Date post: | 17-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | ramesh-zimbo-boonratana |
View: | 81 times |
Download: | 3 times |
1
FOREST MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROGRAMME
A Rapid Participatory Assessment of WildlifeDiversity in the Dong Sithouane Production Forest
byRamesh Boonratana, Ph.D.
with assistance fromVannalack Sengsavanh and Khongsavanh Chounlamounty
February 2000
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A rapid participatory wildlife diversity assessment, focusing on large mammals, was conducted
in Dong Sithouane State Production Forest, in Savannakhet Province. Dong Sithouane SPF is
one of the two production forests in Lao PDR where FOMACOP’s forest management sub-
program is piloting a ‘village forestry’ program. A program which aims at sustainably managing
forests within traditional village territories to benefit the villagers and the national community. A
planned forest certification for the SPF, however, requires compliance with certain criteria, that
includes adequate protection for endangered wildlife. Hence, this study was carried out to
determine the wildlife diversity values of the SPF, and to propose mitigation measures
appropriate for their conservation.
Semi-structured interviews conducted through village-based participatory wildlife assessments
in 20 villages, and field-based PWAs yielded a provisional list of at least 47 mammal species.
Besides mammals, 26 birds, 8 reptiles and 6 amphibians were recorded from the area. Of the
wildlife reported/recorded, 13 are Globally Threatened species, namely pygmy loris, pig-tailed
macaque, Douc langur, dhole, Asiatic black bear, clouded leopard, tiger, large-antlered muntjac,
gaur, banteng, serow, east Asian porcupine, and the Siamese crocodile. However, if the Asian
elephant, which might occasionally use the extreme eastern part of the SPF be included, then
there would be 14 Globally Threatened species in Dong Sithouane SPF.
Hence, the biodiversity value of Dong Sithouane SPF, at least in terms of mammal diversity and
the number of species having conservation significance is probably at par to the protected areas
in the province. Apparently, however, the density of wildlife population and amount of viable
wildlife habitat available in the SPF are most likely much lower than those in the protected areas.
Furthermore, most, if not all the Globally Threatened species in Dong Sithouane SPF are
reported rare in the area, and may represent remnant populations. Thus, mammal diversity found
in the SPF have better representation in the protected areas located in the province and the
adjoining provinces.
Nevertheless, the presence of several species of conservation significance imply that
conservation measures must be taken to ensure their adequate protection. Their conservation
may, in the long-term, be beneficial to the greater biodiversity conservation efforts, as the
wildlife population in Dong Sithouane SPF might serve as an important gene pool. Main
3
measures needed include setting aside an area, a special ‘conservation management zone’ within
the SPF for their conservation, and establishing feasible and practicable ‘rules and regulations’
with regard to the zone and outside the zone.
Dong Sithouane SPF, because of its location, is theoretically a ‘land corridor’ linking Dong Phou
Vieng NBCA with Xe Bang Nouan NBCA. However, with more than 60 villages in and around
it, with numerous access roads throughout the SPF, and most wildlife restricted to the eastern
part of the SPF, it cannot realistically function as a ‘land corridor’. But with enormous benefits
to be gained by the SPF’s residents, Savannakhet Province and Lao PDR from the forestry
sector, the area justifiably should remain a state production forest.
Biodiversity in Dong Sithouane SPF too, can benefit from ‘village forestry’. There is little doubt
that villagers will actively ensure the protection of biodiversity, if the villagers’ continued
benefits will partly depend on their commitment towards addressing the conservation needs of
biodiversity in the SPF. Looking at the greater picture of biodiversity conservation in Lao PDR,
it might be worth looking at ‘village forestry’ as one possible solution in protecting protected
areas and preventing biodiversity loss in Lao PDR. Hence, ‘village forestry’ in Dong Sithouane
SPF can play an important role as a test case for the ‘Integrated Conservation and Development’
concept. If ‘village forestry’ is unable to address the conservation needs in Dong Sithouane SPF,
then it is obvious that ICAD is not a solution to protecting and managing protected areas. Other
alternatives must be sought. However, if ‘village forestry’ is able to provide adequate protection
to the wild fauna and their habitats, then this is one approach towards protected area
management worth seriously looking into.
