baseline documentation of mammalian diversity in mouling national park

8/14/2019 Baseline Documentation of Mammalian Diversity in Mouling National Park

1/60


2/60

Authors

K. M. Jayahari and Monalisa Sen

Project Investigators

Dr. K.M. Jayahari, Monalisa Sen, Sudipto Chatterjee and Ashok Kumar Bordoloi

Reviewers

Professor P.S. Ramakrishnan and Sunandan Tiwari

Photo Credits

Dr. K.M. Jayahari, Monalisa Sen and Ashok Kumar Bordoloi

Design and Layout

Sasi M

Copyright Jayahari K.M. and Sen Monalisa, 2010

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form

or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by

any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the

publisher.

First published in 2010 by

Winrock International India

S-212 Panchsheel Park

New Delhi- 110017


3/60

BASELINESURVEYFOR

DOCUMENTINGMAMMALIANDIVERSITYOF

MOULINGNATIONALPARKAND

DEVELOPINGANACTIONPLANFORSTRENGTHENING

THETRADITIONALINSTITUTIONOFTHE

ADITRIBALCOMMUNITYINARUNACHALPRADESH

Funded by

Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund

(Small Grants Programme)


4/60


5/60

Contents

Acknowledgement ..................................................... 4

Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................. 6

Chapter 2 Study Area .............................................. 9

Chapter 3 Literature Review .....................................18

Chapter 4 Mammalian Diversity ................................21

Chapter 5 People and Park .......................................33

Chapter 6 Recommendations and Way Forward .............47

References ...........................................................49


6/60

4

Acknowledgement

The Biodiversity and Conservation Programme of Winrock InternationalIndia gratefully acknowledges the funding support from CriticalEcosystems Partnership Fund through the Ashoka Trust for Research

in Ecology and the Environment. We place in record the help and supportextended by Mr Thomas Samuel M, Programme Co-ordinator, DarjeelingUnit, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment.

The project implementers are grateful for the help and support extended bythe Forest Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Thanks are due toShri B.S. Sajwan, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Shri D. V. Singh,former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Shri M. K. Palit, DeputyConservator of Forests (Wildlife), Arunachal Pradesh Forest Departmentfor giving us the permission to work in Mouling National Park. We wouldalso like to thank Mr Milo Tamang, Divisional Forest Officer, Mouling

National Park for his help and guidance. The logistic support provided byMr Bhattacharya, Mr Deb and Mr Pangan, Jennging Forest Division, is dulyacknowledged.

We express our gratitude to Professor P.S. Ramakrishnan who readily agreedto peer review this publication. The critical comments provided by him havehelped improve the quality of the report.

Our thanks are also due to Mr. Sunandan Tiwari for painstakingly reviewingthe report in detail. His comments have ensured that this work comes out asa quality publication.

We would like to take this opportunity and thank all the villagers living aroundMouling National Park for their readiness to co-operate in the study throughactive participation in the community consultations. We would not have beensuccessful in developing an indepth understanding of the area and the prevalentscenarios had it not been for the whole-hearted support of the local people.


7/60

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

5

The authors thank Dr Thomas Geissmann, Anthropological Institute,University Zrich-Irchel, Switzerland and Dr J R B Alfred, Former Director,Zoological Survey of India for their cooperation which was critical for thesuccess of the project.

A special mention for Army, a local village boy who accompanied us throughoutthe study period. His translation skills, along with the understanding of thearea played a critical role in ensuring the successful completion of the fieldwork.

At Winrock International India, we would like to thank Dr Kinsuk Mitra,President and Mr Somnath Bhattacharjee, Vice-President for theirencouragement, trust and support which have played a crucial role to ensure thesuccess of the project. Thanks are also due to Mr. Sasi M without whose helpthe designing and layout of this publication could not have been finalized.

The hard work of Mr Ashok Kumar Bordoloi, Project Officer also deservesa mention. The data collected by him by travelling through all these villages

and the local linkages built by him have ensured the collection of meaningfuland authentic data from the field.


8/60

6

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

The state of Arunachal Pradesh in India has more than 61.55% forestcover (FSI, 2009), of which more than 60% is under communityownership. Even though these forest areas were traditionally owned

by tribal communities and administered based on the traditional customarylaws by the local village councils, the forest department has classified them asUnclassed State Forest (USF). There were demands from different agencies

to amend the Forest Conservation Act 1980 with respect to the USF to makeit in unison with the customary law (Poffenberger, 2005). The insistence ofthe forest department to maintain USF is being considered as the denial ofboth the special constitutional safeguards accorded to the indigenous peopleliving in the area and the traditional claim of the people on their land.

The history of setting aside biodiversity significant areas as protected premisesby communities can be traced back to thousands of years ArabianHemas

and Sacred Grooves in Asia are examples of this. In the present conservationscenario, National Parks play a significant role in conserving a regionsbiological diversity even though they are the latecomers in the protected areamovement (Child, 2004; Aaron et al.,2001). During the last two decadesbased on different case studies around the world many conservation biologistshave argued for pristineness free from human habitation or presence. Thisargument was countered by many ecologists sighting the best models of

participatory conservation efforts. After all, human free protected areas are

not practically possible to be established in case of countries like India,especially in the North Eastern region where the community traditionallyowns the forest.

The focus of this project is Mouling National Park, a Protected Area (PA)of 483 sq km, reportedly a pristine patch of semi evergreen forest, relatively

undisturbed and free from Park and people conflict. The Adi tribe and itssub-tribes being the original inhabitants of the area, enjoy the ownership ofthe land, which however has no legal validity, especially within the Park.


9/60


7

The intactness of the Park is attributed to its remoteness, difficult terrain andabsence of motorable roads even at a distance of 15 kms around the Parkboundary. In addition to this, the three peaks within the Park are consideredhighly sacred and believed to be the spiritual abode of ancestors of the tribalcommunity. Mouling National Park has been identified as a priority siteoutside the priority corridors in Eastern Himalaya by the Critical EcosystemsPartnership Fund, as a corridor to the adjacent Dihang-Dibang landscape, aBiosphere Reserve in the state.

The fact that the management plan of the Park could be prepared and approved

only after two decades of its notification indicates the severe constraintswhich the process had to face. One of the constraints has been completeabsence of documentation of biological diversity of the Park. Due to absenceof any motorable roads, the Parks boundary has been drawn with the aidof existing topo-sheets and aerial survey. This has resulted in demarcationthrough straight line segments in a mountainous terrain, which is reflected inthe straight line boundaries which the Park has.

The PA has been carved out of a USF and possibilities exist that extensiveconsultations have not been carried out with the local communities whiledelineating the boundaries of the Park. The remoteness of the Park however,does not make the Park immune to threats. Even though the Park facesrelatively low levels of threats, unconfirmed reports of poaching and illegaltrade inside the Park are disturbing. The intensity of shifting cultivationaround the Park is of grave concern and it is possible that with the waningoff of traditional management systems, the slash and burn agriculture may

negatively impact the Parks ecological resources in the years to come. Thisproject has undertaken an initiative of documenting the Parks biodiversityas an essential first step to development of an effective management systemfor the Park.

Lack of motorable roads, means of communication and reluctance on thepart of local communities to cooperate for surveying the area due to religioustaboos restricted earlier attempts for scientific studies in the buffer zone of

the Park. Mr. Sudipto Chatterjee one of the investigators of the presentproject was instrumental in developing a project on baseline survey of highpriority biologically rich areas of Arunachal Pradesh which included MoulingNational Park, in collaboration with the State Forest Research Institute(SFRI) at Itanagar in 1994. However, non availability of information on theParks geography, lack of community support and wrong timing, restrictedthe survey team to a minimal survey only in the buffer area of the Park. Aninventory of the Park therefore practically does not exist and the same hasbeen highlighted in the management plan of the Park.


10/60


8

The very fact that a management plan of Mouling National Park couldbe placed after 21 years of its notification is an indicator in itself of theconstraints in effective conservation of the Park. The very basic ingredientsfor good management of a Park- manpower, infrastructure, accessibility,documentation of biodiversity are not available.

For proper participatory management of a Protected Area, an understandingof the relationship between local people and Protected Area is tantamount tothe implementation of legal regulations. The conservation attitude of local

people, historical use of resources of the area, issues of land ownership and

conventional management are some of the significant factors which need tobe investigated in detail (Newmark et al.,1994). This is highly relevant toMouling National Park since it has been delineated from the USF which is

under the traditional ownership of the community living around it. Till datethe community is ignorant about the boundary separating Mouling NationalPark from the USF.

