ForestDepartment with the support of the Wildlife Conservation Society (Lynam et al. 2006). This was the firstnational level wildlife strategy for the country, and the first Tiger action plan for any of the Southeast AsiaTiger range States.105

Tiger LandscapesAlthough not enough is known about where Tigers are and in what number, significant progress has beenmade over recent years. Currently there are two very large landscapes that are known to harbour Tigers atlow densities. These are:(1) Hukaung Landscape (21,803km 2 ); comprising the Hukaung Valley Wildlife Sanctuary (6,371km 2 ) thatis a potential Source Site, and adjacent forest areas to the South, West, and East. The HukaungLandscape is embedded in the larger Northern Forest Complex (>30,000km 2 );(2) Taninthayi Landscape (>12,000km 2 ); comprising the Taninthayi Nature Reserve (1,700km 2 ) andadjacent forest reserves. Together with the adjacent WEFCOM and Kaeng Krachan Forest Complexin Thailand, the combined Greater Tenasserims Landscape represents the largest area available forTiger recovery in mainland Asia (>34,000km 2 ).Source SitesIt is important but difficult to identify accurate Source Sites within the landscapes as insufficient dataexist, even though much work has been undertaken over recent years. This is partially due to theremoteness of these areas, their vast size and the inaccessibility of many areas due to security concerns.As a result, both sites currently do not qualify as known Source Sites but are considered Potential SourceSites. Further work will help identify whether some areas within these landscapes indeed qualify as trueSource Sites.(1) The Hukaung Valley Wildlife Sanctuary (6,371) km 2 was selected as the Potential Source Site (PSS)for the Hukaung Landscape. The Source Site currently has appropriate habitat (though not the best inthe landscape), benefits from integral protection and receives formal recognition from all keystakeholders. Since 2004, management of the Hukaung Valley Wildlife Sanctuary has progressedthrough a collaboration between the Myanmar Forest Department and the Wildlife ConservationSociety Myanmar Program, focusing on law enforcement interventions and other supportingactivities such as Tiger population monitoring, community-based natural resource management andconservation education. Once the proposal for the 11,000km 2 conservation extension to theprotected area is finalized, the management systems that have been successfully implemented in theWildlife Sanctuary will serve as a useful model for achieving conservation success throughout theHukaung Landscape.(1) Taninthayi Landscape – A major section of the Taninthayi landscape has been chosen here as aPotential Source Site due to evidence of Tigers and contiguity with known Source Sites in Thailand.Given the remoteness of the two Source Sites in Thailand, the PSS is of elevated significance forlong-term Tiger conservation.Conservation ActionTo date, most of the prescribed actions in the National Tiger Action Plan have been implemented at oneor both of the important Tiger Conservation Landscapes. Many of these actions are a part of current fiveyearmanagement plans for the these Landscapes;1 Suppress the Killing of Tigers and the Illegal Trade in Tiger Productsa. Training and deployment of multiagency enforcement teams in the Hukaung ValleyWildlife Sanctuary and Taninthayi Nature Reserve.b. Investigations of illegal wildlife trafficking networks in Tanai and KaleinaungTownships.2 Reduce Killing of Tiger Prey Species and Associated Illegal Trade.a. Training and deployment of multiagency enforcement teams in the Hukaung ValleyWildlife Sanctuary and Taninthayi Nature Reserve.b. Monitoring of enforcement efforts at HVWS via MIST since 2006. This has allowed thewarden to monitor trends in illegal activity that impacts Tigers such as land clearance,poaching, gold mining and other human intrusions.c. Investigations of local wild meat trade in Tanai and Kaleinaung Townships.106

3 Improve Forestry Management to Stop Further Loss of Tiger Habitat and Restore DegradedHabitata. Monitoring of land use changes including loss of Tiger habitat in the Hukaung Valley viaremote-sensing4 Improve Forestry Management to Reduce Intrusions of People Into Tiger Habitats and ImprovePlanning to Avoid Development in Critical Tiger Areasa. Zoning of the Hukaung Landscape into a strictly protected Wildlife Sanctuary withsurrounding limited-use zones.b. Development of village development zones and community-based natural resourcemanagement agreements with communities along the Ledo Road5 Establish Protected Areas, Ecological Corridors, and Priority Management Areas to Protect WildTigers and Their Habitata. Gazetted the Hukaung Valley Wildlife Sanctuary in 2004. A proposal is underconsideration to increase the land area under gazettement in the Hukaung Valley from6,371km 2 to >17,000km 2b. Gazetted the Taninthayi Nature Reserve in 2004.6 Improve International Cooperation and Establish Transboundary Protected Areas to MaintainConnectivity of Tiger Habitat Across International Boundariesa. Staff training and participation in the ASEAN – Wildlife Enforcement Network.b. Staff training in wildlife trade monitoring and implementation of CITES.c. Creation of a national Wildlife Crimes Taskforce is plannedd. Coordination with Thailand’s Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plantsconservation to manage important Tiger habitats that span the Thai-Myanmar border inthe Greater Tenasserims Landscape7 Monitor the Status of Tiger and Prey Populations to Assess the Effectiveness of ConservationEfforts and Provide Guidance for Improvementa. Camera-trapping and DNA-based scat analysis to monitor Tigers in the HukaungLandscapeb. Small-scale Tiger prey occupancy surveys in the Hukaung Valley Wildlife Sanctuary8 Improve Public Awareness of the Importance of Tiger Conservation to Increase Support FromLocal Peoplea. Conservation education in communities along the Ledo Roadb. Production of conservation literature on Tigers and mammals of Myanmar9 Defining roles and responsibilities for Tiger conservation staff.a. Wildlife Police Force assigned to protect Tigers in the Hukaung Valley WildlifeSanctuaryb. Dedicated multiagency enforcement teams including Wildlife Police and forest rangersdeployed in the Hukaung Valley Wildlife Sanctuary.The main agencies working on the ground in these areas are:(1) Hukaung Landscape – Forest Department supported by the Wildlife Conservation Society(2) Taninthayi Landscape – Forest Department, Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise, TOTAL Co. Ltd,Wildlife Conservation Society (Technical Advisory Team)107