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The team wishes to acknowledge Mr. Bouahong Phanthanousy (Director), Mr. Bouaphahn
Phantavong (Deputy Director), Dr. Marko Katila (Chief Technical Adviser), Dr. Manuel Bonita,
Mr. Edwin V. Payuan, and Ms. Vaneska Litz ( FOMACOP Advisers), and the FOMACOP staff
based in Vientiane and Savannakhet, PAFO Savannakhet, and DAFO Thapanthong for
facilitating this study. None the least, acknowledgments are due to the villagers whose
information on wildlife and other assistance have made this report possible. Mr. Bryan L. Stuart
(WCS) kindly identified the amphibians and reptiles recorded.
Ramesh Boonratana, Ph.D. Vannalack Sengsavanh Khongsavanh Chounlamounty
(Consultant) (FOMACOP Adviser) (PAFO Savannakhet)
5
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. 1ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................................................................................... 3CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................... 41. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................... 51.2 AIMS, ACTIVITIES & OUTPUTS...................................................................................... 6
1.2.1 Aims ............................................................................................................................... 61.2.2 Activities ........................................................................................................................ 61.2.3 Outputs ........................................................................................................................... 6
2. METHODS.................................................................................................................................. 92.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 92.2 INITIAL PREPARATIONS ................................................................................................. 92.3 VILLAGE-BASED PWA ................................................................................................... 102.4 FIELD-BASED PWA ......................................................................................................... 11
3. RESULTS.................................................................................................................................. 143.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 143.2 OBSERVATIONS .............................................................................................................. 14
4. DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................... 224.1 DISCUSSIONS ................................................................................................................... 224.2 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 244.3 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 26
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................. 28APPENDIX I: List of Wildlife Reported and/or Recorded at Dong Sithouane SPF, and TheirLocal Names.................................................................................................................................. 29APPENDIX II: Villages Interviewed and Animals Reported....................................................... 33APPENDIX III: Conservation Significance of Wildlife Recorded/Reported at Dong SithouaneSPF ................................................................................................................................................ 36APPENDIX IV: Wildlife Data Recording Format........................................................................ 38APPENDIX V: Human/Habitat Impact Data Recording Format.................................................. 39APPENDIX VI: Brief Discussion on Methodology ..................................................................... 40APPENDIX VII: Study’s Itinerary ............................................................................................... 42
6
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUNDDong1 Sithouane State Production Forest (figure 1), covering an area about 212,000 ha, is
located in Songkhone and Thapanthong Districts of Savannakhet Province, between 15°56.5’ -
16°19.5’N and 105°16’ - 106°11.5’E. The area primarily comprise dry dipterocarp, dry
evergreen, and mixed deciduous forests that has been extensively logged in the past. Since 1995,
the Forest Management and Conservation Project through its Forest Management Sub-program,
has been piloting a ‘village forestry’ project in 47 villages in the area.
‘Village forestry’ is a partnership between the government and organized villages in the co-
management of all forests within the traditional village territories, which aims to sustainably
manage the forested land for the benefit of the villagers and the entire national community
(Phanthanousy & Katila, 1999). This has resulted in the formation of 31 villages into 23 Village
Forestry Associations. These associations have now prepared land-use and forest management
plans covering 77,000 ha of forest in Dong Sithouane SPF2. These plans, with emphasis on
sustainable forest production, cover the management of all forest types and resources, and
address production, conservation and protection of forest resources.
Albeit Dong Sithouane SPF have been identified as a production forest, it is nevertheless,
important to make biodiversity conservation a more integral part of village forest management,
to minimize adverse impacts on biodiversity. Furthermore, the planned forest certification
assessment also requires compliance with certain criteria, that includes the protection of
endangered species and ecologically important ecosystems, as well as monitoring their stability.
To the northeast and south of Dong Sithouane SPF, and partly adjoining it, respectively lie the
1,990 km² Dong Phou3 Vieng (16°07’ - 16°44’N/105°51’ - 106°32’E) and the 1,300 km² Xe4
Bang Nouan (15°44’ - 16°01’N/105°36’ - 106°17’E) National Biodiversity Conservation Areas.
