Avoiding the unthinkable: What will it cost to

Avoiding the unthinkable: What will it cost to prevent Tigers becoming extinct in the wild? Joe Walston1, Ullas Karanth2 and Emma Stokes3

1

Joe Walston (corresponding author) Senior Conservationist Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx New York 10460 USA [email protected]

2

K. Ullas Karanth PhD Senior Conservation Scientist Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Director, Centre for Wildlife Studies 26-2, Aga Abbas Ali Road (Apt: 403) Bangalore-560042 INDIA [email protected] 3

Emma J Stokes PhD CONSERVATION SCIENTIST / Regional Tiger Monitoring Coordinator Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) House 21, Street 21, Tonle Bassac, Phnom Penh, Cambodia [email protected]

Suggested citation: J. Walston, K.U. Karanth, and E.J. Stokes. 2010. Avoiding the Unthinkable: What Will it Cost to Prevent Tigers Becoming Extinct in the Wild? Wildlife Conservation Society, New York. Cover Photo: Allan Michaud

Executive Summary The world’s wild Tiger population is at an historically unprecedented low of about 3,200 animals with possibly only 1,000 breeding females. Recent declines have affected every range state and although pockets of conservation success exist, they remain isolated exceptions to the overall range-wide trend of unremitting losses. Although over a million square kilometers of Tiger habitat still exists from India to the Russian Far East, hunting of Tigers and their prey continues to empty Asia’s forests, a problem exacerbated by habitat destruction and fragmentation. Even where Tigers persist today they are often represented by remnant populations of a few isolated individuals. If the unthinkable is to be avoided and the Tiger is not to become extinct in the wild across much or all of its range, then conservation investments must sharply focus on identifying those sites that offer the greatest potential for Tiger recovery and prioritise them for immediate, sustained and intensive protection and monitoring support. While the current international response to the crisis is growing, many conservation approaches are unfocussed, unnecessarily complex, overly ambitious and often geographically diffuse. This report defines and identifies a priority sub-set of areas across the Tiger’s current range, called Source Sites. These sites not only contain the majority of the world’s remaining wild Tigers but they also have the greatest potential for halting the decline and initiating a sustained recovery of Tigers. The report provides evidence for Source Sites as the appropriate spatial scale at which priority interventions should be targeted. The protection of Source Sites is a pragmatic and achievable goal that will provide quicker and far greater return on conservation investments than some current approaches. Source sites, by definition, already have breeding Tigers, are of a spatial scale that is practical to protect, have existing conservation infrastructure, a legal mandate for protection and, ultimately, have the potential to repopulate larger landscapes. The report presents a challenging but straightforward conservation strategy based on proven examples of sustained Tiger recoveries in landscapes where a Source Site approach has been taken. It quantifies the potential population increase this strategy could achieve across the Tiger’s range, and evaluates the costs of implementing this strategy. Forty-two Source Sites have been identified across the Tiger’s range. Most of these are in India (18), Sumatra (8) and the Russian Far East (6). Insufficient evidence exists to suggest that Cambodia, China, Myanmar or Vietnam possess any area that currently qualifies as a Source Site, though some Potential Source Sites have been identified. Collectively, Source Sites cover 90,000km2, within which almost 2,200 of the world’s 3,200 remaining wild Tigers currently live. Thus, nearly 70% of all the world’s remaining wild Tigers are clustered within less than 6% of their current potential range (Tiger Conservation Landscapes) and less than 0.5% of their historical range. Just under half of the 2,200 Tigers found in Source Sites are in India. However, only five Source Sites (12%), all of which are in India, have existing Tiger populations close (>80%) to their estimated potential carrying capacity. Across the rest of the Tiger’s range outside India, densities in 60% of all other Source Sites are less than half their estimated carrying capacity. If Source Sites are effectively protected, even at this late stage, their collective Tiger population would more than double. Given the recent history of unremitting decline in Tiger numbers, this would be an unprecedented success for the species. Even if there were zero gains in Tiger populations elsewhere across Tiger landscapes, the projected increases at Source Sites alone would result in a 170% increase in the world’s wild Tiger population.

ii

Cost estimates are broadly similar across the sites when factors such as cost of living are included. The cost of effective management, protection and monitoring of Source Sites is estimated to be US$82 million per year or US$930/km2 (US$9/ha) per year. More than half of this money is already being committed by range-state governments and, to a far lesser extent, international donors and NGOs. This leaves a shortfall of US$35 million a year. While significant investment already exists for Tiger conservation across these Source Sites with almost US$500/km2 (US$5/ha) per year, on average, currently being spent, much of this money comes from and is spent in India. When India is excluded from the analysis, the average current commitment drops to US$365/km2 (US$3.6/ha) per year. India is currently the only country providing sufficient funds for adequate protection and monitoring of Tiger Source Sites. However, even where funds are available all is not well. There are currently major differences between how available resources are being applied in various sites, as well as how efficiently those resources are being used. In some cases official government budgets for protected areas are not reaching the ground, while in other cases investments are being used inefficiently or directed into non-essential activities. Measures of accountability for the effective and sustained protection of Source Sites are thus paramount. This report provides a set of standards for monitoring enforcement effectiveness. Additionally, this report suggests that monitoring populations of Tigers and their prey, for which minimum standards for all Source Sites are provided, is the most reliable metric of success or failure of conservation efforts. Source Sites in themselves are by no means the entire solution to the problem of how to save the Tiger. Only concerted, orchestrated and politically bold commitments by range-state governments, supported by the international community, and sustained over a number of decades can do that. It will require a broad range of actions across a variety of sectors that are well documented within the Global Tiger Initiative (GTI) process. These include reducing global demand for Tiger products and restricting their illegal trade, improving landscape connectivity, and ensuring infrastructure development does not impact Tiger landscapes. However, progress on all these fronts will be futile if there isn't immediate, substantive and sustained progress with Source Sites, so spreading major resources and effort across these sectors in the absence of the required investments in Source Sites would be folly. Source Sites are the highest priorities for urgent and sustained protection and monitoring interventions. With almost 70% of the world’s wild Tigers confined to less than 6% of their present potential range, their disproportionate importance cannot be ignored.

iii

Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................................1 FOREWORD ........................................................................................................................................2 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................5 WILD TIGERS TODAY .............................................................................................................................................................. 5

METHODS ...........................................................................................................................................7 SOURCE SITES .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 ESTIMATED FINANCIAL INPUTS AND NEEDS ...................................................................................................................... 8 OTHER METHODS ................................................................................................................................................................... 9

RESULTS........................................................................................................................................... 10 SOURCE SITES ........................................................................................................................................................................10 COSTS ......................................................................................................................................................................................15

DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 23 THE FUNCTION AND IMPORTANCE OF SOURCE SITES.....................................................................................................23 PROTECTION OF SOURCE SITES ..........................................................................................................................................25 SOURCE SITE SIZE .................................................................................................................................................................26 SETTING STANDARDS FOR SOURCE SITES .........................................................................................................................27

MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR SOURCE SITE MONITORING ................................................ 28 LAW ENFORCEMENT MONITORING ...................................................................................................................................28 MONITORING OF TIGERS AND TIGER PREY .......................................................................................................................44

WHAT DOES IT MEAN IF A TIGER CONSERVATION LANDSCAPE DOES NOT CONTAIN A SOURCE SITE? ............................................................................................................................. 49 TIGER SUCCESS STORIES............................................................................................................. 52 FINAL REMARKS ............................................................................................................................ 55 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 56 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................ 65 BANGLADESH....................................................................................................................................................................66 CAMBODIA..........................................................................................................................................................................69 INDIA.....................................................................................................................................................................................75 INDONESIA.........................................................................................................................................................................84 LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC ..............................................................................................................91 MALAYSIA...........................................................................................................................................................................99 MYANMAR .......................................................................................................................................................................105 NEPAL................................................................................................................................................................................110 RUSSIA...............................................................................................................................................................................113 THAILAND .......................................................................................................................................................................117 VIETNAM..........................................................................................................................................................................123

Acknowledgements A recent asssement by Karanth et al. (2009) prepared for the GTI-Kathmandu, provides the biological rationale for the conservation approach presented here. In preparing this report we draw on the particular experience of the Tigers Forever1 program, a Panthera project, in collaboration with the Wildlife Conservation Society and government and non-governmental partners to recover wild Tiger populations at Source Sites across their geographical range. Additionally, a large number of people contributed to this report, both in writing country reports and technical sections, and providing comments and criticisms. These include, but are not limited to the following people in alphabetical order: Ishtiaq Ahmed, Noviar Andayani, Mike Baltzer, Adam Barlow, Liz Bennett, Nick Brickle, Ravi Chellam, Sarah Christie, Ruben Clement, Peter Clyne, Nick Cox, Pete Cutter, William Duckworth, Sivanathan Elagupillay, Tom Evans, Francesc Fàbregas i Soler, Jessica Forrest, Camilla Fritze, Steve Galster, John Goodrich, Melvin Gumal, Bhim Gurung, Hasnizam Hamzah, Valerie Hickey, Naser Hossain, Luke Hunter, Yadvendradev Jhala, Arlyne Johnson, Jhamak Katki, Kae Kawanishi, Jenn Kennard, Samba Kumar, Danielle LaBruna, Nigel Leader-Williams, Song Horng Neo Liang, Matt Linkie, Tommy Lobben, Barney Long, Tony Lynam, Kathy MacKinnon, Peter Moss, Hannah O’Kelly, Bivash Pandav, Anak Pattanavibool, Kim Pendell, Edward Pollard, Colin Poole, Alan Rabinowitz, Kent Redford, Tim Redford, Scott Roberton, Bill Robichaud, John Robinson, Rob Rose, John Seidensticker, P.K. Sen, Bill Shaedla, Loretta Ann Shephard, Dave Smith, Joe Smith, Men Soriyun, Rob Tizard, Gopal Upadya, Ray Victurine, Chanthavy Vonghamheng, Catty Walston, Naomi Walston, Hunter Weiler, Beebach H. T. Wibisono. Considerable content has been sourced from published and grey literature. Many thanks to those authors. Particular thanks to Rob Rose and Danielle LaBruna of the WCS Conservation Support Program for their help in undertaking the GIS analyses, preparing the maps and commenting on the report, and to Allan Michaud for editing and layout. Also, a further thank you to John Goodrich, Samba Kumar, Tony Lynam, Scott Roberton, Bill Shaedla, Dave Smith and Hunter Weiler, each of who provided extra inputs into the document.

1

http://www.Tigersforever.org

1

Foreword As part of its commitment to Tiger Panthera tigris conservation and, more specifically, to the Global Tiger Initiative (GTI), WCS is implementing a Global Environment Facility (GEF) World Bank project with a number of partners called ‘Tiger Futures: Mainstreaming Conservation in Large Landscapes’. The project’s overall objective is to ‘mainstream conservation across large landscapes through enhanced protection of Tigers and their habitats’ with WCS’s role focused on two areas, one of which is to perform an ‘assessment of financial needs for effective Tiger conservation’. In looking to define ‘effective Tiger conservation’, consultations were held with a wide range of Tiger specialists and other conservationists. The following report is the result of these consultations and a subsequent analysis of what it will cost to implement and sustain effective Tiger conservation at the most important sub-set of sites for the species across its range. The presentation of Source Sites across the Tiger’s range is not meant to paint a definitive or static picture. The report represents ‘known’ Source Sites and it is hoped that these sites be amended, updated and refined as new evidence is gathered.