Cost estimatesThere are currently few agencies from which Myanmar can source funds for Tiger conservation. TheMyanmar Government does not allocate special funds for Tiger conservation, though it is increasing itsfinancial commitment to conservation overall. For the time being there is clearly insufficient funding tosupport even the most basic protection and monitoring of Tigers in most areas of Myanmar. It is of thehighest priority that a detailed costing for the establishing a strong protection capacity at the PotentialSource Sites in Myanmar be undertaken. If Tigers are to have any chance of recovering and reoccupyingthe impressive conservation landscapes that the Government has committed to the species, then theinternational community will need to provide immediate and sustained support to complement thecurrent commitments of Panthera and WCS.CollaborationThe Government of Myanmar is clear within its document presented to the GTI meeting in Kathmanduthat it sees international collaboration as an essential area for growth. It requests and encourages:(1) Specific collaboration with specialists to enhance innovative conservation tools e.g. REDD andGlobal Climate Change, MIST and Law Enforcement Monitoring.(2) International collaboration, and specifically NGO-Government partnerships as a priority method ofimplementation.Furthermore it suggests that further commitments are needed within Myanmar, specifically:(1) National-level support for Tiger conservation in order to encourage provincial-level commitment toTigers.(2) Raise environmental consciousness of national and international businesses companies in line withgovernment environmental policies that contribute towards long-term Tiger conservationConclusionThere is no doubt that the core areas within the Hukaung Valley Wildlife Sanctuary (6,371 km 2 ) stillmaintain a potentially recoverable population of Tigers. Recent camera-trapping pictures from January2010 and fresh sign from five locations both within the sanctuary and outside in the proposed extension,combined with the vast areas of potential habitat suggest that although numbers are critically low, there isstill considerable hope. While further surveys area needed, enough information exists to suggest that thebest short-term option is to effectively protect a core area from any encroachment or hunting and buildupa solid prey-base. This should be sufficient to attract Tigers in the larger landscape, possiblyconcentrate them in a smaller area, promoting breeding, and improving the chances that they avoid beingpoached themselves.The Taninthayi Landscape is even less well known and remains an area in need of large-scale occupancysurveys to determine Tiger distribution. However, as with the Hukaung valley, full surveys should notdelay the immediate protection of sites considered to be optimal habitats for large ungulates, in order thatthey provide increasingly productive areas for any resident Tigers. Any resident Tigers in the landscapewould benefit from both from added protection from poaching and a greater prey base.The landscape is already known to contain Tigers and also has a potentially important role to play in thefunctionality of the Western Forest Complex of Thailand and the whole Greater Tenasserim Landscape.The vast extent of potential habitat in the Greater Tenasserim Landscape, combined with the existence ofknown and important Source Sites in Thailand and Potential Source Sites in Myanmar, emphasises thepotential of this site for Tiger conservation and recovery. It is of the utmost priority that existing SourceSites within this complex are located and secured and that the integrity of the PSS defined here ismaintained. In time this Landscape has the potential to become a global priority site.108

Myanmar Map109

NEPALSummary Status for TigersThe alluvial grasslands and forests of the Nepalese Terai historically supported some of the highestrecorded densities of Tigers across their range. However, in the 1950s, the Tiger population and prey basedecreased remarkably after malaria was eradicated and a rapid influx of people from the middle hills led tothe loss of habitats, and increased poaching and degradation of habitats. Beginning in the early 1970sNepal established a network of protected areas and made Tiger conservation a high priority. Recently adecade of civil strife (1997-2007) prevailed throughout the country, from which Nepal has now emerged.At the same time, though not necessarily because of the conflict, Tiger numbers have dramaticallydeclined (Karki et al. 2009). Only Chitwan National Park has resisted such declines and stands out as anextraordinarily important site, both for Nepal and for the Tiger as a species.Despite these setbacks, the Government of Nepal has been committed, and remains steadfast inconserving its Tiger populations. A recent landscape-wide grid-based occupancy survey and extensivecamera trapping estimated 121 Tigers and indicated that Tiger populations may be now increasing inChitwan National Park, but rapidly declining in other areas (Bardia National Park, and Shuklaphanta andParsa Wildlife Reserves).LandscapesThe Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) holds great promise for Tigers in Nepal. Until 1990s the basicconservation strategy was focused on species and an ecosystem approach. Over the past 15 years, thescope has expanded through the creation of community forest user groups (CFUDs), the creation of agovernment buffer zone network surrounding protected areas and the Terai Arc Landscape program. Thegoal of these programs is to bring local communities into the mainstream of conservation, controlpoaching, restore and maintain Tiger habitats, create and manage corridors between core refuges,promote transboundary cooperation with India and China, rebuild the Tiger prey base, and reverse thedecline in Tiger numbers. The focus has been on implementing a broad range of activities spread across avery large area with a view to creating a massive connected Tiger landscape.The current long-term plan for Tigers is to double the Tiger population from 121 adult Tigers to at least250 adults by 2020 in the Nepalese TAL and to restore the genetic and ecological linkages of thislandscape so that Tigers once again occur within a dynamic metapopulation. To increase connectivity willrequire restoring 6,500 km2 of forests so that they function as corridors between core Source Sites. Ruralcommunities have already formed 1,500 community forest user groups (CFUGs) to restore forests for theecological services they provide, but these CFUGs need help in building capacity to manage forests andto develop sustainable micro-enterprises (WWF Nepal 2009). However, the recent dramatic declines inthe protected areas of Nepalese TAL suggest that far greater attention and investment needs to befocused on the basic protection and monitoring of the Bardia, Shuklaphanta and Parsa Source Sites.Source SitesFour sites identified by the Tiger Action Plan for Nepal 2008-2012 hold promise for Tigers, but results ofrecent surveys suggest massive declines have recently taken place across the Terai Arc and only one site,Chitwan National Park is now unarguably fits the definition of a Source Site, though three areas areincluded in this report. In 2009, a photo based capture-recapture survey estimated 91 Tigers (range 71-147) Tigers and approximately 62 prey/km2 in Chitwan.All other sites across the Nepalese TAL were found to have dramatically lower numbers: Bardia formerlyhad 125 Tigers (DNPWC/MoFSC 2007) and now has an estimated 17-29 (Karki et al. 2009). ParsaWildlife Reserve had 68 Tigers (DNPWC/MoFSC 2007) and now has an estimated four (Karki et al.2009). Shuklaphanta has 8-14 (Karki et al. 2009). Current Tiger prey levels of 68/km2 at Bardia and 86prey/km2 at Shuklaphanta are sufficient to support far higher Tiger numbers, suggesting that the drasticdecline in Tigers is due to poaching.110