Further north of Dong Sithouane SPF, lies the 1,060 km² Phou Xang He (16°42’ - 17°04’N/105°
19’ - 106°06’E) NBCA5. Both Dong Phou Vieng and Phou Xang He NBCAs are located in
1Dong = forest2SPF = State Production Forest.3Phou = hill or mountain4Xe = river5NBCA = National Biodiversity Conservation Area
7
Savannakhet Province, whereas only part of Xe Bang Nouan NBCA lies in Savannakhet
Province, and the remainder in Salavan Province. Hence, at least 29% of the land area of
Savannakhet Province have been demarcated for conservation and protection, and this partly
addresses the conservation needs of the province (Marko Katila, pers. comm.).
1.2 AIMS, ACTIVITIES & OUTPUTS6
1.2.1 AimsThe main aims of the study are:
• to determine the biodiversity value of Dong Sithouane SPF, and the main threats to it;
• to propose concrete actions for addressing priority conservation needs in the area, including
monitoring changes in biodiversity, and linking information to management decision-
making.
1.2.2 ActivitiesThe activities of this study can broadly be organized into:
• Desk research and preparation for field work;
• Rapid participatory biodiversity assessment;
• Documentation of findings.
1.2.3 OutputsThe main outputs expected from this study include:
• A concise statement:
a) indicating the biodiversity value of Dong Sithouane SPF, in relation to conservation
measures already taken in the province;
b) clarifying the status of Dong Sithouane as a state production forest.
• Potential high conservation value forest areas and rare, threatened, or endangered species of
national or regional importance identified, and where possible mapped;
6The study’s aims, activities and expected outputs form RB’s Terms of Reference.
8
• A concrete, implementable proposal for conservation management interventions including a
simple, village-based monitoring system for monitoring possible changes in valuable
ecosystems/habitats, and presence of endangered species (if applicable), or changes in related
indicators.
10
2. METHODS
2.1 INTRODUCTIONAs Dong Sithouane is a State Production Forest that has been logged over several times, it was
not regarded as an important area for biodiversity when a national system for protected areas for
Lao PDR7 was being established in the early 1990s, and that biodiversity values of the region
have better representation in the three NBCAs located near it. Hence, a rapid ‘minimalist’
approach was used for assess the biodiversity values of Dong Sithouane SPF. Furthermore, time
and monetary constraints do not allow detailed and elaborate efforts.
Albeit the study was carried out within a short period, it was nevertheless intensive. The methods
comprised the initial preparations, village-based participatory wildlife assessment and field-
based PWA8,. As ‘village forestry’ is meant to be a partnership between the government and the
villagers in the co-management of all forested areas within traditional village territories, hence it
was necessary to involve the villagers in all activities carried out in the area.
2.2 INITIAL PREPARATIONSThis primarily involved the gathering of verbal and written information about Dong Sithouane
SPF, and the three NBCAs located nearby. Verbal information was initially gathered through
discussions with wildlife experts based in Vientiane, and almost all the literature on wildlife
diversity and distribution were obtained from the libraries of FOMACOP, IUCN9 and WCS10,
similarly based in Vientiane. These information, reinforced with relevant verbal and written
information from the FOMACOP office in Savannakhet Province, and DAFO11 office in
Thapanthong District, were reviewed along with existing aerial photographs, land use and
topographic maps of Dong Sithouane SPF. Through this preparatory process, areas with potential
biodiversity conservation values, and proposed villages and sites where PWA will be carried out
were identified. Also, this exercise allowed the activities to be planned in a manner to be most
efficient with regard to the limited time available.
7PDR = People’s Democratic Republic8PBA = Participatory Biodiversity Assessment9IUCN = The World Conservation Union10WCS = Wildlife Conservation Society11DAFO = District Agricultural and Forestry Office
11
2.3 VILLAGE-BASED PWAIn this study, village-based PWA refers to the process of gathering information on wildlife and
key wildlife habitats from knowledgeable villagers. Interviews were semi-structured, conducted
in a conversational manner, and in a relaxed atmosphere. This frequently involved initially
making ‘small talk’ to make the respondents feel at ease. Care was also taken by team members
to respect the local customs and culture. All members of the assessment team were conversant in
the Lao language, therefore, an important factor to the verbal data gathering process.
Questions with regard to wildlife presence primarily focused on species of conservation
significance, followed by distinctive and/or easily distinguishable animals. The latter was to
avoid unnecessary confusion over species’ names and descriptions (see appendix VI). With this
in mind, a simple list of potential wildlife possibly present in Dong Sithouane SPF was
developed during the pre-PWA exercise. Inquiries regarding wildlife, however, were not limited
only to those listed in the questionnaire, but included other species as and when opportunities
presented themselves. The list merely serves to guide in the data gathering process.