Communities living around Mouling National Park belong toAditribe who

are traditional hunters. The acquaintance of Adi tribe with the animals inMouling due to frequent hunting trips and the tradition of keeping skulls ofthe hunted mammals have been used as an opportunity in the present studyfor documentation of the mammalian diversity of the Park. The study hasalso unearthed information about the most hunted species of the area. Studieson hunter communities have always had a considerable impact on overall

perceptions of the foraging way of life (Baily et al.,1989). The existenceof hunting as a livelihood option especially for food requirement has to

be considered as the community is incapable of being able to subsist in atropical forest solely on domesticated plant or animal resources. Studies likethis are only a stepping stone towards testing hypothesis on the sustainabilityof hunting in Indian forest protection scenario. These studies are however,essential in order to overcome the conservation hurdles created due to theambiguities in the policy and legal framework, in the unique socio-ecologicalscenario prevalent in North Eastern India.


11/60

9

CHAPTER 2

Study Area

LOCATIONMouling National Park is situated in the central part of the state of ArunachalPradesh, in north eastern India. Eastern Himalayas is one of the globalbiodiversity hotspots (Myers et al., 2000) which lies in the confluence zoneof Indo-Malayan, Afro-Tropic and Indo-Chinese bio-geographical realms(Mani, 1974; Rodgers and Panwar, 1988). The region is one among the

200 important eco-regions of the world as well (Olson and Dinerstein,1998). Hooker (1904) described the significance of the forest diversity in theregion as a result of immigration from neighboring countries, and the area isconsidered as an active center of organic evolution (Rao, 1994). High levelsof endemism in this region have been studied as early as 1939 (Chatterjee,1939). According to Myers (1988), 36% of the 5800 plant species reportedfrom the Eastern Himalayas are endemic. Takhtajan considered this area asa cradle of flowering plants (Takhtajan, 1969).

Figure 2.1: Location of Mouling National Park in Arunachal Pradesh


12/60


10

The state of Arunachal Pradesh, being the largest state in north eastern India,occupies a major portion of Eastern Himalayas. Out of the 83,784 km2landarea of Arunachal Pradesh, 82% is under forest cover, (comprising of tropicalwet evergreen, subtropical, temperate and alpine forests (Rao and Hajra,1986; Chennaiah et al.,1998). The state encompasses five ecosystems andtwenty six major tribal communities. There are ten declared Protected Areasin the state which includes eight Wildlife Sanctuaries, one Orchid Sanctuaryand two National Parks. The altitude range of 100 7090 meters from sealevel, nurtures a wide diversity of flora and fauna within the state. The stateis home to the highest number of living gymnosperms in India. More than

600 species have been recorded from the state of Arunachal Pradesh (Singh,1994).

Mouling National Park spreads across the administrative boundaries of threedistricts in the state of Arunachal Pradesh East Siang, West Siang and UpperSiang with head quarters at Pasighat, Along and Yingkiong respectively. ThePark administrative office is at Jenging which is outside the National Parkarea and there is no road connectivity to the National Park. The road from

Along and Pasighat to Tuting circles around the National Park from the southto the north eastern part of the National Park and connects the villages lyingoutside the National Park. Another motorable road connects the villages ofYubuk, Suble, Subsing,Hottek, Pareng to the main road and encircles thePark from southern side towards south eastern boundary.

BOUNDARYMouling National Park is situated at E 940 41 17.38-E 940 59 82 and

N 280

28 39-N 280

41

56 in the Dihang- Dibang Biosphere Reserve intheAdihills of Arunachal Pradesh (Fig 2.1, Fig 2.2 and Fig 2.3), coveringan area of 483 km2. Mouling Reserve Forest was notified in August 1986(Govt. order No. FOR/55/Gen/81 ) and re-notified as Mouling NationalPark vide gazette notification (No. FOR/55/Gen/81) in December 1986.Mouling National Park is delineated both by artificial and natural boundaries.According to the management plan of the National Park, the boundariesare artificial lines joining peaks/ high points except the boundary following

natural nallahs such as Dumbi Mubung and tributary of Siring Nallah in

the North, Sirnyuk Nallah and its tributary in the East, Gobang Nallah and

Simang river in the South. However proper boundary demarcation usingstone or permanent marking structures has not been completed yet. The coreand buffer area demarcation is also in pending. For administrative purposes,the management plan states that all the areas falling within a distance of10kms from the boundary shall be treated as buffer zone and the same will

be based on natural and geographic features. There are two forest ranges inthe park vis Jenging and Ramsing Forest Ranges with offices at Jenging and


13/60


14/60


12

Marang at 2940 meters from sea level and Sibum at 2745 meters from sealevel.

According to the management plan of the National Park, the vegetationcomprises of the forest types: Assam valley tropical wet evergreen, Assamvalley semi evergreen, Eastern Hollock Moist Deciduous, Eastern HimalayaSubtropical, Himalayan Sub Tropical Pine, East Himalayan Wet Temperate,Himalayan Moist Temperate, Eastern Himalayan Montane Bamboo and EastHimalayan Sub Alpine Birch/Fir forests (Champion and Seth, 1968). Thelow to mid altitudes along the inner valleys are dominated by tropical wet

evergreen and semi evergreen forests, tending towards wet subtropical broad

Figure 2.4: Mouling National Park-connectivity, drainages and villages


15/60


13

leaved forests and temperate upper reaches. Singhet al.

, 2005 have carriedout a remote sensing based vegetation classification of Mouling NationalPark, the results of the study are consolidated in Table 2.1.

PEOPLE AROUND THE PARKThe word Mouling in Adi language means red poison. Even today thelocal community is scared of the highly poisonous snakes found in Moulinghills and are reluctant to venture into the mountains due to the same reason.There are no villages or settlements within the boundary of Mouling National

Vegetation/

Land Use

Types

Area

(km2)

Area (Champion & Seth (1968)

Classification scheme (%)

TropicalEvergreen

7.63 1.50 Assam Valley Tropical EvergreenForest and Upper Assam ValleyTropical Evergreen Forest

Tropical Semi-

evergreen

3.99 0.78 Assam Alluvial Plains Semi-Evergreen

Forest and Sub-Himalayan LightAlluvial Semi- Evergreen Forest

SubtropicalEvergreen

252.8 49.96 East Himalayan Subtropical Wet HillForest

TemperateBroad Leaf

147.09 29.07 East Himalayan Wet TemperateForests, Lauraceous Forests and BakOak Forests

TemperateConifer

3.28 0.65 East Himalayan Mixed ConiferousForest

TemperateScrub

3.32 0.65 East Himalayan Sub-alpine Birch/FirForest

AbandonedJhum

33.17 6.54 -

DegradedForest

0.36 0.07 -

Bamboo 3.49 0.67 Cane Brakes

Agriculture/Current Jhum

3.96 0.77 -

Barren/Sand 0.76 0.15

River Channel 0.03 -0.01

Table 2.1: Vegetation and land cover classes of Mouling National Park

(Singh et al.,2005)


16/60


17/60


15

villages around the study area are electrified but the use of lights inside thehouse is restricted. All houses have an open portion of the platform which is

used for sitting out, drying grains and weaving while the partially coveredportion is used for the same purpose during the cloudy and rainy days.Construction of a new house is generally done by the community wherein allable bodied persons contribute their labour (Rizvi and Roy, 2006).

AgricultureThe main agriculture produces ofAditribe are food crops. Rice remains themost important crop. They also grow jobs tears (Coir lachryma), finger

millets (Eleusine coracana), fox-tail millet (Setoria italica) and maize (Zeamays). They also cultivate namdung, mustard, country bean, pumpkin,white gourd, small onion, soyabean, flat bean (during winter), brinjal, bittergourd, french bean and small mustard plant (Rizvi and Roy, 2006). Chillyand ginger are the only cultivated spice crops and potato and tomato wereintroduced recently. Adicommunity brews indigenous liquor from milletsknown as apongthrough a simple distillation process. Hunting and fishingare the other sources of food and main protein supplements for the Adi

community. Fish and meat are smoked and stored in the houses. They rearpigs, fowl and Mithuns (a domesticated free-range bovine species - Bosfrontalis). Most of the pigs and fowl are offered in religious function butMithunsare slaughtered for feasts.