If these sites are to support Tigers in the future it is essential that management re-focus on curbingpoaching of Tigers, restoring the prey base and implementing regular, intensive and rigorous monitoringprograms. Multiagency field enforcement teams will need to be trained and deployed to monitor andsuppress the illegal killing of Tigers and prey. Monitoring tools such as MIST need to be employed tomeasure the effectiveness of law enforcement and to guide protection strategy.To gain local support for the Tiger recovery programme, in communities around the Source Sitesconservation education programs will be established to raise the profile of Tiger conservation, to explorethe potential for marketing ecosystem services and ecotourism, and to instil national pride as one of thefew Tiger range states in the world (WWF Nepal 2009).GovernanceTo oversee the recovery programme, the Government of Nepal, in collaboration with stakeholders andpartners will need to establish a National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) that will help coordinatelaw enforcement agencies to address encroachment into designated Tiger habitat.A high level Wildlife Trade Monitoring and Enforcement Authority should be established at the centrallevel, with well-trained and well-equipped intelligence networks extending to strategic points in districtswithin Nepal to monitor trade routes for Tigers and other illegal wildlife, and create a reward system asincentive for intelligence from the general public.The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation policies and Acts related to forests management should bereviewed and amended to include landscape-level conservation policy gaps that constrain in effectivemanagement.A sustainable Tiger Conservation Fund (TCF) will be established through innovative funding mechanismsthat includes regional and transboundary payments for environmental services, carbon and climate-relatedpayments, and tourism revenues (WWF Nepal 2009).ConclusionChitwan National Park is the primary Source Site for the Nepalese TAL and the only site in Nepal thatcurrently maintains a regionally significant Tiger population.An immediate re-focussing of protection and monitoring support needs to be provided to the NepaleseGovernment. If Tigers can be recovered at these Source Sites, the TAL can then once again be managedas a conservation landscape, with core areas, buffer zones, dispersal corridors, and matrix areas zoned forappropriate management prescriptions needed to conserve and manage Tigers as a metapopulation.111

Nepal Map.112

RUSSIABased on extensive surveys, it is clear that at least 95% of the existing wild Amur Tigers reside inRussia. Hence, the fate of this subspecies has largely become the responsibility of the Russiangovernment and the Russian people. While efforts are underway to improve conditions in nearbyChina, in the near term the survival of this subspecies is dependent on decisions made on use ofnatural resources and development of forested lands in the southern Russian Far East.While Tiger numbers plummeted almost everywhere else in the vast range of Tigers in Asia over thepast century, the Russian population showed a remarkable opposite trend. At the start of the 1940’sthe Amur Tiger had been almost hunted to extinction in Russia with possibly as few as 30 animalsremaining. At this critical juncture the situation changed for the better when in 1947 Russia becamethe first country in the world to ban hunting of Tigers. Hunting of the main prey species – ungulates –became restricted by an annual quota system. As a result of effective law enforcement, poaching ofTigers became relatively rare and the Amur Tiger made a remarkable recovery. In 2005 a full-rangesurvey in Russia showed that the population had recovered to between 428 and 502 individuals.Moreover, Tigers maintained or re-established themselves in at least two-thirds of their original rangein Russia and approximately 95% of the Amur Tigers in the wild are part of one contiguouspopulation, probably the largest Tiger meta-population in the world.Although the situation in Russia remains more favourable than elsewhere in the Tiger’s range in Asia,the results of the annual Amur Tiger monitoring program indicate that since 2005 the population hassince declined substantially. Although additional monitoring data are required to determine the exactnature of the decline, there is no doubt that the decline is real and substantial and that factors thathave contributed to the decline (mostly poaching of Tigers and prey, but also habitat degradation)need to be addressed immediately.Tiger LandscapesOnce a continuous forested complex covering Manchuria, the Korean peninsula, and the southernmostportions of the Russian Far East represented a massive, continuous system of habitats in which AmurTigers flourished. Today there remain three fragmented, though still extensive landscapes, wheresurvival/recovery of Tigers is still a possibility.The Sikhote-Alin Ecosystem is dominated by a chain of low mountains extending over 1,000 kilometres(600 miles) parallel to the Sea of Japan, from the city of Vladivostok in the south nearly to the OkhotskSea in the north. Although fertile lowlands - probably once the best Tiger habitat - have been convertedto human uses, the mid-elevation portions of the Sikhote-Alin now represent the best available Tigerhabitat in Russia. Still connected to the Sikhote-Alin is the Wandashan Mountains in HeilongjiangProvince, northeast China.Originally part of the same landscape, the Changbaishan (East Manchurian) ecosystem covers mostof eastern Jilin Province and southwestern Heilongjiang province of China, and a sliver of habitat inSouthwest Primorski Krai, Russia. The most notable feature of the East Manchurian Range is the ancientvolcanic mountain (and Protected Area) Chang Bai Shan along the border of China and the People’sDemocratic Republic of Korea (DPRK). More fragmented than the Sikhote-Alin landscape, with a muchlarger human population surrounding habitat patches, a recent analysis nonetheless suggested that therestill exist suitably large tracts of forest where Tigers could survive.The Lesser Khingan Mountains, extending north through central Heilongjiang Province China andextending into Amur Oblast and the Jewish Autonomous Region of Russia, is the final forestedecosystem where Tigers might occur.Of the three landscapes, 95% of the remaining wild Amur Tigers occur in the Sikhote-Alin. A small Tigerpopulation that fluctuates in size exists in Southwest Primorye, with migrants moving across the borderinto Chinese part of the Changbaishan Landscape. The last Tigers in the Lesser Khingan were reported inthe 1970s, but occasionally dispersing Tigers appear in Amur Oblast and the Jewish Autonomous Region.113