The Wildlife Conservation Society saves wildlife and wild places worldwide. We do so through science, global conservation, education and the management of the world's largest system of urban wildlife parks, led by the flagship Bronx Zoo. Together these activities change attitudes towards nature and help people imagine wildlife and humans living in harmony. WCS is committed to this mission because it is essential to the integrity of life on Earth. www.wcs.org The World Bank is the world’s largest source of development assistance. It works in more than 100 developing economies to fight poverty and to help people help themselves and their environment. www.worldbank.org The Global Environment Facility is the largest source of funding for the global environment. It brings 178 member governments together with leading development institutions and others in support of a common global environmental agenda. www.thegef.org

2

Background Despite being one the world’s most ecologically adaptable, iconic and revered wildlife species, the Tiger is close to extinction in the wild. Occupying only 7% of its natural range, and extirpated from some entire countries, it now numbers about 3,200 animals in the wild. A possibly more significant statistic is that, of the 3,200 animals, little more than a 1,000 will be breeding females (Karanth and Stith 1999, Smith et al. 1998, Smith 1993, Karanth et al. 2006, Goodrich et al. 2010). Decades of international attention and conservation support have in some cases succeeded in slowing the speed of decline, but only where range-state nations have elevated the conservation of wild Tigers to a national priority have there been sustained reversals of this decline. While some populations have experienced recoveries in the past (e.g. India and Russia in the 1970-90s; Miquelle et al. 2010) there is currently a collective decline that embraces every range state. Even with greatly enhanced knowledge of Tiger ecology, significantly improved methods for monitoring Tigers and their prey, greater range-state conservation capacity, improved understanding of the overall nature of the threats, and more ambitious conservation strategies, the species has never been in more peril of extinction. Of particular concern are the recent Tiger population declines in two of the species’ traditional strongholds, India and the Russian Far East. Even now these two countries together contain more than 50% of remaining wild Tigers, so the major declines recorded in some areas of India (Jhala et al. 2008) and across much of the Russian range (Miquelle et al. 2009) have highly significant implications for the conservation of the species. The reasons for the decline are varied though Tiger poaching has become so intense that entire Tiger populations have been eliminated from what were once deemed to be secure reserves throughout Asia (Damania et al. 2008). In some reserves, poaching of prey is a major factor contributing to Tiger declines (Karanth and Stith, 1999; Karanth et al. 2004), and in some countries, such as Indonesia, habitat destruction and fragmentation are of equal or higher concern (Linkie et al. 2006). Although the number of remaining wild Tigers was cited at a recent international meeting of specialists to be 3,200, a proportion of these animals is now isolated in habitat fragments so small and at such low abundance as to have no realistic hope of recovery. With Tiger numbers at an historically unprecedented low and continuing their decline, and with scant resources available to stem this decline, it is increasingly urgent to identify where the remaining defensible strongholds of Tigers are and to act immediately to ensure their protection. Triage is needed to separate those sites with doomed animals in isolated habitats from those that have breeding populations embedded in Tiger-permeable habitats that are linked with other known Tiger populations, thus having the potential to help to re-build meta-populations across conservation landscapes (Karanth et al. 2009). As part of this response, a number of governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have developed conservation strategies at site, national and regional levels. Many of these are ambitious, well conceived, mutually consistent in their approach, and reflect contemporary knowledge of Tigers and include recent and high-quality data sets. Of the 13 range states, 11 either have or are developing national action plans for Tigers. Invariably, these plans reflect the fact that the future of wild Tigers lies in large, well-managed conservation landscapes. Their strategies relate to achieving this state, though also recognize that this is increasingly challenging due to shrinking habitat blocks, fragmented populations, burgeoning pressures and limited capacities and resources. As a consequence, most governments highlight the need to focus special attention on the last remaining sites where Tigers have a high chance of survival and recovery so that broader landscape strategies have any chance of succeeding.

3

Previous approaches suggested that so-called ‘core areas’ were well protected, but that they were often too small to maintain genetically or demographically viable populations and, as such, efforts should focus largely on habitat connectivity and building conservation landscapes. While undoubtedly large Tiger landscapes must be the ultimate goal, basic protection, even of core areas, has lately been proven less successful than was hoped. Within government strategies, there is an increasing appreciation of this fact and that, far from being a reductionist approach, concentrating greater resources on ensuring the integrity of these Source Sites is not only important in itself but is also the touchstone for larger landscape conservation efforts. If nations are not able to protect these Source Sites, it is highly unlikely that loftier landscape ambitions will be realized. This report examines this key element of Tiger conservation and assesses its cost. While political commitment of the range state is undoubtedly the single most influential factor in defining Tiger conservation success or failure, it is incumbent on the international conservation community to ensure that lack of funding is not a factor. This report examines where these Source Sites are and how much it will cost to ensure that Tigers do not disappear due to a global failure to support range states in ensuring protection of Source Sites. The report goes further to set out recommended standards for law enforcement monitoring and Tiger and Tiger-prey monitoring at the Source Site level. It further discusses the implication of areas that currently lack Source Sites and provides recommendations on how the Tiger community can best achieve its goal of increasing the world’s wild Tiger population. The report does not attempt to cost out other essential components of a successful recovery of Asia’s Tigers, such as reducing global demand for Tiger products, reducing their illegal trade, improving landscape connectivity, or building community engagement in conservation. While these are implicitly recognized as essential activities in their own right, some are not finance-dependent and others are beyond the scope of this report.

4

Introduction Wild Tigers today The world’s population of wild Tigers is at an historically unprecedented low. At a recent gathering of Tiger specialists, other conservationists and range-state governments in October 2009, the number generally accepted was 3,200, representing a prodigious and unrelenting decline from the estimated 100,000 that existed one hundred years ago. A similar decline in available habitat has meant that the species now occupies less than 7% of its original range (Dinerstein et al. 2007). Ironically, these new population estimates have never been so accurate. Most worrying is that declines are happening across the Tiger’s range. Where once India and the Russian Far East were strongholds for the species, achieving remarkable and admirable increases in Tigers, these are now both seeing declines on a significant scale (Jhala et al. 2008, Miquelle et al. 2009). Even with these declines, however, these two countries still harbour more than 50% of the world’s wild Tigers. This is partly due to their histories of strong, though not always sustained, governmental commitment to protection of Tigers, but also due to the massive declines in Tigers elsewhere in their range. Over the last 30 years, large areas of forest habitat have been surveyed for Tigers for the first time, providing at least preliminary data on areas that previously lacked any. In earlier global estimates for Tigers, these areas received population estimates based on hunter reports or educated guesses. With few exceptions these estimates now look optimistic, with vast areas of South East Asia recently found to be void of Tigers, and depleted of prey by hunters. While over 1 million km2 of potential habitat remains, most of these are forests emptied of Tigers. It is now highly unlikely that any major population of wild Tigers has yet to be discovered. Some gaps remain in our knowledge, such as sections of the Thai-Myanmar border, yet the sub-optimal nature of these habitats suggest that low-density populations would be present even in the unlikely event that they were entirely intact. Now, more than ever, many of the last remaining wild Tigers are limited to protected areas, with some exceptions. This in itself would not be a disaster if these areas were successfully protecting their resident Tigers. Indeed, a recent conservative estimate suggested that almost 5,000 Tigers could find sanctuary within these existing protected areas (Dinerstein 2009). This would represent a 50% increase on the world’s total population today. Given the unrelenting decline of the Tiger, their prey and their habitats, this kind of recovery would be a huge achievement that is sometimes lost in the rather more grandiose rhetoric being put forward about Tiger recoveries. Collective ambitions though should be for far more than 5,000 wild Tigers, in landscapes where natural transfers of Tigers occurs between sites, providing further demographic and genetic stability and robustness against predictable and stochastic pressures. However, as this report will demonstrate, a dilution of focus on strong protection at Source Sites and an over-emphasis on spreading meagre funds across disparate, lesstangible activities, has been a major factor in the extirpation of Tigers from so-called ‘conservation landscapes’. The concurrent lack of intensive monitoring at these sites has also meant that the collapse went largely unnoticed. Tigers can no longer afford this approach. It is manifest that all progression towards creating conservation landscapes filled with 20,000 Tigers must first emanate from Source Sites. Before they can provide this function, however, they themselves need to be secure, ideally inviolate, with Tigers reproducing well above replacement levels (Karanth et al. 2009). Ensuring the demographic viability of source populations should therefore be seen as the central objective of immediate conservation efforts, as the basis for building robust meta-populations across landscapes. To do this, one must first recognize that what is required to protect and manage an area with Tigers is significantly different from what is required at other sites. The massive financial incentives for poaching tigers, combined with the low opportunity costs of hunting, the low risk of detection and capture, and the copious number of willing buyers for Tiger parts, makes the protection of Tigers, like rhinos, intensive and expensive. Even today, India stands almost alone in recognizing the level of intensity of protection that is needed, though even India only achieves this in a few protected areas.

5

Demonstrated success with Source Sites and Tiger conservation Nagarahole National Park is embedded within the Malenad-Mysore Landscape in the Western Ghats of Karnataka, India. Under strong government management and with NGO support, effective protection, successful voluntary relocations of settlements, and strong scientific monitoring, it has witnessed more than a 400% increase in the Tiger population over the last 30 years, and has sustained it through challenging times and increasing pressures. Today it not only contains a globally important resident population of Tigers, but it is a functioning model of a Source Site, providing surplus Tigers to disperse across the wider landscapes. With the adjoining forests of Bandipur, and Bhadra Reserve to the North, MalenadMysore Tiger Landscape now harbours one of the largest populations of Tigers anywhere in the world, with more than 220 Tigers just within the six Source Sites. With Tiger densities increasing, more and more animals are moving between these Source Sites and across the landscape, forming a functioning meta-population. WCS is now transferring these lessons to seven other sites across the Tiger’s range through the Tigers Forever program in partnership with Panthera. This is providing case studies of best practices in recovering Tigers and prey in a variety of landscapes based on a demonstrably successful conservation approach primarily focused on building outwards from Source Sites.

Donors, conservation NGOs and government agencies still employ language that suggests that a standard well-managed protected area will save the Tiger, making no distinction between the needs of general protected areas and those that contain Tigers. The premise of this report is that there needs to be a clear acceptance that not only are Source Sites disproportionately important to the recovery of the Tiger, but also that the cost of managing them is invariably far higher than assumed. Costs cannot be extrapolated from existing Protected Area assessments (e.g. Bruner et al. 2004) and need to be calculated based on what is required, at that site, to protect and monitor Tigers and their prey, not through proxies, remote-sensing, modelling or extrapolations. The future of the Tiger rests on Asian range states creating effective Tiger landscapes. The future of these landscapes ultimately relies on the integrity and sustained protection of these Source Sites. This report examines where these Source Sites are and what it will realistically cost to protect and monitor them.

6

METHODS Source Sites A number of sometimes interchangeable terms for identifying important sites for Tigers are currently in use: Core Areas, Priority Areas, Core Breeding Areas, and Tiger Conservation Landscapes (TCL). For the purposes of this report we use the term ’Source Sites’ (defined below), though we recognize the value in retaining alternative terms for different contexts. Although similarities exist, we have moved away from the existing terms above, because they are ill- or entirely un-defined, or they have existing connotations that are not shared between countries or published works. Therefore, to avoid confusion, we have chosen a separate term, defined it clearly, and explained its relevance to the work. We have chosen the term Source Sites because there is a clear inference that their value lies beyond just their own boundaries and they function as a wellspring for the repopulation of Tiger landscapes. It is explicitly recognized that often Source Sites are themselves too small to harbour long-term, demographically viable populations robust enough to withstand artificial and stochastic pressures (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998, Carroll and Miquelle 2006). It is an obvious corollary of being a Source Site that it needs to be part of a larger landscape. As Karanth et al. (2009) suggest, they should be protected, conflict-free zones, where female Tigers can raise cubs to dispersal stage naturally reproducing well-above replacement levels over their lifetimes. These sources, therefore, are not likely to be found in buffer zones or corridors and are most often going to be core Protected Areas. For Source Sites we follow, with amendments, Karanth et al. (2009) who define them as those areas embedded within larger ‘Tiger-permeable habitats’ landscapes where Tigers are likely to be reproducing above replacement levels and therefore have the greatest potential to repopulate the broader landscape. Simply put, they are those sites that, if they lost their wild Tigers, would prevent or greatly retard any natural repopulation of the larger landscape. We define a Source Site as having the following features: 1. Higher densities of Tigers than in the overall landscape within which it is embedded 2. Evidence of current Tiger reproduction 3. The potential to maintain a cluster of >25 breeding females (Karanth and Stith 1999) either alone or with other connected Source Sites in the same landscape 4. Embedded within a Tiger-permeable landscape with the potential to maintain > 50 breeding females 5. A genuine government commitment to preventing further human in-migration or infrastructure development 6. Existing protection capacity or political commitments to establish such capacity in the very near future 7. A legal framework in place or being developed for the prevention of poaching or hunting of Tigers and their prey These criteria are intentionally designed to include ecological and demographic features, combining physical and legal attributes that infer something of the practical potential for long-term protection. The number of 25 breeding females comes from published sources (e.g. Karanth and Stith 1999) though is meant to be indicative. For instance, Jhala et al. (2008) consider 20 breeding females to be an adequate number, while in

7

the Russian Far East it is considered much higher (Dale Miquelle 2009, pers. comm.). Regardless, even the lowest number encourages more rigorous evaluation of whether a site has genuine potential to be considered a priority site for the recovery of Tigers. The definition is also intentionally flexible enough to accommodate most of those within government action plans, strategies and prioritization processes. As much as possible, the report follows these governmental strategies. For example, Malaysia’s National Action Plan for Tigers (DWNP 2008) identifies ‘Priority Areas’ embedded within ‘Tiger Landscapes’ and use criteria that allow for their clean translation into Source Sites for this report. Where definitions are not consistent with Source Sites, amendments have been made based on available published or report-based data. Where the case for any existing area’s inclusion as a Source Site is equivocal, they have been given the designation of Potential Source Site. This does not infer that the site is not of the highest importance for Tigers; just that insufficient evidence currently exists. The analysis is deliberately conservative so that the final costing estimate for preventing the loss of Tigers across their range is a minimum. As more data become available the promotion of sites to Source Sites from Potential Source Sites should be made and vice versa. It is important to stress the obvious that Source Sites refer to ‘known’ Source Sites and do not suggest that this list is in anyway static or definitive. Maps of the Source Sites are also indicative. The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on the maps do not imply official endorsement or acceptance. Where there are major uncertainties regarding boundaries of Source Sites or potential Source Sites, a circle has been used of the same size or of an approximation. Exact shape-files will be sourced.