Resource sharingTraditionally entire land including forests, parts of rivers and streamsflowing within the boundaries of a village belong to people living in the

village and each village has well marked boundaries. Such markers includestreams, hill features, big trees and large stones. Most of the resources areindividually owned by the members of the village. However some land,water and other resources remain as community property. These propertiesare seldom sold to individuals of the village for raising money for villagedevelopment activities. Trespassing into each others area for hunting createsconflicts between villages and is resolved through payment of a fine by thetrespasser. Most often, the fine amounts to a major share of the kill.

Mouling National Park is relatively free from agriculture but most of theareas are owned by different villages. The distance from the villages toMouling, coupled with the fear of presence of highly poisonous snakes inMouling has kept these areas free from agriculture. These areas are thus usedonly for hunting purposes by theAdi community.

AdministrationVillage administration authorities exist in every village, headed by a


18/60


16

Head Gaam and Gaon buras, appointed by the Deputy Commissioner ofthe district. Many Gaon burasare the representatives of different clans inthe village. Even though clan system exists in most of the villages aroundMouling National Park, there is no hierarchy within the clans and clan namesdiffer from village to village. Kebang is the term inAdivocabulary whichrefers to village administrative gathering wherein general decision makingoccurs. Kebang decision making process is always under the influence ofthe representatives elected to the block and district Panchayats from theconstituencies to which the village belongs, but ultimate power of decisionmaking lies with the Gaon buraswho act as the village panchayat leader in

the three tire local governance system.

CLIMATEThe area is extremely humid, with high rainfall (2343 mm annually) and hasno well-defined dry season. As it cuts so low into the mountains, the Siangvalley carries wet tropical conditions further north than in most other areasin the Himalayas, facilitating dispersal of lowland tropical elements alongwith it (Birand and Pawar, 2004). Average humidity is around 80% and

temperature varies according to elevation. The lowest average temperaturein the study area has been reported to be 110C and highest as 250C.


19/60

17

A view of Siang River Houses of Adi tribe

Hearth inside an Adi house Adi tribesmen constructing split bamboo

flooring

An Adi man A Donyi Polo temple


20/60

18

CHAPTER 3

Literature Review

According to the IUCN definition, a Protected Area is an area of landand/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance ofbiodiversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and

managed through legal or other effective means (Emerton et al.,2006).Protected Areas form the core of conservation efforts around the world(Bruner et al.,2001). Over the past four decades there has been a ten-fold

increase in the number of protected areas listed by the United Nations. Thearea under protection has likewise expanded from 2.4 million km2in 1962 toover 20 million km2in 2004 (Chape et al.,2005). Roughly 12% of the globalland surface is now classified as Protected Area.

These include a range of different regimes ranging from strict protection,through non-consumptive use, to extractive resource utilization. In practice,most Protected Areas combine several different management objectives.

There are also many different legal and customary arrangements under whichthe lands and species that comprise Protected Areas are owned or managed.Protected Area management authorities include government agencies, privatebusinesses, non-governmental organizations, private individuals and localcommunities. In recent years, globally there has been substantial growth inthe number of Protected Areas managed by agencies other than government.Most privately-owned and community-conserved areas are not included in theUN list of Protected Areas, however, in spite of their potentially significant

contribution to biodiversity conservation (Chapeet al

, 2003).

India is unique in richness of biodiversity due to diversity of physiographyand climatic conditions. India ranks as the sixth among the 12 megabiodiversity countries of the world (Mandal, 2003). Two out of the 35 globalbiodiversity hotspots are located in India- North-Eastern Himalayas andWestern Ghats. Indias biodiversity is unique for the range of biologicaldiversity, harboured by virtue of its bio-geographical position and the arrayof physical environments. Wildlife protection has a long tradition in Indian


21/60


19

history. Wise use of natural resources was a prerequisite for many hunter-gatherer societies of India, which date back to at least 6000 BC. Extensiveclearance of forests accompanied the advance of agricultural and pastoralsocieties in subsequent millennia, but an awareness of the need for ecological

prudence emerged and many so-called pagan nature conservation practiceswere retained. As more land became settled or cultivated, so these huntingreserves increasingly became refuges for wildlife. Many of these reserveswere subsequently declared as national parks or sanctuaries, mostly afterIndependence in 1947.

India was one among the many nations in the world who replicated themodel of the worlds first National Park The Yellow Stone National Parkof USA, and set up an exclusive network of Protected Areas to conserveits genetic diversity. Several problems plague Protected Area managementin India. Setting up of Protected Areas has also been marked by conflictswith indigenous communities living inside the forest for generations. It hadbeen debated widely nationwide about who should be the authority of suchProtected Areas; the forest department or the community or a joint authority

should be envisaged upon. The management practice should evolve towardsgreater participation of community including preparation for working planof Protected Areas. Overall increased awareness should be created towardsimportance of biodiversity conservation and wildlife protection (Kothari etal, 1989).

The legal procedures for establishment of 60 percent National Parks and90 percent Sanctuaries have not yet been completed and 57 percent of the

National Parks and 27 percent of the Wildlife Sanctuaries do not havemanagement plans (Mandal, 2003).

Limited published and unpublished information exists on biodiversity andconservation issues of Mouling National Park. Rodgers and Panwar (1988)in their volumes Planning a protected area network for India observed thatMouling National Park which was notified in 1982, in light of no buffer areato the Park, recommended that the existing Park be extended by 800 sq km

and a sanctuary of 700 sq km be created as a peripheral buffer zone. The unitshould be extended to a portion of Siang River or a major tributary.

The State Forest Research Institute at Itanagar undertook a baseline surveyfor the biodiversity of Mouling in April 1995. Prior to the survey the studyteam referred to a publication by Mr. A. K. Chatterjee which provided abrief on the flora and fauna of the region. The floristic account of the Siangdistrict was published by R S Rao and and P K Hajra, Botanical Surveyof India (BSI) in 1964. Mouling was however not surveyed by the BSI.


22/60


20

Burkil, (1938), Bor (1938) and Biswas (1941) have made contributions tothe documentation of botanical richness of the Abor Hills (earlier name of theSiang district). To develop a basic understanding of the floristic diversity ofthe region the team referred to flora of Assam by Kanjilal (1934-40), Floraof British India by Hooker (1872-1897) and Flowers of Himalaya by Poluninand Stainton, (1984). The team approached the Park from two locations, onegroup surveyed the Park at the village Jengging - Done area and covered twoday foot march distance and the other covered the Ramsing-Siring nala andthe Lissing area. It is imperative to mention here that even an organized teamcould not penetrate into the Park and the survey was restricted to locations

close to Park boundary (SFRI Report,1996).

Centre for Ecological Research and Conservation, a research unit of NatureConservation Foundation in Mysore (Panwar and Birand, 2001), surveyedthe amphibians, reptiles and birds of Mouling National Park. The researchershave commented on the inventory of amphibians as remarkable. Notablerecords of this survey were rediscoveries of species recorded during theAbor expedition of 1912 (Ananadale 1912) after a gap of a century. These

include Xenophrys boettgeri, Rhacophorus naso, Theloderma theloderma.Amolops viridimaculatuswas a new range record and was earlier known tooccur only in China. The survey, conducted in harsh winter conditions byNature Conservation Foundation concluded that areas reptile fauna couldexhibit a high degree of uniqueness. There is possibility of discovery of a newgenera of snakes and the efforts to publish the record is being attempted bythe SFRI, Itanagar. The NCF team sighted 113 species of birds of which 41were not reported in the earlier study conducted by Sen and Mukhopadhyaya

(1999).

For the lack of adequate information on the biodiversity and conservationissues of the Park, no substantial inputs from the Park could be providedto the recent Rapid Assessment for Prioritization for Protected AreaManagement (RAPPAM) conducted by the State Forest Research Institute,Itanagar (2006). Adhikari et al., 2006 have provided a very brief accountof the notable plant species found in the Park. They conclude existence of

114 bird species under 38 families from nine study locations in Mouling.Over all apart from the limited information of the flora, reptiles and birdsno other scientific information is available about the biodiversity of theMouling National Park and this makes the present initiative significant frombiodiversity point of view.


23/60


24/60


22

comprises of an assessment of the diversity of the skulls in the collectionof the hunters in every village and documentation of the location of thecatch. Detailed consultations were carried out with three four hunters inevery village. Photographs from available field guides on mammals of India(Prater, 1993 and Menon, 2003) were used during these consultations toidentify the animals as they have different local names and are not familiarwith the English or Hindi names of these species. Adequate care was takento consult all the veteran as well as the younger generation hunters in all thevillages.