While there are active conservation initiatives to recover Tigers in the Changbaishan landscape, so farrecovery in the Lesser Khingan is a distant goal. Therefore, immediate conservation actions to save theAmur Tiger must be focused where the majority of Tigers presently exist - in the Sikhote-Alin landscape.Source SitesThere are approximately 156,000 km 2 of Tiger habitat remaining in the Russian Far East, and the majorityof this habitat is unprotected: less than 13% of potential habitat is protected as zapovedniks (strictreserves) or zakazniks (wildlife refuges), and even if extensive habitat protection plans are implemented,no more than 28% of the land base would be protected. It is clear, therefore, that a successful strategy forTiger conservation in the Russian Far East will combine a system of Source Sites that are well protectedwhile at the same time working to develop a management regime in unprotected lands that gives highpriority to Tiger conservation.Source Sites are essential, even in the context of the vast area requirements of Tigers in northernenvironments (each female requires over 400 km 2 ) because reproductive rates and survival rates ofadult females appear to be key parameters of Tiger persistence. Hence, ensuring that there existpockets of protection - Source Sites - across the vast landscape in which Tigers are safe frompersecution and can produce offspring to disperse across the greater landscape appears crucial.We selected Source Sites using the criteria established under this report which include the followingcharacteristics in Russia:1. Source Sites are areas that are protected at the federal level in Russia. Because regionalProtected Areas (wildlife refuges) often retain status for limited duration, investment in suchareas carries no guarantee that the area will retain its protected status in the future. Therefore,we limited Source Sites to those areas that are designated either zapovedniks (IUCN categoryI Protected Areas), National Parks, or federally protected zakazniks (wildlife refuges).2. Source Sites are sufficiently large for a single breeding female (400 km 2 ), and preferably aminimum of four breeding females (1,600 km 2 ). All but one of the Source Sites meet thismore stringent size requirement.Conservation ActionsAn analysis of the fluctuations of the Amur Tiger population over the past 150 years provides insightsinto the main factors that influenced the Tiger population dynamics. The initial decline of the Amur Tigerin Russia in the first half of the 20th century was no doubt the result of direct hunting, probablyaggravated by the undermining of its prey resources in some regions. The ban on Tiger hunting, officiallypassed in 1947, was likely the principal factor allowing the recovery of Tigers to occur. The fact that mosthunters were engaged in the World War II likely also provided some relief in the early period of recovery.The decline of Tigers in the early 1990s, and probably after 2005, also appear to be most closely linked todirect poaching of the Tiger population during phases when law enforcement capacity waned. Habitatdeterioration did not appear to be an important factor influencing the Tiger population during the 20thcentury, as evidenced by the fact that the major recovery of Tigers (1950s-1980s) came at a time ofintensive timber harvesting in the Sikhote-Alin Mountains, which apparently had little impact on therecovery process. Recent data indicate that poaching is the predominate cause of Tiger mortality, and thathigh adult female survival rates are critical to population viability. Hence, the existence of populations(Source Sites) where poaching is not a feature of the landscape is a key ingredient to Tiger persistence.A revised federal Tiger strategy is presently in draft form. This strategy will likely focus on thefollowing key issues:1. Improve the protection of Tigers and their prey by:• strengthening legislation and regulations regarding hunting of main Tiger prey species(ungulates)• strengthening legislation and regulations regarding protection of Tigers and other RedBook species114

• strengthening enforcement of conservation and hunting regulations, e.g. by increasing thenumber of inspectors and their funding2. Improve the protection of Tiger habitat by:• completing the creation of a Protected Areas network to ensure the existence of “core”populations where survival and reproduction rates of Tigers are• develop ecological corridors to maintain connectivity of subpopulations and geneticintegrity of the entire population;• improving logging legislation and regulations, including imposing a ban on logging andexport of Korean pine and strict quota for logging of Mongolian oak, because these twotree species provide staple food for ungulates• strengthen law enforcement of logging regulations, e.g. by increasing the number ofinspectors and their funding3. Ensure genetic integrity and viability of the entire population by actively managing the geneticstructure of subpopulations if needed due to the absence of adequate corridors.4. Develop mechanisms to improve relationships between local communities and Tigers5. Develop working relations with the People’s Republic of China to assist in the re-establishmentof Amur Tigers in suitable habitat in Northeast China.6. Continue necessary research and monitoring to inform policy and management decisions.Cost estimatesAll Source Sites presently obtain core costs for activities, maintenance and salaries from the federalbudget. However, without exception, directors of all sites indicate that current budgets are insufficient toadequately protect these sites. Of special concern are the newly created Protected Areas (three NationalParks and the Leopardniy Zakaznik), which appear sorely under-funded, considering start-up needs for allthese sites. Source Sites which have a longer conservation history (Sikhote-Alin, Lazo, and UssuriskiZapovedniks) generally have the highest densities of Tigers in the Russian Far East and higher cubproduction (based on annual monitoring data). Hence, there is support for the contention that wellmanagedSource Sites result in higher Tiger densities and generation of subadults dispersing to the greaterlandscape. However, even in these well-established source sites managers feel that governmental supportis inadequate to fully fulfil their mandate to protect natural resources under their domain. Hence, whilenewly created areas are most desperate for support, all designated Source Sites need additional support,especially for efforts to reduce poaching both within and along Source Site borders.ConclusionUnlike many other range countries, Russia has demonstrated success in the recovery of Tigers in the 20 thcentury. This success was predicated largely on effective control of poaching and elimination of demand(borders were largely closed to trade, making illegal trade of Tiger parts nearly impossible). Presently,Russia retains what is possibly the largest Tiger population, and no doubt the largest tract of continuousTiger habitat in the world. Investment to retain this significant (and only) population of Amur Tigersshould be a global priority. Investment to improve management of Source Sites and to eliminate humaninfluence on Tiger populations is a key ingredient to ensuring there exist pockets of reproducing femalesin the greater landscape.115