Estimated Financial Inputs and Needs Wherever possible, costs were sourced from those on the ground responsible for management of the Source Sites, and agencies supporting that management. Government figures were used where available, though occasionally these figures were not close to the funding levels that the site-based managers were able to access. Every attempt has been made to access accurate, verifiable data, even if those data sometimes contradict accepted or published figures. Costs are limited to core activities of the Source Site and of the agencies directly responsible for protecting and managing Source Sites, such as the Protected Area agency. At a minimum, these are law enforcement, law enforcement monitoring, general management, and the monitoring of Tigers and their prey. Sites were also encouraged to include additional activities they consider essential, though similarly encouraged to restrict them to those directly linked to Tigers and to keep them conservative. A number of sites have included community engagement, informant networks, and monitoring of trade routes and restaurants within their estimates of financial needs. Occasionally costs were challenged and removed where they are deemed excessive or sufficiently unrelated to Tigers. The cost of additional or new activities in areas, such as adding essential law enforcement patrols where they are needed but are currently lacking, have been adjusted using two factors: hunting pressure and logistical difficulty. As these two factors influence the nature and expense of a response, financial estimates have been weighted accordingly. Costs relating to the relocation of communities within Source Sites have been gathered where available though not included in this analysis. Reasons for this relate to the complexity of the issue and a lack of sufficiently detailed cost estimates at some sites, rather than just the subject’s political sensitivity. In some sites the relocation of communities has been an important and successful initiative with positive results for communities and wildlife, while at others it has been a disaster for both. Voluntary resettlement of families out of critical Tiger habitats need to be an active part of the conservation debate, and analyses of successful examples such as those from Bhadra Tiger Reserve in India (Karanth 2007) need to gain wider coverage. One-off investments such as creation of conservation infrastructure have been gathered and are presented separately to the recurrent costs. Incremental values – the difference between current and required

8

investments – have also been calculated. In many cases individual site data have been combined with other national sites based on the request of those agencies providing the data. Often this has been to ensure that one site or agency is not highlighted as ‘doing less’ than another, though a number of reasons have been provided. Costs have been kept to a minimum and the figures should be taken to represent neither the operational budgets for any site nor the aspirational budgets for their overall management.

Other Methods The report does not include discussion of sub-species of Tigers. This does not infer a dismissal of the concept of Tiger sub-species, nor does it endorse their validity, but merely recognizes that it is beyond the remit of this report. Brief country profiles have been prepared and included in the Appendix. The country profiles are intended to provide context to the selection of Source Sites, give an independent overview of the status of Tigers, and a brief justification for the cost estimates. They are not intended to be conservation strategies or to supersede existing government action plans. Profiles have been written using various sources and invariably more than one author.

The report follows Duckworth and Pine (2003) in standardising the use of English names for species and in considering species names as proper nouns. Thus, the major components of a species name in English are capitalized. For a more detailed justification for this, see Duckworth and Pine (2003).

9

Results The results of the analysis are summarised in Tables overleaf. The majority of this report focuses on issues of the scale and cost of preventing the extinction of Tigers and of promoting recovery in the most effective, efficient and realistic manner. However, as money alone is no solution to the Tiger crisis, we have gone further to propose how and where funds should most effectively be spent, and how their impact should be measured. As mentioned earlier, this report does not purport to be a definitive or prescriptive solution to saving the Tiger. It does not consider how to address the global demand for Tiger products, improve global trade controls, or other aspects of long-term Tiger conservation. Its focus is very much on the efforts of site-based conservation and how nations and donors can serve the Tiger through ensuring its continued survival and recovery at the field level.

Source Sites Forty-two Source Sites have been identified across the Tiger’s range, representing the highest site-based priorities for immediate, intense and sustained protection and monitoring. Most of these are in India (18), Sumatra (8) and the Russian Far East (6). Other countries have three (Malaysia and Nepal), two (Thailand) or one (Bangladesh and Lao PDR). Insufficient evidence exists to suggest that Cambodia, China, Myanmar or Vietnam have any area that currently qualifies as a Source Site, though Potential Source Sites have been identified. No evaluation has yet been carried out in Bhutan, but this will be done in the near future. Collectively the Source Sites cover 90,000km2, about the size of the state of Maine in the U.S. or less than half the size of Cambodia. Of this, almost 20% or 17,000 km2 is in Russia and only slightly less (16,000 km2) in India. Within this 90,000km2 it is estimated that 2,200 of the world’s 3,200 remaining wild Tigers currently live. Thus, nearly 70% of all the world’s wild Tigers are clustered within less than 6% of their current potential range (Tiger Conservation Landscapes) and less than 0.5% of their historical range1. This underlines one of the central pillars of this report: Source Sites deserve disproportionate attention; immediate and sustained efforts to reinforce and intensify protection and monitoring of these sites must be a critical priority. The importance of India to the Tiger cannot be overstated. Just under half of the 2,200 Tigers found in Source Sites are in India. However, across Asia, even Source Sites are in real danger of losing the Tiger. Only five Source Sites (12%), all of which are in India, have existing Tiger populations close (>80%) to their estimated potential carrying capacity. Across the rest of the Tiger’s range outside India, densities in 60% of all other Source Sites were less than half their estimated natural densities (see Tables 1 and 2) Estimates of natural Tiger densities and population dynamics were gathered from published sources (e.g. Kawanishi et al. 2003, Karanth et al. 2004) or from expert opinions for specific sites. These estimates suggest that if Source Sites were effectively protected, and Tiger recovery enabled, their collective Tiger population would more than double. Given the recent history of unremitting decline in Tiger numbers, this would represent a dramatic and unprecedented success for the species. Even if there were zero gains in Tiger populations elsewhere, the increase at Source Sites would raise the world’s Tiger population by 175%. Additionally, the very criteria that define Source Sites suggest that their conservation would be a far more pragmatic and achievable goal for conservationists than some currently being advanced: Source Sites, by definition, already have breeding Tigers, they are of a scale that is practical to protect, they have existing conservation infrastructure, a legal mandate for protection, and the potential to repopulate larger landscapes.

1

Current potential Tiger range and historical range are both taken from the Tiger Conservation Landscape analysis (Sanderson et al. 2010).

10

The protection of Source Sites should not be considered an end-point to site-based Tiger conservation efforts, but evidence suggests that where successful, sustained recoveries have occurred (such as in the Western Ghats in India), the construction of Tiger landscapes began by building outwards from Source Sites and not the other way around. Even with 30 million people living in the Western Ghats landscape, Tigers are now moving between Source Sites and breeding successfully. In other Tiger conservation landscapes a lack of focus on Source Sites and greater efforts on corridors and less immediately urgent activities has meant that there are far fewer Tigers to utilise these corridors, undermining their intended value.

11

Map 1. All Source Sites & Potential Source Sites

12

Map 2. All Source Sites

13

Map 3. All Potential Source Sites

14

Costs The cost of effective management, protection and monitoring of Source Sites is estimated to be US$90 million per year (see Tables 3 and 4 for a more detailed breakdown). More than half of this is already being committed by range-state governments and, to a far lesser extent, international donors and NGOs. This leaves a shortfall of approximately US$35 million a year. While the quality of figures varies between sites and countries, the results broadly suggest three major facts: 1) Significant investment already exists for Tiger conservation across these Source Sites with almost US$500/km2 (US$5/ha) per year, on average, being spent. However, much of this money comes from and is spent in India. When India is excluded from the analysis, the average current commitment drops to US$365/km2 (US$3.6/ha) per year. India is currently the only country both able and willing to provide sufficient funds for adequate protection and monitoring of Tiger Source Sites. 2) There are currently major disparities between how existing resources are being used in various sites. In some cases official government budgets for protected areas are clearly not reaching the ground, while in other cases investment is being used inefficiently or directed into non-essential activities. In some cases the disparity between reported and actual figures was vast. For example, for two major Protected Areas in important Tiger landscapes, the official government budget for law enforcement and protection was US$5 million per year, per site. At these same two sites, only eight official patrols were recorded during the first six months of 2009 (six and two patrols respectively), and both heads of the Protected Areas claimed that less than 20% of the official budget was made available to them. 3) There is broad and independent agreement from all Source Sites that, regardless of inefficiencies, considerably more funding is needed to effectively protect and monitor Tigers. It is noticeable that the cost estimates, which were generally provided independently of each other, were broadly similar across the sites when factors such as cost of living were included, with some notable exceptions. On average, the amount required is US$900/km2 (US$9/ha) per year. As discussed, there is questionable value in comparing the cost per km2 of Tiger Source Sites with estimates from Protected Areas (PA) that do not contain Tigers, as Tiger Source Sites are an exceptional sub-set of PAs requiring vastly more intensive and costly protection and monitoring capacities. While this figure is far higher than many have predicted, it is similar to those required by other species of high commercial value such as the African rhinoceroses (Leader-Williams and Albon 1988).

15

Table 1. Master Data Table – Source Sites by Country Source Site Name

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

INDIA Anamalai/Parambikulam Bandhavgarh Bhadra BR Temple Corbett Dudhwa/Kishenpur /Katernia Ghat Kalakad Mundanthurai +Shendurney Kanha (includes Mukki, Supkhar, Phen) Kaziranga Melghat Nagarahole/Bandipur /Mudumulai Pench (Maharashtra /Madhya Pradesh) Periyar Rajaji Ranthambore Similipal Sunderbans Tadoba Andhari THAILAND Huai Kha Khaeng and Thung Yai Naresuan Kaeng Krachan/Kuiburi MALAYSIA Endau Rompin (Johor and Pahang) Taman Negara National Park Belum-Temenggor Forest INDONESIA

TCL

Source Source Area km2 Area (GIS)

Hunting Pressure

Logistical Difficulty Level

Total cost (US$)

Cost /km2

Current $ inputs

1,304 448 492 580 521 750

1,261 359 469 599 572 716

High Low High High High High

High Low Medium High Medium Medium

1,979,472 444,752 701,395 880,440 742,738 1,069,200

1,518 993 1,426 1,518 1,426 1,426

1,979,472 444,752 701,395 880,440 742,738 1,592,395

6 12 3.42 6 22 6

7.5 12 12 12 16 16

78 54 17 35 115 45

98 54 59 70 83 120

63*

903

905

High

High

1,370,754

1,518

1,370,754

1.5

4

14

36

63 Jhala et al. 2008

50

1,050

1,061

Low

Low

1,042,388

993

1,042,388

8

12

84

126


38 52 66

490 788 1,855

317 800 1,903

High Low High

Medium High Medium

873,180 936,144 2,644,488

1,782 1,188 1,426

873,180 910,008 2,644,488

16.8 6.7 10

18 10 12

82 53 203

88 79 228

7 Karanth et al. 2004 33 Karanth et al. 2004 11 Karanth et al. 2004

53

667

548

Low

Low

662,164

993

662,164

8

12

41

80

64 45 ** 58 39 54

925 820 392 845 2,585 625

782 851 425 850 2,516 586

High Low Low High High Low

High Low Low High High Low

1,404,150 814,055 389,158 1,282,710 4,777,080 620,469

1,518 993 993 1,518 1,848 993

1,404,150 814,055 389,158 759,000 4,777,080 620,469

2.3 2.5 11.46 2.2 0.84 3.3

6 12 10 12 7 12

21 21 45 19 22 21

56 98 39 101 181 75

19

6,424

6,510

Low

Medium

6,190,000

964

1,600,000

2.4

8

154

514

19

3,884

3,995

Low

Medium

3,326,000

856

1,200,000

0.8

5

31

194

15

3,558

3,565

Low

Low

4,018,209

1,129

580,000

0.7

2.3

25

82

70 WCS Malaysia in prep.

16

4,343

4,531

Low

High

3,066,120

706

1,513,000

1.7

2

74

87

15 Kawanishi and Sunquist 2004

16

3,546

3,525

High

High

2,503,476

706

360,000

1.8

2.9

64

103

38 Darmaraj and Mohammad 2009

0.6

2.3

61

234

74

14 14

4,381 5,810

4,381 5,810

High High

High High

3,125,647 3,335,176

713 574

16

see SS 31 for total

20 0 72 50 -38 63

Source for Density Estimate

65 49 66 67 44 *

Leuser - Ulu Masen 24 Ulu Masen 25 South Aceh

Current Potential Current Potential Current to Tiger Tiger Population Population potential Density* Density* Size Size difference (%)