Initial village surveys were conducted to carry out mapping of community landand hunting areas in the 17 villages closely surrounding Mouling NationalPark (Fig. 4.1). In order to map out the areas with community ownership,the community members were first familiarised with the map by helpingthem to locate their position with respect to the known roads and riversin the map and then requested to map their hunting and cultivation areas.This exercise was repeated in all the villages and individual village mapswere produced, which were later super-imposed to map out the common

boundaries between the neighbouring villages. In case of any ambiguity, asecond round of consultation was carried out. With the help of the maps, thevillages which have stake in Mouling National Park area were sorted out anddetailed community consultations were carried out in these villages.

The local names of the animals in Adi vocabulary were documented andattempts were made to locate the species with maximum abundance and thosewhich have most frequent sightings. The skulls in the individual collections

were photographed, counted species wise and measured. The photographsand measurements were compared with museum specimens. These skullswere also studied and identifications were confirmed by Mr V. G. Gogate,Scientist E (retired) , National Museum of Natural History, New Delhi. Allthe trophies, skins and other animal parts kept by the community membersin their houses were also studied in detail.

RESULTS

Mammalian diversity within the ParkInitial survey for community land mapping was conducted in 15 villagesand 10 villages were identified to have stake in Mouling National Park astheir hunting or cultivation areas fall within the administrative boundary ofthe Park (Fig 4.1 and Fig 4.3). 7 out of these 10 villages were surveyed indetail for documentation of mammalian diversity. Three villages Lissing,Messing and Kumko were not surveyed. All our efforts to reach Lissing andMessing failed due to bad weather, minor landslides and village festivals.


25/60


23

Messing has only 6 households. In case of the third village Kumko, eventhough the community confirmed that their land holdings extend to the Park,however in recent years no one has ventured into the Park either for huntingor for any other purposes. Out of the 7 villages surveyed in detail, 4 (Bumdo,Ramsing, Goseng and Karko) are situated in the north eastern side of thePark. The hunting areas of the communities of these villages are also situatedin the north eastern side of the Park. Their hunting areas extend to the hillranges connecting the three peaks Morang Mouling, Ganging Moulingand Mouling Sibum, covering the catchment area of Siang River within thePark. 3 other villages Yubuk, Suble and Yinku are situated at the southern

side of the Park with their hunting areas restricted to south of the hill rangesconnecting the three peaks within the Park. Even though the hunting areasof these villages extend upto the peaks of the Park, they generally huntin the fringes of the Park and are extremely scared to move into the coreareas. During the survey it became evident that there are only 1 or 2 veteranhunters who have ventured to the peaks and have an in-depth and elaborate

understanding of their community area.

Altogether 47 mammals were recorded from Mouling National Park, duringthe survey, 11 species were confirmed to be present in the Park by all thesurveyed villages (Table 4.1). These are Mithun (Bos frontalis), Leopard(Panthera pardus), Tiger (Panthera tigris), Wild Dog (Cuon alpines), WildPig (Sus scrofa), Himalayan Crestless Porcupine (Histrix brachyuran),Himalayan Water Shrew (Chimarrogale himalayica), Indian Muntjac(Muntiacus muntjak), Indian Pangolin (Manis crassicaudata), YellowThroated Marten (Martes flavigula) and Large Indian Civet (Viverra zibetha).

Eight mammalian species were confirmed by only the villages situated at thenorth and eastern side of the Park (Bumdo, Ramsing and Karko). They areAsiatic Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus), Grey Mongoose (Herpestes javanicus),Hispid Hare (Caprolagus hispidus), Small Indian Civet (Viverricula indica),Small-Toothed Ferret Badger (Melogale moschata), Snow Leopard (Unciauncial), Spotted Linsang (Prionodon pardicolor) and Takin (Budorcastaxicolor). There was no species which were confirmed only by the villagersat southern part of the Park. The villages at the north eastern side of the

Park confirmed all the 47 recorded mammals where as the villages situatedat southern side confirmed only 32 species. Out of the species confirmed tobe present in the north and eastern side of the Park, presence of 21 specieswas confirmed by all the villages, whereas 10 species were confirmed byonly 1 village each. Grey Mongoose, (Herpestes javanicus), Small IndianCivet (Viverricula indica) and Snow Leopard (Uncia uncia) seem to bedistributed only in the community area of Bumdo. Asiatic Black Bear (Ursusthibetanus) and Marbled Cat (Pardofelis marmorata) were recorded onlyfrom community area of Ramsing village and Hispid Hare (Caprolagus


26/60


24

hispidus), Kashmir Flying Squirrel (Hylopetes fimbriatus), Pygmy Shrew(Suncus etruscus), Small-Toothed Ferret Badger (Melogale moschata) andIndian Giant Flying Squirrel (Ratufa indica) were identified by only themembers of Goseng village.

Presence of 16 species was confirmed by all the villages situated at thesouthern side of the Park and only one additional species was reported fromvillage Suble. 36 percent of the mammals recorded from Mouling NationalPark fall under IUCN threatened categories (Fig 4.2).

Figure 4.1: Extent of land under community ownership of different

villages in areas inside and around Mouling National Park

Least Concern

4%

Vulnerable

15%Threatened

2%

Near

Threatened

11%

Least Concern

53%

Endangered13%

Critically

Endangered

2%

Figure 4.2: IUCN Status of Mammalian species present in Mouling

National Park


27/60


25

Figure 4.3: Three dimensional view of the community areas

The people in all the villages were very familiar with most of the mammalswhich they have recognised and were able to give detailed description aboutthe species once they recognised the photograph. The pocket localities of

presence were very difficult to specify, apart from the altitudinal range wherethe species can be found, which was demarcated on the basis of the snowline

which is seen during the winters. The villagers did not indicate noticingany variation in the populations of the mammals present in and aroundMouling National Park over time. Takin (Budorcas taxicolor) is rarely foundin Mouling, even though very rare sightings have been confirmed by thevillagers in the north eastern part of the Park, but the species has not beenhunted or sighted in recent times. The villages on this side have a separateTakin hunting area in their community land in the snow covered area. Thisarea lies towards the north east of Mouling National Park and does not fall

within the Park boundaries.

Observations on the skull collections of the huntersMembers ofAdicommunity have the tradition of keeping the skulls of wildanimals hunted by them, inside the house and the skulls of domestic animalslike Mithun and Pig outside the house. The skull collection can only beconsidered as a representation of the kill made by the hunter. A direct countof the number of skulls cannot be taken as an index of the intensity of hunting.

Abiding by the rituals ofAdi

tribe, these tribals bury portions of the stock ofthe skulls at the graves of their children and spouses. All the houses surveyedhave thus parted away with some portions of the skull collection. Apart fromthe tradition of burying skulls at the grave of spouses or children, a portionof a hunters collection is passed on to his sons and a portion is buried alongwith his body. Hence estimating the exact number of kill which a hunter hasmade in his lifetime was not possible by counting the skulls.