Russia Map.116

THAILANDSummary Status of Tigers in ThailandOverviewRemaining Tiger habitats in Thailand are contained within the protected area system of National Parksand Wildlife Sanctuaries that covers about 18% of the Kingdom’s land area. Within the protected areas,Tigers occur across both extensive contiguous forested landscapes and in small fragmented forestssurrounded by human-altered lands. Due to the loss of forests and ensuing human disturbances Tigersremain in only two forest complexes in northeastern Thailand, and only at extremely low density(Tungittiplakorn and Dearden 2002; Lynam et al. 2001; Koenig et al. 2004; Lynam et al. 2006). A similarclearance and fragmentation of lowland rainforest habitats coupled with poaching has resulted in the lossof Tigers from most parts of southern Thailand except for a transboundary forest area called Balahala onthe Malaysia border.Perhaps the best chances for Tiger survival will in future be forested landscapes in Central Thailand;Western Forest Complex, Kaeng Krachan and Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai. Through the late 1990s andearly 2000s Tiger populations were recovered in parts of these key landscapes through the efforts of theWildlife Conservation and National Parks Offices, and dedicated local government agencies andconservation organizations. Countrywide surveys from 2004-2007 have confirmed the recent presence ofTigers in 10 of 17 forest complexes, but only four of these have moderate densities of Tigers and two ofthese, the Huai Kha Khaeng/Thung Yai and the Kaeng Krachan/Kuiburi complexes have the greatestpotential and are classified as Source Sites (see map). The best guess estimates of the Kingdom’s Tigerpopulation range from 200 to 350 Tigers, with the Huai Kha Khaeng/Thung Yai Source Site standing outas being the Kingdom’s most important single site.Tiger recovery in Thailand has largely been a product of complex-level management in whichconservation is applied at the landscape scale. The Western Forest Complex (WEFCOM) managementhas served as a model for best practices in both protection and monitoring protocols for Thailand.Furthermore, Thailand is also a partner in a regional collaboration to reduce illegal cross-border trade andtrafficking in Tigers and other wildlife (ASEAN – WEN), and an international agreement for regulatingwildlife trade (CITES). The future for Tigers in Thailand is very much dependent on the success of theseinternational collaborations, as well as the quality of site and landscape level protection and management.Goals and required actions for furthering the recovery of Tigers are detailed below.Thailand Tiger Action Plan 2004Thailand’s Tiger conservation efforts are structured around its national Tiger action plan, “SavingThailand’s Tigers”, produced in 2004 by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE), theDepartment of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP), and other stakeholders. Thenational action plan organizes key goals under four themes as shown below.1. Direct conservation action and enforcementGOALS include• Promoting conservation efforts at forest complexes and corridors;• Increasing suppression of wildlife crimes with focus of Tigers and prey;• Supporting local communities for sustainable development economies;• Increasing national and international efforts to suppress wildlife trade;• Facilitating regional cooperation in Tiger conservation efforts;• Supporting efforts to responsibly manage captive Tigers.117

2. Capacity buildingGOALS include:• Developing and supporting appropriate human resources, funding, and equipment; and• Implementing adaptive management with frequent reviews and evaluation at all level ofprotected area management;3. Information acquisition, management, and analysisGOALS include:• Implementing a permanent nation-wide monitoring system for Tigers, their prey, and theecosystems they rely on;• Ensuring that all relevant information for Tiger conservation can be managed and accessedin a systematic way; and• Undertaking research that contributes to our understanding of Tiger ecology andconservation.4. Education and public participationGOALS include:• Supporting efforts to convey Tiger conservation-related messages to a diverse Thai publicand involve them in conservation; and• Encouraging private sector support for Tiger conservation efforts.This plan is currently under revision and a new plan will hopefully be published in 2010.Landscape ConservationThe most important landscape for Tigers in Thailand is the Western Forest Complex (WEFCOM).WEFCOM is the largest protected area landscape incorporating 6 wildlife sanctuaries and 11 nationalparks for a total of 18,730km 2 . More than 80% of the landscape is contiguous forest that is managed byfull-time staff of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation. Since 2005 a Tigerpopulation monitoring program in WEFCOM employing remote-camera technology has revealed thatHuai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, at the core of WEFCOM now supports more than 100 individualTigers (Simcharoen et al. 2007). Together with the Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (3,400km 2 ), andforested areas along the Thailand-Myanmar border, the Greater Tenasserim Hills (66,000 km 2 ) representsone of four regionally significant landscapes for Tigers in Mainland Asia.Long term plan for TigersLong term plan for Tigers at the landscape level is following.• Increase Tiger density by 50% in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary (HKK) between 2006-2016.• Increase Tiger density in Thung Yai Wildlife Sanctuary and include them as a single populationwith HKK• Increasing the resident population of Tigers in the WEFCOM through protection of the HKK-TY Source Site and building outwards across the greater landscape.• Determine the absolute population of Tigers in Kaeng Krachan NP and improve the conditionsfor Tigers in order that it can more effectively act as another Source Site in the GreaterTenasserims Hills landscape.Who’s working?• The key actor is Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation.• The key agency for providing technical and supplementary financial support in HKK-TY andKKNP is WCS.• The technical monitoring agencies for Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex are WWF.118