Estimates Jhala et al. 2008 Karanth et al. 2004 Estimates Jhala et al. 2008 Jhala et al. 2008

49 Karanth et al. 2004 and Jhala et al. 2008 62 Jhala et al. 2008 79 Harihar et al. 2008 -15 Karanth et al. 2004 82 Jhala et al. 2008 88 Karanth et al. 2004 73 Karanth et al. 2004 70 WCS Thailand 2009/Tigers Forever 84 WWF Thailand 2010

Source Site Name

TCL

Source Source Area km2 Area (GIS)

Hunting Pressure

Logistical Difficulty Level

Total cost (US$)

Cost /km2

Current $ inputs

Kerinci Seblat 26 North Kerinci 27 Central Kerinci 28 South Kerinci

5 5 5

1,450 2,350 2,547

1,450 2,350 2,547

High High High

High High High

1,529,098 2,069,472 1,964,875

1,054 880 771

7

1,447

1,447

High

Medium

1,436,464

993

Current Potential Current Potential Current to Tiger Tiger Population Population potential Density* Density* Size Size difference (%) 2.2 3.8 140 241 42


see SS 31 for total

Bukit Tiga Puluh 29 Bukit Tiga Puluh

see SS 31 for total

Bukit Barisan Selatan/Bukit Balai Rejang Selatan 30 Bukit Balai Rejang 31 Bukit Barisan Selatan LAO PDR 32 Nam Et-Phou Louey BANGLADESH 33 Sundarbans

4.6

42

67

37

1.8

2.5

50

69

28

4 3

1,245 1,506

1,245 1,506

High High

Medium Medium

1,546,941 1,547,337

1,243 1,028

14,000,000

35

5,960

5,960

High

High

1,756,287

295

280,000

0.45

5

27

298

91 Johnson et al., 2006

39

4,000

4,000

Low

High

5,054,000

1,264

1,750,000

7.50

10.5

300

420

29 Ahmad et al. 2009, Barlow et al. 2009, D. Smith pers comm.

1,657 909 305

1,803 909 389

High High High

Medium Medium Medium

2,952,774 1,619,838 543,510

1,782 1,782 1,782

929,648 334,500 76,000

5.73 1.98 2.62

10 10 15

95 18 8

166 91 46

43 80 83

5,056

5,461 Med/High

High

3,811,058

754

1,700,224

0.54

0.94

35

54

2,005

2,005

High

3,468,461

1,730

121,546

0.35

1.5

7

24

Medium Med/High High Medium

311,863 1,414,482 2,708,814 350,966 82,285,604

763 699 634 115

149,151 266,535 197,695 43,203 47,709,588

1.20 0.56 0.20 0.10

1.5 1.29 0.5 0.5

5 12 8 4 2,126

7 28 20 20 4,435

NEPAL 34 Chitwan/Parsa 40 35 Bardia 42 36 Shuklaphanta 43 RUSSIA 37 Sikhote2 Alinskii/Udegeyskaya 38 Leopardovyi/Kedrovaya 2 Pad' 39 Ussuriiskii 2 40 Lazovskii/Zov Tigra 2 41 Anyuiskii 2 42 Botchinskii 2 Totals * Density = Tigers/100km²

2.9

High

409 414 Medium 2,023 2,154 Med/High 4,272 4,272 High 3,051 3,345 Medium 88,177 89,092

17

35 Soutyrina et al. in press; Miquelle estimate 71 Pikunov et al. 2008 29 57 60 80

Miquelle et al. 2009 Miquelle et al. 2009 Miquelle et al. 2009 Miquelle et al. 2009

Table 2. Source Sites by Country – Present and Potential Populations. Source Site Name

Current to Source Current Potential Current Potential potential Area Tiger Tiger Population Population difference km2 Density Density Size Size (%)


INDIA 1

Anamalai + Parambikulam

1,304

6

7.5

78

98

2

Bandhavgarh

448

12

12

54

54

3

Bhadra

492

3.42

12

17

59

72 Karanth et al. 2004

4

BR Temple

580

6

12

35

70

50 Estimates

5

Corbett

521

22

16

115

83

-38 Jhala et al. 2008

6

Dudhwa+Kishenpur +Katernia Ghat

750

6

16

45

120


7

Kalakad Mundanthurai +Shendurney

903

1.5

4

14

36


8

Kanha (includes Mukki, Supkhar,Phen)

1,050

8

12

84

126


9

Kaziranga

490

16.8

18

82

88


788

6.7

10

53

79


1,855

10

12

203

228


667

8

12

41

80

49 Karanth et al. 2004, Jhala et al. 2008

13 Periyar

925

2.3

6

21

56


14 Rajaji

820

2.5

12

21

98

79 Harihar et al. 2008

15 Ranthambore

392

11.46

10

45

39

-15 Karanth et al. 2004

16 Similipal

845

2.2

12

19

101


2,585

0.84

7

22

181


625

3.3

12

21

75


Huai Kha Khaeng and Thung Yai Naresuan

6,424

2.4

8

154

514

70 WCS Thailand 2009/Tigers Forever

20 Kaeng Krachan /Kuiburi

3,884

0.8

5

31

194

84 WWF Thailand 2010

3,558

0.7

2.3

25

82

70

4,343

1.7

2

74

87

15 Kawanishi and Sunquist 2004

3,546

1.8

2.9

64

103

10 Melghat 11

Nagarahole + Bandipur + Mudumulai

12

Pench (Maharashtra + Madhya Pradesh)

17 Sunderbans 18 Tadoba Andhari

20 Estimates 0 Jhala et al. 2008

THAILAND 19

MALAYSIA Endau Rompin (Johor and Pahang) Taman Negara National 22 Park 21

23 Belum-Temenggor Forest

18

38

WCS Malaysia in prep. (pop. density = gross estimate) Darmaraj and Mohammad 2009 (pop. density = gross estimate)

Source Site Name

Current to Source Current Potential Current Potential potential Area Tiger Tiger Population Population difference km2 Density density Size Size (%)


INDONESIA

Leuser - Ulu Masen

0.6

2.3

61

234

74

2.2

3.8

140

241

42

2.9

4.6

42

67

37

1.8

2.5

50

69

28

5,960

0.45

5

27

298

91

4,000

7.50

10.5

300

420

29

1,657

5.73

10

95

166

43

35 Bardia

909

1.98

10

18

91

80

36 Shuklaphanta

305

2.62

15

8

46

83

24 Ulu Masen (SS1)

4,381

25 South Aceh (SS2)

5,810

Kerinci Seblat 26 North Kerinci (SS3)

1,450

27 Central Kerinci (SS4)

2,350

28 South Kerinci (SS5)

2,547

Bukit Tiga Puluh 29 Bukit Tiga Puluh (PSS6)

1,447

Bukit Barisan Selatan / Bukit Balai Rejang Selatan 30 Bukit Balai Rejang (PSS7)

1,245

Bukit Barisan Selatan 31 (PSS8)

1,506

LAO PDR 32 Nam Et-Phou Louey BANGLADESH 33 Sundarbans

Ahmad et al .2009, Barlow et al. 2009, D. Smith pers comm.

NEPAL 34 Chitwan/Parsa

RUSSIA 37

SikhoteAlinskii/Udegeyskaya

5,056

0.45

0.85

35

54

35

38

Leopardovyi/Kedrovaya Pad'

2,005

0.35

1.5

7

24

71 Pikunov et al. 2008

409

1.20

1.5

5

7

29 Miquelle et al. 2010

40 Lazovskii/Zov Tigra

2,023

0.54

1.25

12

28

57

41 Anyuiskii

4,272

0.20

0.5

8

20

60

42 Botchinskii

3,051

0.10

0.5

4

20

80

2,126

4,435

39 Ussuriiskii

Totals:

88,177

19

Soutyrina et al. in press; Miquelle estimate

Table 3. Potential Source Sites by Country. Country

Potential Source Site Name

TCL

Source Area km2

Source Area (GIS)

INDIA Achanakmar

**

Buxa

37

Cauvery-MM Hills

67*

552

545

759

695

1,820

2,001

Dandeli-Anshi

69,70

1,084

864

Nagarjunsagar-Gundla Brahmeswaram

**

1,400

1,184

Kawal

**

Koyna-Radhanagari

71*

893

1,080

1,200

1,605

Kudremukh-Someshwara

66

688

781

Manas

37

500

539

Mukurthi-Nilambur

66*

600

56

Nameri-Pakhui

37

1,205

944

Bori-Satpura

51

1,428

1,478

Valmiki

40

840

401

Wayanad

66

344

368

Thap Lan

19

2,217

2,217

THAILAND LAO PDR Xe Sap

27

1,525

1,525

Nam Kan

36

1,514

1,514

Dong Ampham

27

1,998

1,998

Nam Kong

27

1,514

1,514

Hukaung Valley WS

37

6,482

6,480

Tanintharyis

19

21,213

21,213

Cambodian Eastern Plains

27

12,990

12,990

Chu Mon Ray

27

tba

tba

Dak Rong-Phong Dien

**

tba

tba

Song Than-Dakprin

27 tba Source Site partially inside TCL Source Site entirely outside TCL

tba

MYANMAR

CAMBODIA VIETNAM

* **

20

Table 4. Source Site Costings by Country Source Site Name

Source Area km2

Cost/km2

Total cost (US$)

Current $ inputs

INDIA 1

Anamalai + Parambikulam

1,304

1,518

1,979,472

1,979,472

2

Bandhavgarh

448

993

444,752

444,752

3

Bhadra

492

1,426

701,395

701,395

4

BR Temple

580

1,518

880,440

880,440

5

Corbett

521

1,426

742,738

742,738

6

Dudhwa+Kishenpur+Katernia Ghat

750

1,426

1,069,200

1,592,395

7

Kalakad Mundanthurai+Shendurney

903

1,518

1,370,754

1,370,754

8

Kanha (includes Mukki, Supkhar,Phen)

1,050

993

1,042,388

1,042,388

9

Kaziranga

490

1,782

873,180

873,180

10

Melghat

788

1,188

936,144

910,008

11

Nagarahole + Bandipur + Mudumulai

1,855

1,426

2,644,488

2,644,488

12

Pench (Maharashtra + Madhya Pradesh)

667

993

662,164

662,164

13

Periyar

925

1,518

1,404,150

1,404,150

14

Rajaji

820

993

814,055

814,055

15

Ranthambore

392

993

389,158

389,158

16

Similipal

845

1,518

1,282,710

759,000

17

Sunderbans

2,585

1,848

4,777,080

4,777,080

18

Tadoba Andhari

625

993

620,469

620,469

THAILAND 19

Huai Kha Khaeng/Thung Yai Naresuan

6,424

964

6,190,000

1,600,000

20

Kaeng Krachan/Kuiburi

3,884

856

3,326,000

1,200,000

MALAYSIA

21

Endau Rompin (Johor and Pahang)

3,558

1,129

4,018,209

580,000

22

Taman Negara National Park

4,343

706

3,066,120

1,513,000

23

Belum-Temenggor Forest

3,546

706

2,503,476

360,000

21

Source Area km2

Source Site Name

Cost/km2

Total cost (US$)

Current $ inputs

INDONESIA

Leuser - Ulu Masen 24

Ulu Masen (SS1)

4,381

713

3,125,647

25

South Aceh (SS2)

5,810

574

3,335,176

see SS 31 for total

Kerinci Seblat 26

North Kerinci (SS3)

1,450

1,054

1,529,098

27

Central Kerinci (SS4)

2,350

880

2,069,472

28

South Kerinci (SS5)