On the whole, skulls of 11 species were recorded from the villages surveyed


28/60


26

T

able4.1:ThelistofM

ammalspeciesconfirm

edtobepresentinMoulingNationalParkthr

oughcommunityconsu

ltation

No

CommonName

Scientific

Name

Bumd

o

Goseng

Ramsing

Ka

rko

Suble

YubukY

inku

1

AsiaticBlackBear

Ursusthibetanus

P

2

GreyMongoose

Herpestes

javanicus

P

3

HispidHare

Caprolagu

shispidus

P

4

KashmirFlyingSquirrel

Hylopetes

fimbriatus

P

5

MarbledCat

Pardofelis

marmorata

P

6

PygmyShrew

Suncusetruscus

P

7

SmallIndianCivet

Viverriculaindica

P

8

Small-ToothedFerre

tBadger

Melogalemoschata

P

9

SnowLeopard

Unciauncia

P

10

Hoary-BelliedHimalayanSquirrel

Callosciuruspygerythrus

P

P

11

LeopardCat

Prionailurusbengalensis

P

P

12

NorthernTreeShrew

Tupaiabelangeri

P

P

13

ChinesePangolin

Manispentadactyla

P

P

P

14

IndianGiantFlyingSquirrel

Ratufaindica

P

P

P

15

JungleCat

Felischaus

P

P

P

16

NamdaphaFlyingSq

uirrel

Biswamoyopterusbiswasi

P

P

P

17

RhesusMacaque

Macacamulatta

P

P

P

18

SpottedLinsang

Prionodon

pardicolor

P

P

P

19

Takin

Budorcastaxicolor

P

P

P

20

CloudedLeopard

Neofelisnebulosa

P

P

P

P

21

EurasianOtter

Lutralutra

P

P

P

P

22

FishingCat

Prionailurusviverrinus

P

P

P

P

23

FishingCat

Prionailurusviverrinus

P

P

P

P

24

Serow

Naemorhedussumatraensis

P

P

P

P

25

Orange-BelliedHimalayanSquirrelDremomys

lokriah

P

P

P

P


29/60


27

No

CommonName

Scientific

Name

Bumd

o

Goseng

Ramsing

Ka

rko

Suble

YubukY

inku

26

AssameseMacaque

Macacaassamensis

P

P

P

P

P

27

CommonLangur

Semnopithecusentellus

P

P

P

P

P

28

FiveStripedPalmSquirrel

Funambuluspennantii

P

P

P

P

P

29

HimalayanRat

Rattusnitidus

P

P

P

P

P

30

MalayanGiantSquir

rel

Ratufabicolor

P

P

P

P

P

31

SunBear

Helarctosmalayanus

P

P

P

P

P

32

IndianPalmCivet

Paradoxur

ushermaphroditus

P

P

P

P

P

P

33

Mithun

Bosfrontalis

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

34

LargeIndianCivet

Viverrazib

etha

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

35

Leopard

Pantherap

ardus

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

36

Tiger

Pantherat

igris

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

37

WildDog

Cuonalpin

us

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

38

WildPig

Susscrofa

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

39

Bats

Batsp.

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

40

HimalayanCrestless

Porcupine

Histrixbra

chyura

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

41

HimalayanWaterSh

rew

Chimarrog

alehimalayica

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

42

IndianMuntjac

Muntiacus

muntjak

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

43

IndianPangolin

Maniscrassicaudata

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

44

Bandicoots

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

45

Rats

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

46

Squirrels

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

47

YellowThroatedMa

rten

Martesflavigula

P

P

P

P

P

P

P


30/60


28

(Table 4.2). Gibbon skulls and Takin (Budorcas taxicolori) were seen only invillages situated at the north eastern side of the Park. The skulls resemblingthat of Rhesus Macaque were found from village Suble at the southern sideof the Park but these were abnormally large in size, which the villagers haveidentified as Monkey only. Even though skulls matching the size, dentitionand measurements of Hollock Gibbon (Bunopithecus hoolock) were seenin the collection in three villages at the north eastern side of the Park, thevillagers were not able to recognise the photographs of the species even afterdisplaying photographs of male and female separately. Serow (Naemorhedussumatraensis) skulls formed the major proportion of the skull collection

in the villages at north eastern part of the Park whereas in the villages atsouthern side of the Park, Assamese Macaque (Macaca assamensis) skullsdominated. The villagers at the southern side of the Park could not recognisethe photograph of Asiatic Black Bear but skulls of this species were spottedin their collections. However these skulls (Asiatic Black Bear) were very oldand dated back to over two generations.

DISCUSSION

More than 47 species of mammals are present in the National Park. In thehighly inaccessible terrain like that of Arunachal Pradesh, mammalian diversitydocumentation in consultation with local communities especially hunters isone of the practical tools for preliminary analysis of the mammalian wealthof an area like Mouling National Park. Such studies in the state have evenshed light in the direction of discovery of new primate species in WesternArunachal Pradesh(Mishra et al., 2006).Aditribe around Mouling NationalPark was found to be very knowledgeable about the morphological features

of the mammal species found in their area. However, since their hunting area

Table 4.2: Maximum number of skulls recorded from houses

Sl

No.Common English

Name

Villages

Bumdo Ramsing Goseng Yubuk Suble

1 Asiatic Black Bear 8 7 7 13 42 Serow 32 43 23 10 153 Barking Deer 11 18 14 22 13

4 Wild Boar 29 32 12 24 145 Common Langur 4 8 3 46 Gibbon 4 3 57 Takin* 13 78 Assamese Macaque 5 3 42 229 Sun Bear 8 12 9 410 Rhesus Macaque 4 2 1 811 Macaque** 2

**Suspicious skull with abnormally big size * Most of the skulls are not from Park


31/60


29

is very much limited to their community land and trespassing into othersland is punishable with fines, information on the overall distribution ofmammals is unavailable with the villagers. Hypotheses regarding the limiteddistribution of mammalian species can definitely be drawn based on the factthat certain species which were identified by the villagers on one side ofthe Park were not reported by the villagers on the other side. At least 11mammalian species were confirmed to be widely distributed in the NationalPark. 9 mammalian species were found to be distributed in the north andeastern part of the three highest peaks of the Park. The southern slopes of thehighest peaks of the Park have comparatively lower diversity than other parts

of the Park. The data confirms the wide and continuous distribution of 16mammalian species towards the north and eastern side of the three peaks ofthe Park where as 21 species have habitat specific patchy distribution. On thesouthern side of the peaks, 6 species were confirmed to be widely distributedand 3 species have patchy distribution.

The absence of the skull of Takin (Budorcas taxicolor) from the recent collectionsof any of the hunters raises doubts regarding the local extinction of this species

from Mouling National Park. Compounded by the fact that these villages haveseparate Takin hunting areas, far away from the Park, the presence of only oneskull of this species, which was confirmed by the villagers to have been huntedfrom Mouling, points towards the possibility of occurrence of a very small

population of Takin within Mouling National Park, many generations ago. Thiscan thus be considered as a striking result which highlights the chance of localextinction of a species, due to hunting. The presence of a skull similar to thatof Hollock Gibbon (Bunopithecus hoolock) in the collection of the villagers and

the inability of the villagers to recognise Hollock Gibbon, through photographsand descriptions of both male and female adults of the species, also pointstowards the possibility of presence of a new primate species in the region.The present documented distribution of the two subspecies of Hollock Gibbondo not cover. Mouling area (Das et al., 2003 and 2006 and Chetri et al.,2008). Two more abnormally big skulls resembling the Rhesus Macaque alsowere found during the survey. Considering the facts that the suspicious skullswere collected many years ago and no such skulls were present in the recent

collection, doubts about the local extinction of some primate species are raised.These skulls were identified from Suble - the only village which confirmed thepresence of Rhesus Macaque from the southern part of the Park. This againleads to the suspicion of presence of an arboreal primate, similar to the RhesusMacaque- the possibility of Arunachal Macaque, recently discovered from thewestern Arunachal Pradesh also can not be ruled out.


32/60

30

Skulls of Gibbon

Skulls of Assamese

Macaque

Skulls of Rhesus

Macaque


33/60

31

Skulls of Barking Deer

Skull and horns of Serow

Skull of Sun Bear


34/60

32

The collection of skulls with a hunter

Scat of Wild Dog

Wild Boar

The collection of skulls with bullets and

arrows used for kill


35/60

33

CHAPTER 5

People and Park

INTRODUCTIONVirtually every part of the world has been inhabited and modified by peoplein the past, and the currently existing or apparent wilderness has oftensupported high densities of people (Pimbert and Jules, 1995). Protected areasare not a new concept to mankind even in its modern version. Sacred groovesin India are one of the best evidences to prove this point, where stringent

restrictions exist on access and utilisation of resources and services provided.These restrictions were based on traditional, local or religious laws whichwere in force till the recent past. Gadgil and Chandran (1992) observedthat the simple thumb rules by which the sacred groves were managed werein many dimensions parallel to the modern ecosystem approach. However,modern day conservation strategies of protected area administration follow adifferent thought process and have alienated away from the requirements ofthe local communities. This is exemplified right from the establishment of

the first National Park in the world the Yellowstone National Park, whereinthe Park inhabitants were either vacated from the area or driven out by thearmy who governed the Park till 1916 (Morrison, 1993). Gmez-Pompaand Kaus (1992) summarised the concept of denying access of ProtectedAreas even to local people as untouched or untamed land is mostly anurban perception and the view of people who are far removed from the

natural environment they depend upon.Many studies have demonstratedthat adoption of the western concept of Protected Area Management affects

the food security and livelihood of people living in and around ProtectedAreas (Ghimire, 1992; Kothari et al, 1989; Wells and Brandon, 1992; Westand Brechin, 1992). Moreover by neglecting the indigenous knowledge ofthe local community and management systems, the administration is missingout on a golden opportunity to manage the Park with minimum efforts andmaximum efficiency (Pimbert and Jules, 1995). Since Mouling NationalPark is situated in the North Eastern part of the country, which is wellknown for unrest among public and presence of extremist forces supportedby cross border terrorist activities, the people component of the Park is as


36/60


34

important as the biodiversity component. This chapter deals with the overallrelationship of the people in and around the National Park against the socio-economic backdrop of the communities.