Source SitesThere are currently two Source Sites identified under this report, the Huai Kha Khaeng and Thung YaiWildlife Sanctuaries (HKK-TY), and the Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (KKFC). The HKK-TYmaintains the largest number of Tigers, including c. 70 adults, of which 33 are adult females. It isestimated that HKK-TY alone still supports more than 100 Tigers (Simcharoen et al. 2007). Every yearsince 2006, about 40 Tigers were camera trapped, of which 7-9 Tigers are new records.The Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex (KKFC) rests in the southern part of the Tenasserim MountainRange, within the same landscape that contains WEFCOM in the north. Named for Thailand’s largestnational park, Kaeng Krachan, the complex also includes Kuiburi National Park and Mae Nam PachiWildlife Sanctuary. Together these three protected areas make up 4,373 km 2 of contiguous evergreen andmontane forests that are home to one of Thailand’s 15 remaining Tiger populations (Smith et al. 1998;Rabinowitz 1993; Ngoprasert and Lynam 2003; Tunhikorn et al. 2004). There are no recent and accurateestimates of Tigers in the KKFC though evidence suggests they have declined in recent years due tohabitat and prey base loss (Government of Thailand’s Tiger Action Plan in prep.). Tiger breeding hasbeen confirmed at Kuiburi National Park, with at least one litter of twin cubs having been produced in2008 (Steinmetz, et al. 2009). Although not recently verified, Kaeng Krachan’s Tigers are likely also stillbreeding. Possibly the most suitable areas for Tigers are in the west of the National Park where wild cattleprey populations are concentrated, and where access is limited because of an absence of roads andestablished foot trails, and human traffic is low (Ngoprasert et al. 2007).Despite the fact that key protected areas in KKFC do not share common boundaries, the complex likelycomprises a single Tiger Source Site. Kaeng Krachan and Kuiburi National Parks are joined by a largelyintact corridor of national forest reserve used by the army in Thailand. Moreover, areas across the borderin Myanmar remain largely devoid of human inhabitants. Although these areas are subject to cross bordertraffic by migrant workers and poachers, both the military corridor and the Myanmar forests havemaintained much of their natural integrity. Even if the resident population of Tigers on the Myanmarside, which is currently poorly surveyed (Lynam, 2003), is discovered to be low, the fact that these forestsare contiguous not only increases the value of the KKFC Source Site to the wider landscape, butimproves the potential for eventual Tiger recovery in Myanmar.To ensure conservation values are maintained, the Thai government has taken extensive steps to ensurethat KKFC remains connected to the greater Tenasserim landscape. The patrol system in Kaeng KrachanNational Park has adopted the MIST-based smart patrol system and the protection system has beensignificantly improved since (WCS Thailand 2009). The army-utilized corridor between Kaeng Krachanand Kuiburi National Parks has been put forward for annexation into Kuiburi National Park, though thiswill be a complex and long process to achieve. The area to the north between KKFC and WEFCOM isalso the site of an Asian Development Bank biological corridor project. Achieving this corridor will be animportant but high challenging undertaking since these forests are either lost or degraded, so the value ofeffectively managed forests on the Myanmar side should not be underestimated for maintainingconnectivity for Tigers between the Thai Source Sites, KKFC and WEFCOM (Lynam et al. 2006).Potential Tiger Source Site: There is one Potential Source Site with strong evidence of capacity forrecovery of Tigers. It is described below.Khao Yai – Tap Lan Forest Complex (KYFC): This complex includes four National Parks andone Wildlife Sanctuary totalling 2,000 sq. km. The last confirmed Tiger record in Khao YaiNational Park was made in 2001 (Lynam et al. 2006). Subsequent trapping in the park did not detectany Tigers. Tigers were recorded from the core area of Thap Lan in 2000 (Lynam et al. 2006). In2008 a camera-trapping survey revealed 5 adult Tigers in the park (Tim Redford pers. comm.)suggesting the complex has capacity for Tiger recovery.119

Governance• Overall administrative and financial responsibility for a Tiger recovery program by theDepartment of National Parks, Wildlife and Plants Conservation, with the involvement of localand provincial agencies, and conservation specialists.• Visionary and adaptable written policy and scientifically sound protocols for Tiger recovery withclear staged goals, interventions, and monitoring schemes.• Stable teamwork and good motivational support from the administrative level.• Improved support system for forest rangers and other field enforcement staff within thegovernment to including standardized salary and per-diem structure, merit-based promotionscheme, health benefits, capacity building, and performance monitoring.• Establish a leadership school for forest officers, managers, and scientists in the Western Forestlandscape under the Tiger recovery project.• Technical support from respected international Tiger experts with regional experience in Tigerconservation and monitoring.• Monitoring of law enforcement effort through use of Management Information SysTem (MIST)databases.• Management of human activities that affect Tigers directly or impact their habitats, includingrelocation of people from core Tiger habitat.Future Commitments• The most important commitment must come from the government units within Department ofNational Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP) to participate in this Tiger recoveryprogram.• Wildlife Conservation Office in DNP must be strengthened and personnel empowered tocoordinate the Tiger recovery program with other participating agencies and partners.• National Park Office and Regional Protected Area Administrative offices are always weak incommitment. This must changed because many areas in WEFCOM landscapes are under theseoffices. They must demonstrate commitment to the process and participate in all levels ofdecision making and monitoring.• The Thai Government, local and international conservation agencies involved with the Tigerrecovery program must share the ultimate goal of Tiger recovery and agree on high standard andrigorous interventions and monitoring protocols, and agree to cooperate to reach the goals forTiger recovery and conservation.• WCS Thailand as the leading NGO in this national Tiger recovery strategy must maintain thequality and technical skills of its staff, cooperate with its regional support network, and engageresponsibly with other agencies and partners.ConclusionThe Western Forest Complex, part of the Greater Tenasserim Hills, is recognized as one of fourregionally significant Tiger landscapes in Asia. Hua Kha Khaeng and Thung Yai Wildlife Sanctuaries serveas the Source Sites in this landscape, have the greatest potential for Tigers in Thailand given their size,contiguity and political support. Efforts by the Thai government in the mid-late 1990s to stabilize Tigersand other wildlife populations in these Sites, personal sacrifices and hardships endured by rangers, wildlifeofficials, increasing public environmental awareness, and increased activity by conservation organizationshas provided a foundation for recovery of this population. With effective management and ethicalgovernance Thailand can reach it’s goal of increasing the Tiger population by 50% within ten years. If thisinitial goal is achieved, Tigers and prey may then be gradually restored in areas adjacent protected areas.The Thai government will maintain and increase current allocations of human resources and budget inthe Source Sites.120