2,547

771

1,964,875

1,447

993

1,436,464

see SS 31 for total

Bukit Tiga Puluh 29

Bukit Tiga Puluh (PSS6)

see SS 31 for total

Bukit Barisan Selatan / Bukit Balai Rejang Selatan 30

Bukit Balai Rejang (PSS7)

1,245

1,243

1,546,941

31

Bukit Barisan Selatan (PSS8)

1,506

1,028

1,547,337

14,000,000

5,960

295

1,756,287

280,000

4,000

1,264

5,054,000

1,750,000

1,657

1,782

2,952,774

929,648

LAO PDR 32

Nam Et-Phou Loeuy BANGLADESH

33

Sundarbans NEPAL

34

Chitwan/Parsa

35

Bardia

909

1,782

1,619,838

334,500

36

Shuklaphanta

305

1,782

543,510

76,000

RUSSIA 37

Sikhote-Alinskii/Udegeyskaya

5,056

754

3,811,058

1,700,224

38

Leopardovyi/Kedrovaya Pad'

2,005

1,730

3,468,461

121,546

39

Ussuriiskii

409

763

311,863

149,151

40

Lazovskii/Zov Tigra

2,023

699

1,414,482

266,535

41

Anyuiskii

4,272

634

2,708,814

197,695

42

Botchinskii

3,051

115

350,966

43,203

82,285,604

47,709,588

Totals:

88,177

22

DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS The Function and Importance of Source Sites The results of this analysis demonstrate just how critical the few remaining Source Sites are for the future of the wild Tiger. If the first step in recovering Tigers is to stop the current decline, and to do this across as much of their range as is possible, then Source Sites should be priorities for urgent and sustained protection interventions. With almost 70% of the world’s Tigers within less than 6% of their current potential range, their disproportionate importance is manifest. Beyond this, however, it is useful to understand the longerterm value of Source Sites. In a landscape where Tigers, Tiger prey, and the threats to them both are all homogenously distributed, the concept of Source Sites is redundant. However, nowhere is this the reality for Tiger landscapes today and there is no likelihood that this will be the reality in the foreseeable future, if ever. There are two features of Tiger landscapes that demand the presence of highly protected Source Sites: 1. Tiger Landscapes are almost invariably human-dominated Tigers living at optimal or ‘natural’ densities across large landscapes is no longer a rational objective. The presence or influence of humans will always ensure that there will be areas where either Tigers are absent or at significantly lower densities. This in itself may not necessarily be a barrier for creating and sustaining functional meta-populations of Tigers, but it will always increase, proportionately, the value of having sites where these impacts are minimized. 2. Tiger Landscapes are dynamic and future impacts unpredictable Tiger landscapes will always be prone to both predictable and stochastic events that will cause shortterm declines of Tigers, such as mismanagement of reserves, rapid economic/infrastructure development, social unrest, disease outbreaks, spiking global prices for forest products, national political/ideological shifts, transboundary tensions, and the loss of individual conservation champions. All these factors are possible negative impacts that landscapes will need to be able to endure and which are beyond the standard capacity of conservation agencies to influence. Indeed, they are sometimes beyond the capacity of national governments to deal with in the short-term. Tiger meta-populations must therefore be robust enough to weather these storms. Smaller areas under high-intensity protection will have greater chances of withstanding these pressures, thereby greatly enhancing the resilience of the overall meta-population. Even in areas where Source Sites may not play such an obvious role, such as the Russian Far East, recent declines in Tigers and their prey have highlighted their value. Too small to maintain long-term Tiger populations individually, the Russian Source Sites nonetheless have higher densities and reproductive rates for Tigers and prey species than the overall landscape average (Miquelle et al. 2010). As such, they now play an important role in both resisting declines that have happened elsewhere (as they are generally better protected) and in helping the meta-population recover. In summary, Source Sites provide robustness and stability to otherwise dynamic and unpredictable landscapes. In a way they are bank accounts holding Tigers. When times are good, investments can be spread, portfolios diversified, and the size of the bank account is less significant as a result. However, when times are bad, investments fail, it is the cash in the bank (Tigers at Source Sites), which suddenly gains pre-eminent importance. Tigers are now going through their greatest, longest and deepest recession. Now is not the time to take risks with the few Tigers we have left. We need to save, both actually and metaphorically. Ironically, if we are successful at conserving Source Sites and increasing the world’s Tiger population to healthy levels, whatever that may be, then the value of Source Sites will lessen. They will not, however, realistically ever become redundant. Human-dominated landscapes will always be prone to events, both predictable and stochastic, that will cause declines of Tigers. By having Source Sites, preferably inviolate ones, we increase the robustness of the meta-population and augment landscape recoveries for the species.

23

Source Sites will always be most effective when habitat connectivity between them is maintained or created. Connectivity ensures that Source Sites are more than just the sum of their parts. Conservation efforts cannot afford to lose connectivity between Source Sites, though too often conservationists confuse the addition of new protected habitat to areas where Tigers live (e.g. an extension to a Protected Area), and the establishment of ‘corridors’ for the movement of Tigers between Source Sites. The former does not necessarily provide connectivity, the latter does. Both are important, but are very different in form and function. Some current landscape maps show large tracts of ‘corridors’ that patently are no such thing, even lumping disconnected Tiger habitat under the term corridors. A corridor, by definition, is a passage between two or more sites. If these sites do not exist, then neither does the corridor. A muddling of these concepts has serious impacts on conservation planning and, ultimately, Tigers. Corridors have very specific functions and make no demands for there to be resident breeding Tigers within them. As such, the conservation effort required is lower than that required by Source Sites; high density of prey species is not a prerequisite nor is the intensity of law enforcement effort. However, sufficient protection should be afforded that allows a proportion of dispersing Tigers to safely move through a permeable habitat matrix, and this too will require resources and effort. Therefore, the scale of corridors should be defined by those factors that enable Tiger movement among Source Populations. There can be little use in assigning >10,000km2 of sometimes isolated forest fragments as corridors, as is the case in at least one high-profile Tiger landscape. To confuse terms or use broad-brush techniques of mapping only serves to misdirect limited resources into low priority activities or to spread resources too thinly so that they are rendered ineffective. Below is a list of area categories prioritized by level of protection needed. Ideally, all these sites would receive concurrent effort and this report does not advocate a piece-meal approach or the lumping of all conservation resources into just the first one or two categories. However, with only 3,200 Tigers left in the wild and chronically few resources available, prioritisation cannot be ignored or effort diffused. This list is intended to be indicative only. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Source Sites (SS) Protected Areas with Tigers (PATs) Corridors between SSs and/or PATs Additional habitats contiguous with SSs and PATs Additional habitats contiguous with corridors Additional habitats within the landscape that are currently not connected

24

Protection of Source Sites All evidence from Asia and Africa suggests that where high commercial value species exist, they are now targeted by organised, well-armed gangs connected to global trading networks (e.g. EIA 2006; Damania et al. 2008). The last Tigers are now highly vulnerable to organised poaching and only immediate, intensive and sustained effort at building up Source Sites populations is likely to withstand this pressure. In compiling this report, many respondents provided supporting evidence for the above and wanted to make clear that, at their site, there is an increasing level of threat to Tigers from professional hunters, both local and non-local. In these situations the direct reward from the sale of a poached tiger vastly outweighs any hunting costs or opportunity costs, which are for the most part small. This, combined with the fact that the gang leader or dealer rarely gets caught (often recruiting local skilled hunters), makes Tiger poaching an extremely profitable business. Note that this is a different additional scenario to opportunistic killing of Tigers by local people, which may be more effectively addressed by increasing hunting costs and, in the case of human-Tiger conflict, through local resolution strategies. However, the greatest threat comes from organized poaching networks and only strict protection of Source Sites will have the desired effect of reversing the decline, and allowing us to plan and fund larger-scale strategies. In the long-term, it is hoped that a global decline in demand will result in the reduction of these needs, though no on-the-ground conservation strategy should plan for this. There is still, surprisingly, a widespread belief that standard investments in Protected Areas, when used efficiently, are sufficient to protect resident Tigers. Where Protected Areas have not succeeded, it is often suggested that mismanagement, corruption or lack of community support was at the core of the failure. While this has certainly been true in some cases, it is rarely acknowledged that sites where Tigers persist must be considered an exceptional subset of Protected Areas requiring greatly increased resources and capacities for protection. It was well stated that “Most range states have legislation in place to protect tigers from poachers. Unfortunately, the lack of resources for enforcement…result in inadequate patrolling, and have hampered protection efforts” (Dinerstein et al. 2007). Where Tiger populations are successfully breeding, such as in Karnataka State in India, Tiger conservation is afforded special recognition and sites provided with proportionately more conservation funding. This needs to be accepted by governments across the Tiger’s range. The costs associated with this level of protection across known Source Sites has been presented here, both in terms of overall cost (c. US$90 million a year) and costs currently not covered (c. US$35 million a year). These figures are considerably higher than previous estimates for effective Protected Area management (Bruner et al. 2004), but in-line with estimates of where species of high commercial value are being targeted. “The protection of species vulnerable to poaching is a costly exercise. The example of the African elephant is instructive. During the high point of the African poaching crisis of the 1980s, losses were concentrated in four states with wildlife management budgets ranging from $0.05 to $0.15 per hectare [$5 to $15 per km2] of protected areas. In contrast, elephant populations stabilized in South Africa and Zimbabwe, where budgets were $43 and $4.75 per hectare [$4300 to $475 per km2], respectively. South Africa is where the strongest and most successful wildlife management model has emerged.” (Damania et al. 2008). The evidence from the current analysis supports this observation. Approximately US$10/hectare per year will be needed for Tiger Source Sites. Our estimates appear conservative compared with those in South Africa, even when adjusted for cost of living. In Protected Areas where tourism is a source of income, valuable staff time and effort is distracted from core conservation activities. Most resources end-up being clustered around park headquarters, tourist accommodation and trails, with management working under perverse incentives to increase revenue. These sites are rarely as effective as centrally funded Tiger Sanctuaries whose main purpose is to protect Tigers and their prey. There are exceptions to this, notably Chitwan National Park in Nepal and Kaziranga National Park in India. However, these sites have habitats able to maintain extremely high densities of prey and Tigers, and that allow relatively easy viewing of wildlife. These are not representative of the majority of areas where Tigers persist today across Asia, where densities and visibility are lower.

25

Community-based conservation programs are also rarely effective in preventing organized criminal networks in tropical forests (Leader-Williams and Milner-Gulland 1993), though often these programs are sensibly not designed to achieve this. There are many examples: Zimbabwe during the CAMPFIRE project (Taylor 2009), Zambia’s community-based programs with rhinos (Leader-Williams et al. 1990) and, more recently, Tiger losses in the Terai Arc (Karki et al. 2009). What is needed is for wildlife authorities to direct increased manpower into law enforcement patrols and, where possible, detection rates should be further increased by also improving intelligence networks in the areas surrounding protected areas or Source Sites. Evidence suggests that in the face of organized poaching, wildlife authorities should focus as a priority on increasing detection rates (by an order of magnitude) with a second emphasis on severe penalties for those involved in serious crime (e.g. dealers or gang leaders). Evidence further suggests that imposing stiffer penalties alone is insufficient (e.g. the complete extirpation of the rhino from Zambia where penalties were harsh but detection and effort intensity inadequate), particularly where detection rates are low and magistrates fail to uphold the penalties. Furthermore, organized gangs frequently buy-off officials, and simply consider such penalties as part of their hunting costs. Conversely, improving detection rates, or the perceived risk of getting caught, is something often entirely within the wildlife authorities control and which can be implemented immediately. If the success of Tiger Source Sites is to be judged by increases in Tiger numbers, then the management of these sites must be empowered to focus on this challenging task. Serious consideration should be given to the feasibility of establishing a range-wide network of Tiger Sanctuaries or Reserves. Not only would this provide clarity and purpose for managers and staff, but would allow sustainable financing mechanisms for the recovery of Tigers to be more effectively focused. However, without a system of accountability, a waning of effort on the ground may occur unnoticed. Thus, the minimum necessary conditions would be to establish Tiger Reserves/Sanctuaries, or their equivalent, which are afforded high levels of protection funding and onthe-ground enforcement personnel, and which employ accepted standards for monitoring and accountability for both law enforcement and Tigers populations and their prey.