METHODSCommunity consultation was the prime method adopted to understand thetraditional customary relationships of the local communities with nature. Theconsultations have been carried out in multiple rounds (more than three times)between September 2009 and March 2010. Group discussions regardingresource utilisation, hunting and traditional systems related to resource

extraction and land use were carried out initially. In the initial discussionsin 10 villages around Mouling National Park, 7 villages were identified ashaving stake in the Park . Secondly, based on the broad information collectedin the first round of discussions, semi-structured interviews were carriedout in these 7 villages with different groups of people village head men,older people, women and young people of the community. All the pointsof discussions were noted and questions were repeated to reconfirm theirviewpoints on all issues.

RESULTSThere are no villages situated within the boundary of Mouling National Parkbut more than two third of the total area of the Park has been mapped ascommunity owned land. Community dependency on the Park can be classifiedinto 5 categories:

Huntinga)Agriculture includingb) Jhum

Non Timber Forest Product extractionc)Timber and other forest produces for constructiond)Foddere)

HuntingAdi tribe hunts for various reasons, the three significant ones being- food,custom (tradition) and recreation but it is solely a male oriented activity.Adivillages around Mouling National Park are poorly connected with the outside

world. In villages Karko, Gosang and Jenging we found native people whohad graduated during 1980s and later, but are still living in the village andleading traditional way of life (often with better facilities than others). Allthese villages are self sufficient with respective to food. Rice is the staple foodof the communities, which is cultivated throughJhum (shifting cultivation)and wet rice cultivation (WRC). Even though vegetables cultivated by thevillagers can partially provide protein supplementation, the main source of

protein for the communities is meat. Bringing domestic meat (like chicken)from outside to a village is considered a sin. The people who attempt this are


37/60


35

punished through imposition of huge fine in the form of monetary penalty.

Modes of huntingA. Hunting using snares:Snares are placed in the personal land by theAditribefor hunting animals for household consumption. Snares are kept throughoutthe year in personal lands, after identifying the tracks of animal movement.Animals caught in these snares are the source of meat throughout the year.Snares are checked regularly while undertaking daily trips to agriculture fields.The meat acquired by hunting through snares is consumed mainly by the ownerof the land. Excess meat is sun dried and stored for later consumption.

B. Casual hunting: Most of the members of the Adi community carryhunting weapon (generally a dao) all the time with them when they roamaround in the nearby areas. Any animals sighted during this time are hunted.Generally the roads and other paths are not included under private and

personal ownership by the community members. The hunter thus exerts hisright on the meat which is thus hunted and claims it as his own.

C. Community hunting:Adi tribals have the tradition of carrying outcommunal hunting wherein a group of hunters from the same village join infor the hunt. These hunting trips last for multiple days and big animals likebear are hunted. In case of Bumdo, Ramsing, Goseng and Karko (villagessituated in the north-eastern part of the Park), such annual communityhunting trips are undertaken for Takin hunting as well. During these huntingtrips, the group members are free to hunt for food on the way, even fromareas which are under private ownership. Hunting weapons have also seen

a change over time. Earlier only bow and arrows were used. Present dayhunting has also seen the usage of guns along with the traditional bow andarrow. The meat which is hunted in such a community hunting trip is broughtto the village and shared among all the villagers. The lions share of the meatgoes to the person whose arrow or gunshot killed the animal and the balanceis shared by the villagers.

Community hunting is carried out during November to February, a period

when agriculture work is either minimal or non-existent. Only thosecommunity members who have taken up hunting as a career can go for thesecommunity hunting expeditions.

Community hunting is generally carried out in the common hunting areascalledMobom. Hunters going for collective hunting have to deposit a feewith the Head Gaam (village headman) . The money is called Sire Mobom.This money is added to the core fund of the village and used for villagedevelopment activities. On these long community hunting trips, the members


38/60


36

of the village who clear the way to theMobomfirst get the right to fish andhunt there.

D. Customary hunting:Customary hunting is carried out as part of theweek longAranfestival ofAdicommunity. As part of the festival meat hasto be provided to the families where the girl of ones family has got married.Generally dried meat is gifted to the sisters/ daughters. Aran festival iscelebrated towards end of February and hunting is carried out in February.Only the hunters of the village go for these hunts, but are assisted by morevillagers in the hunt and to carry the meat back to the village. Apart from

Aran, customary hunting practice is undertaken for every marriage and otherceremonies in the village as meat forms the major food item in all functionsand celebrations.

E. Hunting for recreation: Most of the men of the Adi communityundertake small hunting (generally birds) for recreation. From March toJune the community is busy with agricultural work and during the otherseasons people engage in bird hunting on their personal land and also along

the road side. Every day at least 10 20 people go for bird hunting usingslingshots and air guns. The daily catch ranges from 3 to 10 birds per person.They hunt all the birds seen around irrespective of the palatability of themeat. Some of the carcasses are left in the hunting area itself and are noteaten. Dead birds are gifted to friends and families too. This form of huntingis followed more for recreational purpose and to perfect ones aiming skills,rather than for food. The State Forest Department is taking measures forcurbing the hunting occurring within the National Park. In Bumdo village,

the department has found that the snares are kept unchecked for more than aweek and that results in unnecessary killing of the animals. The departmentofficials confiscate all the snares found in the area during patrolling. Thevillages around the National Park have a significant local population whoown licensed guns (refer Table 5.1).

Hunting as a careerAll the members ofAdicommunities undertake hunting using snares and bird

hunting as a recreational activity. Actual hunters who use bow and arrow orguns are limited. Hunting is considered as a career which is associated withsome holy spirits. Once a man decides to become a hunter, he has to keep thespirit of hunted animals (in the form of skulls of the animals he has hunted),inside his house and offer fresh skulls regularly to strengthen the spirit andkeep it satisfied. This spirit is believed to help the hunter during the hunts.According to theAdibelief, once a man becomes a hunter, he has to continueto hunt till he is physically fit and cannot leave hunting; else he will face thewrath of the spirit in the form of some physical deformity.


39/60


37

To maintain the sanctity of the spirit, the skulls are kept in a place inside thehouse, away from the outsiders (nonAdipeople). Tampering with the sacredspirit is believed to lead to lethal problems for the family of the hunter.

Every time a bigger carnivore (leopard or tiger) is hunted, the hunter has tosacrifice a domestic pig or fowl to please the Holy Spirit. In the hunt for thesehigher carnivores, the owner of the kill is the person who is able to catchhold of the tail of the dead animal first. This person (who can be differentfrom the person whose bullet or arrow killed the animal) has the right on thelions share of the meat and the skull as well. Skulls of leopard and tiger arenot preserved. Leopard skulls are used for making different curios.

Community regulation and concept on HuntingThere are many restrictions imposed by traditionalAdirules andbeliefs onhunting.

A. Hunt only adult animals:Adipeople hunt only adult animals and not thesub-adults or infants. The infants, accidentally caught in the snares are alsodiscarded without consumption of the meat.

B. Never hunt mother with babies:Adicommunity never hunts a nursing

Table 5.1: Population and number of guns with licence in the villages

around Mouling National Park

VillagesNumber of

House holdsPopulation

Number of Guns

with license

Bomdo 72 350 30

Ramsing 71 346 33

Moying 10 80 Not available

Gosang 43 519 Not available

Karko 181 689 97

Jenging 312 1267 Not available

Kumko 46 236 11

Riga 326 1868 Not available

Hotek 7 26 Not available

Suble 25 149 3

Yinku 37 138 8

Yubuk 57 306 2Lissing 16 92 1


40/60


38

mother However, accidental hunting of such an animal does happen in ascenario when the hunters are unable to spot the juveniles, before the kill.

C. No easy hunting at water holes:Adi community has imposed a completeban on hunting animals at the water holes. There are sufficient number ofwater bodies in and around the National Park which are familiar to the huntersbut they do not place snares or hunt animals at these water drinking spots.