Protocols for interventions and monitoring of Tigers in HKK-TY has become a role model for Thailand.Other protected area complexes with potential Source Sites may benefit from lessons learnt in HKK-TY.Resources should be made available so that HKK-TY can become a place of learning and leadership forTiger conservation practitioners from other parts of Thailand and the region.Governance and leadership is still of primary importanceGood governance, effective leadership, and a transparent working environment are critical elements to beput in place for the recovery of Tigers and management of Source Sites and Tiger conservationlandscapes in Thailand. Corruption has been the cause of failures in conserving biodiversity and protectedarea management in the past, and it will defeat the progress of Tiger conservation if allowed to persist. Itleads to low morale and motivation to work toward the ultimate goals and objectives. This issue shouldbe serious and openly discussed in the planning process.Informed and technically competent leadership is a necessary qualification in this effort. Success shouldbe judged on the ultimate result of Tiger recovery as well as the process adopted to get there usingrigorous scientific monitoring protocols. Strong leadership combined with effective training will ensurethe transfer of knowledge to future generations. The Tiger recovery plan must incorporate governance,leadership and training as key components.Conclusions• WEFCOM together with other parts of the Greater Tenasserim Hills sub-region will support thelargest wild Tiger population in Southeast Asia.• WEFCOM standard and protocols will be taught and adapted to other potential Source Sites andconservation landscapes in Thailand, which hold potential for wild Tiger recovery.• Good governance and effective protected area management will be dramatically improved.• Future generations of Thai wildlife professionals will have a role model to follow for achievingimproved Tiger and wildlife conservation in the country.• The Thai general public will have increased appreciation for the values of wildlife and forestconservation.• Park rangers in protected areas in Thailand will be treated with respect and become highly valuedin society.• Cooperation and understanding between Wildlife Conservation and National Park personnel inThailand will increase. Wildlife management and preservation in protected areas will be shared asa priority ahead of tourism revenue.• Relationships among Government, NGOs, and academic institutes is tightened and leading tomore improved models of protected area management.121

Thailand Map122

VIETNAMBackgroundIn 2008, Vietnam was estimated to have a population of over 86 million people (General Statistics Office ofVietnam, 2009), an annual population growth rate of 1.3%, and is one of Asia’s most densely populatedcountries at 260 persons/km 2 . Recent projections indicate a human population size of 118 million by 2050(Ryan, 2004).Vietnam contains a diverse range of ecosystems and habitats and is characterised by several keygeographical features including the Hoang Lien Mountains in the northern highlands, the Red river delta inthe north, and the Mekong delta in the south. The Annamite mountain range forms the ‘backbone’ to thecountry, running from Nghe An province in the north to Binh Phuoc province in the south, and is animportant area for biodiversity and has a high level of endemism (Baltzer et al. 2001).Vietnam has experienced widespread decline in natural forest cover over the last 70 years. In the period1943-1990, total forest cover declined from 43% to 27%. Strengthened government policies have done verylittle to reverse the decline in natural forest, despite increasing overall forest cover through plantations to37% by 2005 (Anon 2007; Meyfroidt & Lambin 2009). Remaining natural forests are fragmented smallpatches at mostly high elevations, much of Vietnam’s lowland forests have been destroyed (Wege et al.1999).Vietnam has become a significant player in the Asian wildlife trade network (Bell et al. 2004; Lin 2005). Aspopulations of commercially valuable species in Vietnam have diminished, wholesale traders have startedsourcing wildlife from other Asian countries and even from African nations to supply the domestic demandfor wildlife (e.g. Nooren & Claridge 2001; Milliken et al. 2009). In addition, Vietnam has become a keycentre in the international wildlife trade distribution network to China, Europe, North America and otherAsian countries (Compton & Le Hai Quang 1998; Nooren & Claridge 2001; Bell et al. 2004).There has been no research to determine the sustainability of hunting on wildlife populations in Vietnam,yet there are indications that it has been occurring at highly unsustainable levels for some time. Overhuntingis thought to have played a major role in the decline of a number of species now thought to beextinct or reduced to extremely low densities in Vietnam. These include the Kouprey Bos sauveli (Duckworth& Hedges 1998), Wild Water Buffalo Bubalus bubalis (Hedges 1996), Eld’s Deer Cervus eldii, Hog Deer Cervusporcinus (Ratajszcak 1991), Siamese Crocodile Crocodylus siamensis (Platt & Ngo Van Tri 2000), MangroveTerrapin Batagur baska (Stuart et al. 2001), and the Javan Rhinoceros Rhinoceros sondaicus annamiticus (Foose &Van Strein 1997).Tiger status in VietnamThere has been no comprehensive Tiger census ever undertaken in Vietnam, so precise estimates onpopulation size are not available though much effort to find Tiger has occurred at individual sites across thecountry and the number is undoubtedly extremely low. Confirmed records of Tiger are sparse and the lastcamera trap photo was taken in Pu Mat National Park in 1997. Although tracks and sightings have beenreported suggesting that wild Tigers may persist in the Central Annamites and border areas betweenVietnam and Cambodia (WWF 2005, Hoang Minh Duc pers. comm. to S. Roberton 2010) confirmation ofmore than lone individuals is lacking.There is general consensus in the Vietnamese scientific and conservation community that populations ofwild Tiger in Vietnam have experienced a severe decline in the last two decades due to a high domesticdemand for Tiger parts used in traditional medicine, destruction of Tiger habitat, and continued drop inabundance of Tiger prey species.Tigers have been prohibited from use and exploitation for almost 50 years in Vietnam, yet the illegal tradedriven by large profits available has overcome the limited resources invested in protecting Tigers, theirhabitat and prey. In the period June 2008-july 2009 law enforcement operations in the north seized 11123