Source Site Size As stated, Source Sites are not intended to represent areas that, by themselves, maintain Tiger populations capable of isolated, long-term survival. Their more limited size partly represents where the majority of Tigers are now, but also where there is relatively high potential for conservation success. Since conservation success here often means protection from poaching of Tigers and their prey and this is a costly exercise, it is worth considering the issue of scale. The collapse of rhinos and, to a lesser extent elephants, in Africa and the subsequent responses provides useful lessons. With rhinos, it took a global population collapse for conservationists to recognize that focussed, intensive interventions were necessary. While differing in their ecology and requirements, the Tiger’s own collapse is not entirely different and yet seems to be having the reverse effect, pushing debates on unrealistically large landscapes with over-arching ambitions of high-value animals wandering unmolested through corridors of human-dominated landscapes in some of the most densely populated areas on earth. While Tigers undeniably require far larger areas than rhinos, and small isolated fragments are insufficient, selecting vast landscapes is not rational, realistic or constructive. It is also important that prioritisation maps for Tiger conservation represent objective priorities for Tigers and do not represent institutional priorities. It is widely accepted that the risk of extinction is reduced in large populations, which are less susceptible to the effects of inbreeding depression, demographic stochasticity and genetic drift (e.g. Soulé 1986, 1987; Caughley 1994). Thus, conservationists, especially international NGOs, give priority to large landscapes. While the theoretical principle is not challenged in this report, its pragmatic application is, and was demonstrably seen to fail for the Black Rhinoceros Diceros bicornis in Africa. Lacking sufficiently high resources for protection, one large Black Rhinoceros population after another was lost from large Protected Areas in East and Central Africa (Leader-Williams and Albon 1988). Meanwhile, Kenya re-established the Black Rhinoceros in small well-protected sanctuaries. The success of this approach threw further practical doubt on the theoretical ideal of protecting large populations, and suggested that efforts should be concentrated on smaller areas (Leader-Williams and Albon 1988, Leader-Williams et al. 1990). While there are ecological reasons why Tigers need larger areas than the Black Rhino, the principle holds true.

26

While we should embrace opportunities to conserve large intact areas containing Tigers, this must be balanced with the practical realities of protecting large areas. More specifically, there is an economy of scale, or "big is best, small is feasible" (Leader-Williams 1989). We should not confuse our long-term ambitions for having well-populated Tiger landscapes with the shorter-term need to focus on realistic objectives that can realise these ambitions.

Setting standards for Source Sites The effective protection of Tigers and their prey is the responsibility of range states. The passing of strong laws, establishment of Protected Areas and the creation of government bodies charged with wildlife conservation has been commonplace throughout these countries and demonstrates a significant level of political commitment critical to successful Tiger conservation. However, far less common has been the translation of this political commitment into effective on-the-ground protection of wildlife, especially commercially high value species such as the Tiger. It is important to distinguish between political commitment, which can take many forms and be somewhat nebulous, and field-based application of that commitment, which is a sub-set of the former and which can be measured. In the next two sections of this report we set-out suggested standards for law enforcement monitoring and for monitoring of Tigers and their prey. If adopted, they form a powerful tool to enhance protection efforts, reduce inefficiencies, bolster field staff morale, improve communication and planning, and measure its overall impact in the number of Tigers and prey. The standards are already proving popular and effective at a number of sites and are now being formally adopted by countries such as Thailand.

27

minimum standards for source site monitoring Law Enforcement Monitoring The importance of law enforcement and monitoring in the successful management of protected areas has been widely documented in a broad range of contexts (Leader-Williams, 1993; Bruner et al., 2001; Hilborn et al., 2006; Byers & Noonburg, 2007; Dobson & Lynes, 2008). For the majority of Tiger Source Sites management is weak and law enforcement capacity poor (Dinerstein et al., 2007; Gratwicke, 2007). We argue that a key aspect of securing Source Sites is improving management effectiveness and strengthening law enforcement capacity. Effective law enforcement requires information on where, how and by whom illegal activities are undertaken, and the ability to apply this knowledge strategically to reduce poaching and other illegal use of natural resources - often in the context of limited human and financial means. To achieve this, a site-based mechanism is required that can capture up-to-date data and convert them into useful information in a timely fashion, presented in such a way as to be easily understood by protected area and wildlife managers. Secondly, effective enforcement requires a transparent and accountable monitoring system with which to evaluate the progress and performance of law enforcement agencies in reducing threats to wildlife. To achieve this, appropriate indicators need to be selected and standardized protocols for data collection and analysis need to be adopted. This chapter presents guidelines for establishing site-based law enforcement monitoring (LEM) programs that will improve both our understanding of threats to Tigers in Source Sites, and the management capacity to respond to these threats effectively. The guidelines are aimed at site-managers and practitioners implementing patrol-based and/or intelligence-based law enforcement approaches in Source Sites. We provide an overview of key concepts, data collection standards and recommended management tools. We highlight the practical and technical challenges involved in the design and implementation of LEM programs and provide recommendations for avoiding common pitfalls. This chapter is not intended as an exhaustive step-by-step manual, rather, as a set of basic principles for site-based LEM. As a minimum standard we call for managers to adopt a standardized approach to law enforcement monitoring in all Tiger Source Sites. Law enforcement monitoring is a tool for improving law enforcement effectiveness; it can provide managers with the information they need to make strategic decisions but it requires that the appropriate legal and judicial support structures and resources be in place. This chapter should therefore be considered as part of an overall investment in and commitment to improving law enforcement effectiveness.

Ranger-based law enforcement monitoring Ranger-based monitoring is the opportunistic collection of data on illegal activities (and other data types including wildlife) by rangers on wildlife protection patrols (e.g. Gray & Kalpers, 2005). Patrols are typically conducted regularly and over large areas, and thus have considerable potential to provide managers with timely and up-to-date information for short-term decision-making. Furthermore, data collection has the additional benefits of being cheap, relying on existing patrol routes and personnel and requiring a minimum of specialized skills or equipment. Ranger-based monitoring can be used as a tool to monitor trends in illegal activities over time. However, patrols are not systematic surveys and by their very nature are typically deployed in areas where illegal activities are high, which introduces considerable bias. Furthermore, ranger-based LEM can bias observations of illegal activities that are predictable in space and time and easy to detect, such as land clearance, over those activities that are harder to detect or less predictable, such as poaching. As a result, care needs to be exercised in interpreting the results from ranger-based LEM, and there exist a number of caveats to the use of rangerbased monitoring methods for quantitative analysis of trends. Rather, a framework is provided here for evaluating LEM data that will help site managers to make informed decisions regarding patrol deployment and allocation of resources.

28

Law enforcement effort An important feature of ranger-based law enforcement monitoring is the relationship between law enforcement effort and the illegal activity encountered on patrols. The relationship between patrol effort and observations of illegal activity is typically expressed as Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), analogous to measures used in fisheries management to assess the status of fish stocks, and used as an index of relative abundance for a particular illegal activity or threat indicator, for example, number of snares per km patrolled, or number of poachers arrested per patrol day (Leader-Williams, 1990). Quantification of law-enforcement effort is thus required to adjust for varying effort in measuring incidence of illegal activity over time. Depending on the type of patrolling, law enforcement effort can be expressed in a variety of ways, from extremely simple measures to measures corrected for unit time, unit area, size of patrol group and other relevant variables. In general, measures should be kept as simple as possible, with distance patrolled (for surveillance patrols), number of patrol days, and patrol coverage (or area patrolled) being three of the most critical measures of effort.

Selecting indicators for illegal activities (the ‘Catch’) Absolute levels of illegal activity, such as poaching, can rarely be measured due largely to their illicit nature. Proxy indicators of illegal activities therefore need to be selected and these should be measurable and sensitive to changes in the level of threat. For example, hunting camps might be a suitable indicator for poaching if hunters typically travel long distances and spend several days on hunting trips, but would fail to account for short or day-long hunting trips where camps were not constructed, and therefore underestimate level of hunting pressure. As a general rule of thumb, indicators should be defined according to site management objectives. In reality, these will range from quite general information on human activities, to specific indicators on poaching of key species. Furthermore, this will very likely vary considerably between sites. To permit a level of standardization of threat monitoring across different sites (for example either within a national network of protected areas, or range-wide for a particular species) whilst recognizing flexibility in local conditions at the site level, a two-tiered approach to defining indicators is recommended: 1. Broad-scale human impacts Under the Tigers Forever program with Panthera, standardized indicators on human activities were developed using the unified classification of direct threats developed by the World Conservation Union and Conservation Measures Partnership (IUCN –CMP; (Salafsky et al., 2008)). This system enables standardized threat measures within and between sites, and is applicable across a wide range of different types of monitoring (for example recording observation of human activities by biological monitoring teams), not just LEM. The system is also scalable and highly adaptable to different local contexts: for example it has been successfully applied in a number of sites across the Tiger’s range, from the Russian Far East to Malaysia. 2. Site-specific indicators for particular threats to key species Under the Tigers Forever program with Panthera, a series of specific indicators were also developed for the poaching of Tigers and their prey that are considered to best reflect the levels of poaching pressure. Principal indicators include one or more of the following: • • • •

Number of illegally killed Tigers Number of snares or traps confiscated (triggered by Tigers and/or prey) Number of illegal/un-registered firearms Number of Tiger/prey poaching or trade violations (seizures, arrests, prosecutions)

These indicators will vary in importance and in specific details between sites. For example, the relative importance of snaring and firearms to poach Tigers and their prey varies across sites.

29

Assumptions of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) The interpretation of CPUE indices for monitoring levels of illegal activity relies on the following assumptions: 1. Patrol records are reliable accounts 2. Relationship between law enforcement effort and catch is constant 3. CPUE is proportional to true abundance of threat Guidelines for avoiding some common pitfalls that frequently violate these assumptions are provided below. ‐

Patrol records are reliable accounts Accurate recording of observations by rangers requires regular training and supervision, which in turn can address skill levels and motivation of patrol teams – both of which can negatively impact data quality. Data collection protocols also need to be developed in such a way as to remove ambiguity and avoid overloading rangers in the field. Law enforcement monitoring protocols also typically require that observations of illegal activities are recorded only once, thus a system needs to be put in place to ensure that signs of illegal activities (e.g. snares, camps etc.) are either removed, destroyed or marked in some way to avoid duplicating records.

‐

Relationship between law enforcement effort and catch is constant To assume that the relationship between law enforcement effort and catch is constant implies that all occurrences of a particular illegal activity indicator (for example, snares or poachers) have an equal chance of being detected by patrols. In reality there are many examples of why this is often not the case. For example, patrol deployment typically varies across space and time, or in other words, across zones and seasons. Thus, at a minimum, interpretation of CPUE indicators for monitoring trends needs to control for both spatial and temporal variation in patrol effort. Care should be taken to avoid extrapolating results over areas without any patrol effort at all, or where patrol effort is low or highly variable – for example, zones that are visited rarely – as these zones provide very little useful quantitative data for monitoring trends, although may still provide useful anecdotal information to management on the presence of a particular threat. It is recommended to monitor trends in CPUE indicators in those areas that are patrolled regularly and to divide these areas into sectors that have a relatively constant and even coverage of patrol effort from month to month. Secondly, different types of patrol (e.g. surveillance, intelligence) and means of transport (e.g. foot, vehicle) can influence the probability of detecting illegal activities if present. For example, foot patrols are much more likely to locate snares hidden in the forest, than patrols in a vehicle. Vehicle patrols on the other hand may be more likely to apprehend transport of illegally logged wood or other trafficked products. Also, patrols that are based on specific intelligence are more likely to result in a ‘catch’ than routine surveillance patrols. This information, in and of itself, is of interest to managers looking to maximize return from their investments. Data collection procedures should therefore document patrol type and means of transport and it is recommended to distinguish between different patrol types and transport in the analyses and interpretation of CPUE indicators.

‐

CPUE is proportional to true abundance of threat Perhaps the most important assumption of using CPUE indicators to monitor threat levels is that the CPUE indicator is directly proportional to the actual or true level of threat. In other words, if we measure an increase or decrease in the number of poachers caught, we assume that this represents an actual increase or decrease respectively in the level of poaching pressure. This is a particularly important assumption for law enforcement monitoring and allocation of patrol effort as it can potentially lead to a situation where our data give the impression that a threat is decreasing, when in reality it is stable, or worse, actually increasing.

30

Two possible violations of the assumption that CPUE is proportional to true level of threat are illustrated in Figure 1. Of these, hyper-depletion is probably the most serious with respect to law enforcement monitoring and conservation, as it implies that the threat level is lower than it actually is. It is almost impossible to tell from the law enforcement data alone whether this assumption is being violated. Some idea can be gained however by assessing whether any of the likely causes are present in a given context (see Table 5).