D. Small carnivores are not edible:Traditionally a ban exists on huntingand consumption of small carnivores byAditribe. However, the youngsters

have now started breaking this traditional rule and are hunting the smallcarnivores (especially in the night) and consuming the meat.

Changes in Animal PopulationTheAdicommunity believes that the wild animals originate at the Mouling

peaks and migrate into the valleys. This community hunts mostly in the areaswhich are near the villages, extending to maximum possible areas which areat a distance of 2-3 days walk from the villages. These areas over lap into

theNational Park boundary but do not reach into the core areas, even thoughownership is claimed by the local community in these areas as well. Fearof snakes, religious taboos and inaccessibility prevents the villagers fromhunting in core areas of the Park. However, during the interaction with theelders of the community it became evident that theAdisalso have their ownsystem of ensuring a healthy population of wild animals. They leave thecore without frequent hunting to ensure that animals flourish there and thespillages or overflow which reaches the valleys is sufficient to adequately

meet the requirements of the community. Villagers have not noticed majorchanges in the availability of animals for hunting. The community however issure about the reduction in the sightings of nocturnal small carnivores in thearea such as Civets and Jungle Cats (in the north eastern part of the Park) dueto the availability of better torches and guns to hunt these nocturnal animals.This reduction is also attributed to the fact that the youngsters have deviatedfrom the customary ban on eating the meat of these small carnivores.

Wildlife tradeThere is no evidence of the presence of any organised wildlife trade occurringwithin Mouling National Park. Selling of game meat is cost ineffective ashunting is an expensive business in terms of money, time and human resourceswhich has to be invested by the very remote villages which surround theNational Park. Recent trends show that buyers are reaching these villagesto purchase animal parts. A traditional taboo exists on the removal of anyitem from the hunters collection, particularly for sale. However, due to thelucrative offers which the buyers give, compounded by the fact that the grip


41/60


42/60


40

areas outside the Park boundary. However, considering the size and quantityof the timber moving out of the area it is sufficient to doubt that timbersmuggling occurs from the forest areas as well.

People Park ConflictThere is no wildlife conflict arising in the area, since the community huntsonly for local consumption and game meat trade is not prevalent in the area.The entry of wildlife into the agriculture land is not a major issue, rather it isconsidered as a factor that helps in hunting. There is emerging conflict aboutland ownership, since the boundary of the Park is not clearly understood by

the villagers. They are also not clear about the inclusion of theirJhumlandswithin the Park area. The villagers of Goseng expressed this apprehensionvery clearly during the community consultations. They have also submittedan application to the local administration of the Park (Divisional ForestOfficer) regarding the need to rectify and rationalise the Park boundaries. Asimilar concern was shown by the villagers of Yubuk. Even though they arenot certain about the boundaries of the Park, they are sure that some of their

Jhumcultivation land has been included within the area of the Park. They

have collectively submitted an appeal to the Honourable Deputy Speakerof the State to realign and rationalise the boundary of the Park. During theinteractions, it was found that almost all the villagers are ready to give uptheir rights on non agricultural areas, which have been included inside theboundary of the National Park, but are not ready to give up their traditionalhunting rights.

DISCUSSION

HuntingThe effects of hunting for food by forest dependent communities on thebiodiversity of the area have always been debated from both the sides. Wildanimals are an important source of protein for the rural people living in ornear tropical forests (Robinson and Redford, 1994; Hladik et al.,1993). Inregions without sustainable food production, hunted wildlife can be essentialfor food security (Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999; Fa et al.,2003). Bennett

(2002) argues that wildlife is currently being extracted from tropical forestsat more than six times the sustainable rate. Hunting has been demonstratedas a severe threat to the faunal biodiversity in tropical forest (Robinson andBennett, 2000; Milner-Gulland et al.,2002). A large amount of work has tobe carried out to understand the sustainability of hunting by a community andalso to understand the sustainable levels of hunting required for survival of thecommunity. Per unit area productivity of the agricultural land of communitiesliving inside and around Protected Areas is a significant factor which decidesthe food sustainability from both land requirement and hunting requirement


43/60


41

point of views. Such factors have been worked out in detail through scientificmethods to study similar issues in different parts of the world (Ohl et al,.2007). Even though there is severe criticism from conservation agenciesabout wildlife hunting occurring in North Eastern states of the country, nostudies relating to the food security, nourishment level and requirement,access to the food market (both in terms of infrastructure available andfinancial capacity) have been carried out in this region.

Under the present conditions, minimal hunting for subsistence is inevitablefor the communities living in the villages around Mouling National Park

as this is their only protein source. Since these villages are a more or lessclosed system in terms of food production and remoteness, poor accessibilityand poor economic conditions are the main hurdles which prevent themfrom gaining access to the food market. Meat, thus remains a necessarycomponent of their food which can come through hunting only because ofcustomary restrictions on consuming the meat of the domestic pig and fowl.Since the population in these villages is fast increasing, hunting cannot becontinued sustainably for long, even if it is sustainable presently. As of now

there is no evidence from Mouling regarding the decline in population ofwildlife due to hunting, in general. The communities are also aware aboutthe decline in population of the nocturnal small carnivores and attribute itto hunting and loosening of the existing social taboos. This information istoo preliminary to draw any conclusions regarding sustainability of presentlevel of hunting in this region with respect to wildlife conservation. Detailedstudies are hence necessary to understand the situation but there is sufficientdata for a strong null hypothesis that conventional level and mode of hunting

ofAditribe is sustainable.

Hunting of wild animals is common in North East India, due to many reasons(Hilaluddin and Ghose, 2005). This is part of their foraging, culture, custom,livelihood and lifestyle inherited over time immemorial. Attempting to bringan overnight stoppage using the claws of law is impossible considering thespecial socio-economic scenario existing in this region. Even though thesustainable extraction of plant resources especially NTFPs by forest dependent

communities is empirically agreed as a tool for livelihood improvementassociated conservation measure, internationally debates are going on, on theusage of wildlife resources as any other natural resources in natural resourcemanagement oriented conservation. Enormous work has been conducted todesign the sustainable methods of NTFP extraction where as limited effortshave been put in case of wildlife resource extraction (Mockrin et al.,2005).Brechin et al. (2002) demonstrated that the responses to the biodiversitycrisis will have to focus on questions of human organization. In light of suchresearch outputs, understanding the inefficiencies of the present enforcement


44/60


42

system to curb hunting in North Eastern India, a conservation paradigm hasto be designed with necessary changes in the current conservation doctrines,laws and enforcement mechanisms. This is inevitable in order to protectthe remaining pristine biodiversity rich pockets like Mouling National Parkwithin this global biodiversity hotspot in India.

Intensity of bird hunting is severe around Mouling National Park. Extremehunting in this area has been proved as a reason for the local extinction of birdspecies (McGowan et al., 1998). Hunting has been ascertained as one of the

prime reasons for the local extinction of the pheasants in Eastern Himalayas

(Kalsi, et al., 2007). In the high altitudes during winter season birds usuallymove to the lower altitudes and this is the time when they are hunted more(Ramesh K., 2007). Mouling peaks are situated in the high altitudes andlocal bird migration to areas with lower altitude occurs during the winters.Extreme hunting pressure on these birds during this period can cause localextinction of bird species from the region. Indiscriminate hunting of birdsaround Mouling National Park needs immediate attention and interventionthrough strict regulations

Necessity to strengthen the traditional practices andcommunity institutionsTraditions and customs play a vital role in community and individualdecisions of theAdi tribe, living around Mouling National Park. With regardto hunting, traditional community institutions still have their control overmost of the processes of wildlife resource extraction, ownership rights, timeof hunting and locations. The hunting areas are well demarcated among the

villages. The existence of a social taboo on bringing domestic animals andmeat from outside is an effective mechanism for preventing the transmissionof pathogens from the domesticated animals to the forest. This practice helpsto avoid bovine contagions to break out inside the forest area. The restrictionslike hunting not being allowed at water holes and leaving the nursing mothersand juveniles are strict measures to ensure maintenance of sustainable

populations of animals in the wild. Rodents and small carnivores which arecritical components of an ecosystem were customarily not hunted earlier.

The requirement of giving an offering after hunting the higher carnivores tiger and leopard, discourages the hunters from focussing on them and thatmaintains the population of these species which normally are less in numberand critical for maintenance of the balance in an ecosystem. The concept ofhunting in the foot hills and taboos on accessing the core areas and reapingthe spillage/ over flow of wildlife stands very close to the source sinkconcept of population dynamics (Pulliam and Danielson, 1991).