Tigers all of which were reportedly imported illegally from neighbouring countries (Vietnam CITESManagement Authority 2009).Since 2006 the known captive Tiger population in private operations has increased and at present is 79individuals (with additional animals in state-run zoos). The source of many of these is unknown as is theexact sub-species, relationships between the animals or presence of hybrids. At present, captive Tigerfacilities in Vietnam are subject to no standardised, transparent, or regular monitoring and there is noreliable method of identifying individuals to ensure no laundering of animals. Investigations by NGOs andlaw enforcement agencies have found evidence of facilities illegally selling animals (including Hanoi Zoo),that most facilities were not reporting births and deaths to the authorities, many have been unsuccessful inbreeding and not providing adequate facilities for the animal’s or people’s safety. Furthermore, despite thesefacilities being assigned as having a conservation purpose by the Prime Minister’s decision, they currentlyimplement no activities that directly or indirectly support wild Tiger restoration in Vietnam. At present,government policy is generally clear and prohibits breeding Tigers for commercial profit through sales ofindividuals, parts or their derivatives. However, it is probable that the private individuals running a numberof these Tiger breeding operations have a desire to open the trade in farmed Tigers and are already doing soillegally under the current lax management.Potential sites for Tiger recovery in VietnamGiven the low densities of wild Tigers likely to persist in Vietnam, the size of remaining forest areas, theongoing and planned infrastructure in many of those areas and surrounding high population densities,Vietnam cannot be said to contain any Source Sites for Tigers.However, there are a number of areas in Vietnam that connect to potential Source Sites in Lao andCambodia where Tigers remain. Under suitable management and strengthened protection efforts, theseareas hold the potential to see migration of Tigers across the border and secure the future for wild Tigerspersisting in Vietnam.Dak Dam State Forest Enterprise (SFE), Yok Don National Park (inc Cu Jut proposed extension),Ya Lop SFE, and Chu Prong proposed Nature Reserve in the Eastern Plains Dry Forest cover a totalarea of 2,055 km2 of contiguous lowland deciduous and semi-evergreen habitat. Surveys in Yok Don andChu Prong gathered reports of Tiger in those sites in 1997 (Duckworth & Hedges 1998) and 2000 (LeTrong Trai and Tran Hieu Minh 2000) respectively but no confirmed records have been collected in recentyears. These sites are contiguous with forest in Phnom Nam Lyr Wildlife Sanctuary, Mondulkuri ProtectedForest and O Yadao Protected Forest in Cambodia. Urgent actions required for these sites would includeestablishing Dak Dam, Ya Lop and Chu Prong as protected forest and ceasing all infrastructure projects inthose sites.Bu Gia Map National Park in Binh Phuoc province borders Seima Protection Forest in SouthernMondulkuri covering an area of 26,032 ha. Local people report the persistence of Tiger in this area andfootprints were recorded in 2007 (Hoang Minh Duc pers. comm. to S. Roberton 2010).Chu Mon Ray National Park (and forested areas in Sa Thay district) in Kon Tum province covers anarea of approximately 57,000 ha of evergreen forest contiguous with Virachey in Cambodia and Nam Kongin Lao PDR making up the Cambodia-Lao PDR-Vietnam Tri border forest area. In 1997 Duckworth &Hedges estimated 10-15 Tigers remained in the National Park though no recent records have beencollected.Song Thanh Nature Reserve in the Central Annamites covers a total area of roughly 93,249 ha of largelyevergreen forest contiguous with the Dong Amphan PSS and Phou Ahyon in Southern Lao PDR. TwoTiger tracks were recorded in Song Thanh Nature Reserve, during WWF surveys in 2004 and localcommunities report the persistence of Tigers in the area.124

Tiger conservation priorities in VietnamDespite the likely small numbers of wild Tigers remaining in the country, Vietnam has a strategically criticalrole to play in the future of wild Tigers across the region. Efforts in Vietnam should focus on strengtheningwildlife crime law enforcement to more effectively address the demand and illegal trade of Tigers, Tigerproducts and Tiger prey operating throughout the country. At a minimum this would include the following:• Strengthening management and monitoring of private captive Tiger facilities to ensure they aresupporting conservation efforts and not commercially trading Tigers or Tiger products.• Strengthening law enforcement on illegal wholesale trader networks and the retail trade of Tigerproducts. This would include strict prosecution of criminals, carrying out intelligence-led investigations,developing mechanisms for international co-operation on cross-border trade violations and domesticinteragency operations at key sites.• To address domestic demand for Tiger products, the traditional medicine community and state healthagencies should prohibit traditional medicine pharmacopeias from promoting the use of Tigers or otherstrictly protected species. Also, curricula for traditional medicine universities, training colleges andcentres are amended with lessons on conservation and prohibited from promoting the use of Tigers orother protected species125

Vietnam Map.126