Figure 1. Possible relationships between CPUE and abundance (taken from Milner-Gulland & Rowcliffe, 2007)

In certain instances violation of assumptions can be partly avoided by adopting clear data collection protocols and appropriate analytical methods. Regardless of the context, it is generally recommended that independent measures of illegal activities be obtained periodically to verify and calibrate the results from ranger-based LEM (See Improving the Analysis and Interpretation of Law Enforcement Monitoring Data). Table 5. A summary of the key reasons why the assumption of proportionality between CPUE and true threat level may be violated (adapted from (Milner-Gulland & Rowcliffe, 2007)) Type of violation

Type of cause

Specific example

Hyper-stability

Inappropriate analysis

Aggregating data over a wide area (or timescale) to include zones (or time periods) with low enforcement effort, and high levels of threat

Hyper-depletion

Law enforcement strategy

Switch in focus of strategy to target a particular activity at the expense of other illegal activities


Lack of motivation to detect and/or record signs of illegal activity


When incentives/bonuses are provided for enforcement staff, satiation may occur once a target has been reached and teams switch focus to other illegal activities

Inappropriate analysis

Aggregating data over a wide area (or timescale) to include zones (or time periods) where law enforcement effort is high (and levels of threat low)

Poacher (or other violator) strategy

Poacher evades capture by law enforcement agents, either by avoiding areas that are used predictably by law enforcement teams or changing technique to one that is less detectable

(CPUE overestimates actual level of threat) (CPUE underestimates actual level of threat)

31

MIST: an information management tool for ranger-based LEM What is MIST? MIST is an integrated spatial Management Information SysTem (MIST), developed in 1997 through a collaborative project between Ecological Software Solutions (ESS), GTZ and the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) for implementation across Uganda’s protected area network. MIST was custom-built to meet the law enforcement needs of protected area managers by collating standardized data on measures of law enforcement effort, observations of illegal activities and patrol actions, and converting these into useful information for management planning1. Because it was designed using a bottom-up approach, it focuses on the key information and output needs of managers and addresses the technical and practical challenges of data transfer and data management with limited on-site resources and capacity. MIST is currently maintained and distributed free of charge by ESS for non-commercial use (http://www.ecostats.com/software/mist). It is implemented in Delphi with ESRI MapObjects to obtain the GIS functionality and is available as a standalone package comprising a client/server application program and associated data collection procedures. Both the data collection procedures and the software application were developed in such a way that they can be tailor-made by the user to reflect differences in issues, objectives, and threats at local level and in different protected areas or even land-use categories throughout a country. One of the greatest strengths of MIST is the capacity to provide a platform on which to apply a standardized approach to the collection, management, evaluation and communication of ranger-based law enforcement monitoring data, through a user-friendly interface that bypasses the need for complex data-basing skills and GIS software packages. MIST is currently employed by protected area and wildlife agencies in sites across Africa and Asia2. As well as improving management effectiveness, the approach has also succeeded in fostering multi-agency collaboration in law enforcement efforts and in harnessing a general interest by government and other agencies in adopting a standardized and transparent approach to the monitoring and evaluation of law enforcement efforts. Before starting MIST data collection at a site there are a number of preparatory and planning steps that should be considered, and which are outlined in Box 1. An initial investment of time and effort into setting up the system at a site will help to ensure the LEM program is sustainable, efficient and fully supported by the relevant stakeholders. For managers wishing to implement MIST in multiple protected areas or sites, it is recommended to first select one or two pilot sites with which to test the system and process, before refining the process and replicating it on a larger scale.

MIST was originally designed to deal with a broad range of different data types of relevance to protected area management. The MIST GIS component has a total of seven different application tools to aid management planning: wildlife counts from aerial surveys, tracking of park visitation fees, community-based monitoring of NTFP resource-use, research observations, anecdotal observations, air patrols and ground patrols. Of these, the ground patrols application is by far the most developed and well-tested and is the focus of this chapter.

1

MIST is currently being implemented in a diverse range of contexts, from protected areas to wildlife management programs in logging concessions, from terrestrial to marine ecosystems and in forested and savanna habitats. 2

32

Box 1: Summary of steps for setting up MIST-based LEM at a site: 1. Define resources, personnel and training needs 2. Define LEM objectives and monitoring indicators 3. Create MIST data structure for patrol observations 4. Define patrol staff, stations, type of law enforcement activities and other patrol effort attributes 5. Develop MIST data sheets and data collection protocols for patrol teams 6. Determine reporting needs and map outputs 7. Spatially delineate management sectors for LEM reporting and compile other key GIS data layers

Personnel and other resource needs Defining the personnel and capacity needed at the site-level is a key step to accomplish early in the process. One of the benefits of ranger-based LEM is that it is typically not necessary to recruit additional personnel for data collection as existing law enforcement rangers will fulfil this role. It is therefore assumed that sufficient law enforcement staff are already in place and have been trained in basic enforcement and field skills. Additional training of patrol teams in MIST data collection procedures however will be required, and it is recommended to include this as a specific module in standard law enforcement training and refresher courses. There are two additional roles that need to be filled for the implementation of MIST at a site. These are the MIST User and, in certain situations, the MIST Database Manager. These are not necessarily full-time roles but do have differing requirements in terms of location, skills, and responsibilities. In general it is recommended to train at least two staff members on MIST procedures to ensure sustainability. Basic terms of reference for these two positions are as follows:

Mist User - The MIST user is the person responsible for MIST data entry at the site and monthly reporting.

This is an important role and appropriate training in MIST data entry and reporting is required. The MIST user needs to be able to use a GPS and computer, speak and write basic English1 and ideally be based at the site. They do not need to have any specialized database or GIS training, but they must understand basic computer functions (Windows, email, etc). They also need to regularly interact with the patrol teams to ensure that data collection forms are filled in correctly, and are required to submit monthly MIST reports (or information as requested) to the site manager.

MIST Database Manager and/or Coordinator - The database manager is responsible for managing and maintaining the MIST database. This role is particularly important if MIST is to be rolled out in more than one protected area and a central coordination database is to be established. This individual would have a more advanced level of training in computers, and would typically be based in the national or provincial capital where electricity supply is more reliable. This individual would also be responsible for advanced features of MIST for customize reporting templates and editing the data structure. The database manager would communicate regularly with site-based MIST Users, conduct regular quality-control checks on the MIST data and assist in training/refresher courses for MIST Users and rangers in data-collection protocols.

1 English is currently the default language of the MIST software. Whilst it is possible to customize data collection forms and reports into local languages, the software application, commands and dialogue windows are all in English. Whilst translation of the software may be possible to outsource for languages based on the Latin alphabet (e.g. French, Spanish), languages using other alphabets or character types are not supported by the current programming platform.

33

Equipment and other resources MIST is a spatial management information system and requires spatial data to be regularly collected by rangers. GPS units therefore need to be available to each patrol team. For patrol distances to be measured with a reasonable degree of accuracy in MIST it is recommended as a minimum for rangers to take position waypoints (not tracklogs) every 30 minutes when on patrol. GPS battery requirements should therefore be factored into budgets accordingly. The MIST User needs to have access to a single computer on-site, on which is installed the MIST database and which is used for data entry, GPS download and preparation of MIST reports. No other software packages are required. A constant power supply for the computer is not necessary at the site. Data can be block-entered once a month or entered on a continual basis depending upon the set-up. Internet connection at the site is not required to operate MIST. A site should have some mechanism of sharing MIST reports with the site manager and senior patrol staff on a regular basis. This can be done either by printing hard copies of MIST reports or through projecting MIST reports and maps on a screen during monthly patrol meetings. A site should also have some mechanism for backing up MIST data and, in the absence of e-mail, for providing (and receiving) MIST updates from the MIST Database Coordinator. Updates can be managed by copying relevant files on a USB flash.

Data collection procedures Data requirements for ranger-based law enforcement monitoring need to be focused on providing the necessary information for management without overwhelming rangers with complicated data collection protocols at the expense of the task at hand - law enforcement. MIST works on the following principles for data collection: -

-

Standardized: data needs to be recorded in a consistent and unambiguous way Simple: the data collection system must be easy to use with a minimal amount of formal education and fully localized into regional languages and cultures Fast: time spent recording data by rangers must be kept to a minimum Flexible: it must be possible to adapt data collection to meet the needs of different users and in different contexts of natural resource management, reflecting differences in objectives and threats in different protected areas or wildlife management zones Specific: only data which can be processed into information useful for management decision-making should be collected by rangers

Standard data inputs for MIST include the following: ‐ ‐ ‐

GPS waypoints (coordinates, dates and time of observations and patrol routes) Information about the patrol (e.g. patrol dates, names and numbers of rangers, type of patrol and means of transport) Patrol observations (e.g. number and type of illegal activities)

MIST uses a standardized nomenclature for patrol observations, which are arranged at four hierarchical levels, as illustrated in Figure 2. Observations are pre-defined by the user and in the MIST database these observations appear as look-up lists to facilitate data entry. Defining observations in MIST is flexible and can be fully customized to a particular site or context, whilst still ensuring a minimum level of standardization. For example, in Figure 2 observation categories are standardized at the Observation Group, Observation and Observation Type level (corresponding to IUCNCMP threat definitions), but are site-specific at the Observation Remarks level. Note also that the amount of detail at the Observation Remark level will depend upon the needs of a particular site. The look-up list options currently used by Tigers Forever sites are shown in Annexe I. An example of Observation Remarks developed for a particular Tigers Forever site is given for poaching in the Nam Et Phou Louey National Protected Area, Lao PDR in Annexe II.

34

Figure 2. Hierarchical structure of observations in MIST

MIST outputs MIST outputs take the form of reports, maps, tables and charts. Standard output formats come pre-installed with the software application. In addition, data-specific outputs using a standard template can be created ondemand and fully-customized output templates can be created and added by the user. MIST reports and maps are the primary means of direct and regular feedback to site managers. As such, they should be designed in such a way as to be user-friendly and easily understood and tailored to specific local needs and cultures. Examples of typical outputs include: ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Indicators of illegal activities (expressed as CPUE) Distribution maps of illegal activities for monitoring and planning Patrol and ranger performance indicators (including number of patrol days and distance patrolled) Patrol coverage maps Standardized reports to meet institutional requirements

MIST information flow In order to provide site managers with prompt up-to-date information it is vital that MIST is fully integrated into the management planning cycle and that regular and direct feedback in the form of MIST reports and outputs are provided. MIST information flow at the site level, including roles and responsibilities at each step of the management cycle is illustrated in Figure 3. Regular feedback to patrol teams on performance and outputs can, in turn, contribute considerably to a better team spirit and motivation. In order to provide a coordinated flow of information from the site up to national-level management for planning and resource allocation, sharing of MIST data is performed by a process of data replication, whereby a central database, housed for example in the relevant wildlife agency HQ, receives regular update files (via a USB flash drive or email) from protected area or site-based databases. Site-users have access only to their individual site database, which is operated on a stand-alone PC. Conversely, users at the wildlife

35

agency HQ can access information on multiple protected areas from a single central database. User privileges at all levels can be controlled accordingly (see Figure 4). In order to maintain a standardized approach to data collection and reporting across all protected areas or sites, database management and editing is typically performed at the central – or national – level. Edits to the database structure (such as changes to the observation structure or reporting templates) are then disseminated to individual sites via the replication process. The result is a one-way flow of data from the sites to the central database and a one-way flow of database and software updates from the central database to the sites.