All these facts point towards the intention of the community for ensuring


45/60


43

sustainability in resource extraction and conservation through customarylaws. The significant executive body which implements these regulations isthe community institution- Kebang. Hence, strengthening the customs andcommunity institutions in this region has to be viewed as another tool forbetter wildlife conservation and effective Park administration.

Requirement of transparency and public relationshipsEven though National Parks are one of the most accepted approaches toconservation, for the local resident communities where the Parks are beingdelineated, it is a new establishment, demanding a lot of change in their

livelihood and life (Ormsby and Kaplin, 2004). Protected Area declarationeven in the early period of establishment of the concept was associated withthe eviction of local people from the area (Pimber and Pretty, 2005). Theabsence of detailed information about the Protected Areas before declarationwith the local community is a significant factor which creates people-Parkconflict later (Hough, 1988). In case of Mouling National Park, all legal

procedures regarding the delineation of the boundaries of the National Parkhave been duly completed before the Park declaration. However, due to poor

literacy levels, the local community who has their community land insideMouling National Park is not aware about the present boundary alignment ofthe Park. Decision making based on the opportunity costs of different formsof land use is an integral part of conservation planning which is critical inmitigating the anthropogenic impacts on biodiversity by the local dependantcommunity (Hutton and Leader-Williams, 2003).

The present study identified that more than two third of the area delineated

as Mouling National Park is falling in the land on which the local communityhas ownership rights. Most of the villagers are ready to donate their nonagriculture land to the National Park, bringing up the possibility of arequirement for realignment of the present boundary. Considering the socio-

political situation existing in this region and presence of extremist forces, anyconflict on land and agriculture areas within the Park can take a dangerousturn. It is thus essential that detailed community consultations are carried outin order to solve this issue and avert the possibility of future people- Park

conflict.


46/60

44

Adi boys practicing archery

An Adi burial ground

Community area mapping in Bumdo

Village

Skulls of slaughtered domestic animals

kept outside the house

A snap of community consultation on

Mammalian diversity

Bird hunter with catch


47/60

45

Memorandum submitted

by Yubuk Village

Community Land Mapping in Yubuk

Village

Timber cutting in one of the village

Hunted Birds

Handle made of snow leopard skull

Terrace cultivation in Kumko village


48/60

46

Adi women inspecting ornaments

prepared in the village

Gandhi Brigde the connection betweenMoying and Yinkiyong

Preparing Feed for the pigs

Squirrels are used in puja by the Adis

Traditional apparatus used to preparethe local drink Apong

Women drying grains


49/60

47

Hunted birds kept inside an Adi house

Mouling National Park harbours a rich

floral diversity

Community Consultation at Karko

Children enjoying a sunny day enrouteto Yubuk village

Skin of arboreal mammal in the

possession of the villagers

Mouling is home to a wide variety of

orchids


50/60

48

CHAPTER 6

Recommendations and

Way Forward

The attitude towards managing ecologically significant biodiversity resources,including Protected Areas has undergone many transitions across the world.However, in the developing countries management practices are yet to attaina level where proper back-up through scientific inventorization and situationanalysis of socio-economic and anthropogenic scenario existing is available.Conservation oriented empirical knowledge development gained pace during

the 1950s and is continuously growing till today on a day to day basis. InIndia, a paradigm shift from the colonial interest based Park administrationstarted during the 1990s. Even if there has been tremendous progress on themanagement side, lack of proper inventorization and existence of antediluvianregulations are major bottlenecks in the path towards effective conservationand improvement of the nations biodiversity.The present study also brings out the urgent need for proper scientificinventorization of the biodiversity of Mouling National Park, one of the

pristine biodiversity treasures in North-Eastern India. The study alsohighlights the high requirement for a unique site-specific Participatory ForestManagement option keeping in mind the ethnic, anthropogenic and socioeconomic scenario existing in the area. The conclusions of the study and therecommendations are summarized below.

A detailed exploration in Mouling National Park for documentation ofa)the biodiversity is crucial, as early as possible. It is only through such anin-depth study, can an assessment of the actual status of biodiversity and

conservation requirements of the Park be made.Osteological studies and molecular studies (if required) have to be carriedb)out in detail with the skulls kept by the hunters living in the villages,surrounding Mouling National Park. These skulls can be considered asfootprints of the transitions which have occurred in the biodiversity of thearea. Trends in biodiversity changes in Mouling can be understood fromthe information thus generated. Possibility of discovery of a new speciesor sub-species through the study of these skulls, which have been kept formore than 100 years cannot be ruled out.


51/60

49

Considering the land use and ownership pattern existing in North-Easternc)India and Mouling National Park, detailed discussions have to be carriedout with the local community with regard to the Park boundaries. Ifrequired the option of realignment of the boundaries, while maintainingthe total area of the National Park also has to be considered.Hunting is a core component of the tradition of the Adi tribe. The studyd)has documented community hunting in the area even though confirmationof this hunting being carried out within the National Park boundarycould not be done. Instead of approaching hunting with prejudice, it isrecommended to have detailed studies carried out on the impact of hunting

on biodiversity of the area and understanding the traditional methodsthrough which hunting can be regulated. Such studies are essential as onlythese can throw light on the actual impact of hunting and the effectivenessof methods of participatory regulation of hunting in the area.The study has documented that hunting of birds is severe in the area.e)Rather than adoption of only legal measures to stop this activity, it isrecommended to have intensive awareness generation activities in thearea, especially among the young generation through schools and other

religious institutions about the ecological significance of birds and theirrole in maintaining the delicate ecological balance in nature.The study also reveals that development of accessibility options like roadsf)should be limited to the buffer zone of the Park since inaccessibility isfound to nurture pristineness and promote conservation.


52/60

50

Aaron G. Bruner, Raymond E. Gullison, Richard E. Rice, Gustavo A. B.da Fonseca. 2001. Effectiveness of Parks in Protecting TropicalBiodiversity, Science . 291(5501): 125 128

Adhikari et al. 2006. Protected Areas and biodiversity conservation inArunachal Pradesh.

Annandale, N. 1912a. Zoological results of the Abor Expedition, 1911-12:I.Batrachia. Rec. Ind. Mus. VIII: 7-36.

Annandale, N. 1912b. Zoological results of the Abor Expedition, 1911-12:II.Reptilia. Rec. Ind. Mus. VIII: 37-59.

Bailey, C.R. Head, G., Jenike, M., Owen, B., Rechtman, R. and Zechenter,

E. 1989. Hunting and Gathering in Tropical Rain Forest: Is It Possible?American Anthropologist. 60 82.

Bennett, E.L. 2002. Is there a link between wild meat and food security?Conservation Biology. 16: 590592

Birand, A. and Pawar, S. 2004. An ornithological survey in north-east India,Forktail, 20: 15-24

Bor, N.L. 1938 A Sketch of the vegetation of Aka Hills, Assam. Synecologicalstudy,Indian For. Rec. (MS) Bot. 1(4): 103-221.

Borges, R.M. 2005. The Frontiers of Indias Biological Diversity. Tropinet.16 (3): 2 -4.

References


53/60


51

Brechin, R.S., Wilshusen, R.P., Fortwangler, L.C and West, C.P. 2002.Beyond the SquareWheel:Toward a More Comprehensive Understandingof Biodiversity Conservation as Social and Political Process. Society and

Natural Resources. 15: 41 -64

Bruner, A., Gullison, G., Raymond, E., Rice., Richard, E. and de FonsecaGustavo A.B. 2001. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropicalbiodiversity. Science. 291: 105.

Burkill, I H. 1938. The botany of Abor expedition. Vol. 10. No.1

Champion, S.H. G and Seth, S.K. 1968. A revised survey of the forest typesof India. The manager of publication. Delhi.

Chape, S., Blyth, S., Fish, L., Fox, P. and Spalding, M. (Compliers) .2003.2003 United Nations List of Protected Areas. IUCN: Gland, Switzerlandand Cambridge, UK and UNEP- WCMC: Cambridge, UK.

Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M, and Lysenko, I. 2005. Measuring theextent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meetingglobal biodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions of the RoyalSociety of Britain. 360: 443-455.

Chatterjee, A.K. 1989. Survey of snow leo

baseline documentation of mammalian diversity in mouling national park

Documents