Figure 3. MIST implementation process at the site level

36

Figure 4. MIST: Data and information flow and user access at site and national level

Wildlife/Protected Area Agency HQ

Central Database

Users

PA Database

Managers

Protected Area Data Collection

Data entry and import Database replication (via email or USB flash drive) Information for management planning (e.g. soft/hard copies of reports, maps and tables) Access to information at HQ level (via LAN network) Access to information at PA level

37

Intelligence-based law enforcement monitoring For wildlife crimes that are rare, unpredictable or highly covert operations, patrol-based law enforcement monitoring should be bolstered by local intelligence-based monitoring to improve detection – and ultimately deterrence - rates. This is particularly the case for wildlife crime that is both organized and lucrative, and where the potential reward for poachers and traders outweighs the costs of getting caught by patrol teams, for example Tiger poaching. Intelligence-based law LEM also has the potential to quickly identify emerging trends in illegal activities, and, if implemented effectively, can both complement and strategically enhance patrol-based law enforcement approaches. Local intelligence-based LEM relies primarily on establishing effective informant networks in areas immediately surrounding Source Sites. Informants can take a variety of forms from agency staff to community-members, and can vary in the type of arrangement from salaried staff, rewards for pro-bono information, to anonymous reports via crime hotlines. Information can be actively sought or passively received by the relevant law enforcement agency. There is no standard prescription for setting up an effective informant-network, but in most cases these are developed at the discretion of one or a handful of key individuals on-site. Effective informant networks take time to develop both in their quantity and quality. A mechanism is then needed for converting informant reports into verified information that can be acted upon by the relevant enforcement agencies in a timely manner. This system should be able to integrate intelligence from different informants in order to build up a more complete and accurate picture of the crime and its perpetrators, as well as identify key reliable informants and gaps in the intelligence-network. The system also needs to be able to evaluate the efficiency of law enforcement agencies in responding to information, and pursuing crime reports through to a successful conclusion, for example arrest and prosecution. Finally, any system needs to be able to identify and monitor trends in the type and nature of illegal activities. For the purposes of evaluating trends in illegal activities, data collected through informant networks present a number of challenges. What we want to know is the actual level of a covert activity (for example Tiger poaching), whereas the data points we have available are informant reports of this activity. If reports are few, is this because law enforcement is effective and there is no poaching, or because the informant network, intelligence and level of reporting is poor? Similarly, if the number of reports is high, is this because enforcement is poor or because the informant network and level of reporting is well-developed? There are therefore at least two important variables that we need to understand: reporting effort and law enforcement effectiveness. This is a similar concept to our catch/effort indicators for ranger-based LEM. The difference with intelligence-based monitoring is that reporting effort and law enforcement effectiveness are not directly measurable (they are latent variables); we therefore need to develop appropriate proxy indicators, that are measurable, and which reflect these two processes.

38

Figure 5. Conceptual basis of intelligence-based law enforcement monitoring, showing latent variables (law enforcement effectiveness and reporting effort) and examples of proxy indicators for monitoring listed beneath them

Identifying proxy variables Reporting effort Reporting effort reflects the efficiency of the informant network in reporting illegal activities. This is often a complex system involving reports from multiple sources using multiple methods of data recording obtained by the law enforcement agencies by multiple means. Measures for quantifying the reporting effort will depend upon the size and coverage of the informant network, who the informants are, if the information was actively or passively received and whether or not the information was paid for or rewarded in some way. At a minimum these parameters should be recorded and monitored. Ideally, the relationship between these parameters and the access to information about illegal activities should be evaluated. There will likely be additional site-specific parameters depending on the set-up at a particular site.

Law enforcement effectiveness The effectiveness of law enforcement operations in reducing illegal activities depends both on the efficiency with which law enforcement agencies can respond to informant reports (the ratio between total reports received and total reports that are acted upon), and the rate at which a law enforcement response results in a successful outcome (the ratio between total law enforcement responses and the total successful responses). The definition of ‘success’ will depend upon the site and the particular illegal activity, but for an activity such as Tiger poaching, a successful law enforcement response might be an arrest followed through to the appropriate sentence by law. Again, these are two possible proxy indicators for law enforcement effectiveness that are likely to influence the true level of illegal activity and are important to monitor. There will likely be other additional site-specific parameters depending on the local context. One example is the role of media exposure as a deterrent, particularly in successful law enforcement outcomes in response to illegal activity.

Information management tools for intelligence based LEM A number of commercially available and valuable tools exist in order to assist law enforcement authorities in conducting intelligence-led investigative approaches to deterring and solving crime. These range from sophisticated applications for developing intelligence networks to performance-monitoring tools for

39

managing and tracking criminal cases (see http://www.iaca.net/Software.asp for a relatively thorough review of currently available software for crime analysis). Although none of these were developed with wildlife law enforcement as their primary focus, many of these tools are of considerable use and interest to wildlife law enforcement agents – particularly in tackling organized criminal networks involved in cross-border wildlife trade, and some are currently being used to varying degrees. There is no single commercially available management tool (such as MIST) that addresses all of the standards raised here in managing, monitoring and evaluating site-based informant-based law enforcement approaches. Custom-developed in-house systems exist within particular agencies and organizations, but there is little coordination or adherence to any minimum standards for monitoring crime and law enforcement effectiveness. Moreover there exist no management tools of this type which are scalable to a broad range of local contexts and cultures. There is therefore a need for a standardized approach to site-level informant-based law enforcement monitoring, and a suitable tool with which to address this1. There is not likely to be a single management tool that can address all site-based law enforcement monitoring needs (intelligence and patrol-based law enforcement approaches) and different sites will have differing requirements and resources available to them in deciding which tool to use. We advocate instead the adoption of standardized and complementary monitoring approaches, aimed at improving our understanding of illegal activities and thus improving the effectiveness of law enforcement strategies in addressing them.

Improving the analysis and interpretation of law enforcement monitoring data Statistical approaches for the quantitative analysis of LEM data There are currently no standard ‘off-the-shelf’ statistical approaches or models for the quantitative analysis of law enforcement data. However, a number of standard modelling approaches exist that can be applied to law enforcement data in order to incorporate sampling error and data uncertainties and improve our inference of patterns and trends. Modelling approaches should not be seen as a panacea to the inherent challenges of law enforcement monitoring and are only as good as the data on which they are based. Their utility will nevertheless be greatly enhanced by data that is collected according to the minimum standards presented in this chapter. Regression models can be used to determine the relationship between indicators of illegal activities and key predictors such as measures of law enforcement effort, including type of patrol, distance patrolled and number of patrol staff (Jachmann, 2008) in order to extrapolate levels of illegal activity over time. A similar practice is used in constructing standardized indices of CPUE in commercial fisheries, which are subject to similar sources of bias as patrol-based data (see (Maunder & Punt, 2004) for a review of recent approaches). Occupancy-based models (Mackenzie et al., 2002) also have potential for investigating the spatial patterns and processes of illegal activity indicators over time, and examining the relationship between occupancy and key co-variables. Occupancy-based models have the additional advantage of estimating the probability of detecting illegal activities, if present, and to examine the relationship between detectability and co-variables such as patrol type or law enforcement strategy. These models are particularly well-suited to patrol-based data, given their relative robustness to missing values and unequal sampling effort over space and time.

In response to this, the WCS, in consultation with Ecological Software Solutions have designed a fully open-source and sitebased wildlife crime information management system. This system is currently being piloted in Sumatra, Indonesia, but will have broad applicability to intelligence-based law enforcement approaches at the site and national level. For information about the Wildlife Crime Database and to track progress in its development, see http://www.pamis.org/trac/cdb/wiki/WildlifeCrimeAbout 1

40

Models of illegal behaviour based on enforcement data have also been combined with population models, to test management assumptions and examine the effectiveness of different law enforcement interventions in reducing illegal off take and impacting target species (Milner-Gulland & Leader-Williams, 1992; Hilborn et al., 2006; Byers & Noonburg, 2007). Finally, simulation models are particularly well-suited to examining trends in illegal activities from enforcement data as they can explicitly address limited data, uncertainty in available data and incorporate additional information from a wide range of different sources (Burton, 1999; Pitcher et al., 2002).

Independent assessments of illegal activities One of the main challenges for law enforcement monitoring programs is that data collected by law enforcement teams is likely to influence the very variables we are interested in measuring. Given this, and the many inherent assumptions of enforcement-based monitoring, we recommend that periodic checks and balances are undertaken in order to verify and calibrate the results of LEM and to confirm the course of management interventions taken. Of particular relevance are independent (i.e. non-enforcement related) assessments of illegal activities. Examples include wildlife survey teams recording indirect signs of illegal activities on systematic transects or plots, or community-based questionnaires focusing on direct reporting of illegal behaviour (see (Gavin et al., 2009) for a recent review of the costs and benefits of different methods for recording illegal behaviour). These data can be combined with law enforcement monitoring data through a process of triangulation to obtain a more holistic picture of the status of threats at a particular site. Moreover, in a conceptual framework, these data can be used to test assumptions governing driving factors of particular threats and the expected outcomes of law enforcement activities. For example, if poaching of ungulates in a protected area was assumed to be driven by demand from local wild meat restaurants and markets, then data from systematic market surveys on wild meat availability could be combined with patrol-based law enforcement data on poaching infractions to test our assumptions of how law enforcement interventions are reducing threats (de Merode et al., 2007).

Coordinating biological and law enforcement monitoring programs There are a number of site-specific factors that can influence the propensity of different threats and their drivers. For example, wildlife abundance and distribution will likely influence both the spatial distribution of and intensity of poaching – particularly of rare and highly sought-after species such as Tigers, elephants and rhinos (Leader-Williams, 1990; Jachmann, 2008). Information on wildlife abundance and distribution can, in turn, inform the strategic deployment of law enforcement teams to protect those species. Moreover, regular and reliable data on wildlife populations from statistically-rigorous survey methods can function as an important and periodic barometer for assessing law enforcement effectiveness. It is strongly recommended that a mechanism for regularly integrating information from both law enforcement teams and wildlife survey teams is established at a site, and used to feedback regularly to management planning and deployment of law enforcement operations.

41

Annexe I: MIST Look up list options currently used by Tigers Forever sites OBS GROUP

OBSERVATION Biological resource use Mining

Human activities

Agriculture Habitat alteration Trade2

Human disturbance

Mammals3

Key Species

Features

Saltlick New settlement Human trail Seasonal village

OBS. TYPE Hunting Fishing NTFP collection Logging Gold panning Shifting Cultivation Plantations Livestock grazing Uncontrolled fire Wildlife Wood NTFP Military exercises Trespassing Recreational Use Sighting Kill (for carnivores) Track Carcass Scat/Dung Wildlife use/not used Used/abandoned Used/abandoned

REMARKS1 People, weapons/gears, Patrol Action, Transportation, Species/parts(#), Camps, Gunshots People, weapons/gears, Patrol Action, Transportation People, weapons/gears, Patrol Action, Transportation NTFP species(#) People, weapons/gears, Patrol Action, Transportation, Wood specie (#) People, weapons/gears, Patrol Action, Transportation, Gold People, weapons/gears, Patrol Action, Transportation, Crops, Land status, Area, Camps People, weapons/gears, Patrol Action, Transportation, Crops, Land status, Area, Camps People, weapons/gears, Patrol Action, Transportation, Livestock(#), Camps Habitat type, Area, Age of burning People, weapons/gears, Patrol Action, Transportation, Species/parts(#) People, weapons/gears, Patrol Action, Transportation, Wood species(#) People, weapons/gears, Patrol Action, Transportation NTFP species(#) People, Patrol Action, Transportation People, Patrol Action, Transportation People, Patrol Action, Transportation Age/Sex(#) Species Measurements Age of carcass, cause of death, seizures ID/collection -

Categories only included here – items under each category (e.g. weapons, people etc) will be site-specific Trade is used specifically for checkpoints/roadblocks or market controls, where illegal activities are detected away from their source 3 Observation categories for Birds and Mammals also included at some sites 1 2

42

Annexe II: MIST data structure for poaching in Nam Et Phou Louey National Protected Area, Lao PDR

43

Monitoring of Tigers and Tiger prey Why Monitor Tiger Populations at Source Sites? The goal of Tiger conservation efforts is to address the current crisis and recover Tiger numbers. Therefore, such efforts must measure their own effectiveness. While general conservation projects can afford ‘soft’ metrics (e.g. money spent, meetings held, awareness raised, employment generated, human welfare gains made, etc.) for measuring successes, these surrogates have proven inadequate for the challenges posed by the Tiger crisis. Tiger population recovery (or lack of it) can be reliably assessed only by direct measurement of Tiger densities (number of Tigers/100 km2) at the targeted recovery site (Karanth et al. 2009). While in the past the lack of adequate monitoring methods may have compromised the value of making this attempt, today we have no such excuses. As with other commercially valuable species such as rhinoceroses, regular and statistically reliable estimates of Tiger density are critical if managers are to detect rapid changes in populations that occur, for example, from poaching. Measuring changes in relative Tiger densities or spatial distributions (habitat occupancy) across wider landscapes is of secondary importance as changes in distribution occur more slowly. Additionally, measuring potential Tiger carrying capacities through assessments of prey base (ungulate densities) is also important, particularly for sites where present status of Tigers is uncertain.

Monitoring Tiger Source Sites Wild Tigers are potentially distributed across Asia over 1.1 million km2 (Dinerstein 2006). However, they survive in remnant, scattered populations threatened by poaching for trade, conflict-related killings and prey depletion driven by local hunters. At present, the sizes of individual Tiger populations or the extent of habitat/area occupied by Tigers within larger landscapes are not well known. The need to objectively assess populations to guide species recovery is thus critical. However, Tigers are secretive, with wide-ranging daily movements (~5-30 km/day), and occur at relatively low densities (