Besides gathering information about a species presence, information was also gathered about the
species’ locality, and when its evidence was last observed. The species’ general location on map
was extrapolated from the area’s general direction from the village concerned, and the area’s
walking distance (in hours) from the village. It should be noted that the villagers’ average hiking
speed in forested areas range from 15-20 minutes to a kilometer. In addition, villagers were
asked about the presence of mineral licks known to them.
Illustrations of wildlife, those found and not found in Lao PDR, were also shown to the
respondents. This was to gather additional information that the villagers might have to offer, i.e.,
information that was not offered during the interviews, and to cross-check information gathered
during the interviews.
2.4 FIELD-BASED PWAVillage-based PWA was supplemented by short expeditions to the main wildlife area, and to
potential key wildlife habitats. This was to assess the information gathered through village-based
PWA, and to conduct a brief wildlife and human impact surveys. Also, it provided an ‘image’ to
12
the names of places mentioned by respondents. The team, accompanied by two Ban12
Khoktheuleu residents (Lung Nooat and Lung Samien) and a Ban Nalavieng resident (Thao Piu),
established a camp at ‘Daan Falang Thim Khueang’ (16°07’41”N/105°55’36”E), in the eastern
part of Dong Sithouane SPF. Diurnal surveys and a short nocturnal survey were carried from this
campsite. Besides the area around the ‘Daan Falang Thim Khueang’, surveys were also carried
along the eastern boundary of the SPF, and along the dirt tracks joining different villages.
Diurnal survey routes were pre-determined from 1:100,000 topographic maps and/or based on
villagers’ information. Routes normally took the shape of irregular loops, originating and
terminating at the campsite. This allowed greater coverage of an area. Surveys were carried out
on foot, along existing tracks and trails. The chances of encountering an animal or its signs are
higher when surveys are carried out along existing animal trails. Furthermore, using animal trails
have been observed to be effective in covering large areas in tropical rainforests (Boonratana,
1997). Through the field-based PWA, wildlife presence was recorded based on sightings and/or
other evidence (tracks, scats, vocalizations, etc.).
12Ban = village/settlement
13
Plates 1 & 2: Village-based PWA
Participatory wildlife assessment at Ban Nadokthong
Old and young (including this hard-smoking five-year old girl) frequently participated in the PWAs
14
Plates 3 & 4: Field-based PWA
Recording gaur signs at Dong Aa Chien
Checking for wildlife signs at a mineral lick
15
3. RESULTS
3.1 INTRODUCTIONIn the strictest sense, it must be emphasized here that all species reported present in Dong
Sithouane SPF during the PWAs should be regarded as ‘provisional’, until more conclusive
evidence are obtained. However, for biodiversity conservation purposes, the species reported
present should be regarded as still being extant, and their conservation and protection needs must
be incorporated into the management plans and activities of the SPF. Otherwise, there would
inevitably be a further loss of biodiversity. Furthermore, there is a strong reason to believe,
based on unanimous findings, that most, if not all species reported are still extant.
Although the primary objective was to assess wildlife diversity in Dong Sithouane SPF, the team
nevertheless recorded information on human activities, useful in assessing impacts on both
wildlife and habitats, hence identifying threats to their long-term viability. Field PWA was
achieved in a much shorter duration than expected primarily because being the dry season and
free from rice-growing activities, most villagers could be found in their respective villages.
3.2 OBSERVATIONSMammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians reported and recorded in Dong Sithouane SPF during
the village-based and field-based PWAs are listed in Appendix I. It should also be noted that
several indeterminate species whose Lao names were reported are also included here. Some of
these names might possibly represent species that are different from those whose scientific
names are listed. Conversely, some of these names might be different local names for those
whose scientific names are already listed.
Wildlife reported by different villages during PWAs are listed in Appendix II. This is to allow a
better understanding of the species listed in Appendix I, and to those accounted below. Reports
of wildlife presence were not limited to those found in the respective village areas, but included
all areas within the SPF. Based on this information, and those gathered during the preparatory
exercise and field PWA, wildlife in Dong Sithouane SPF are apparently mainly found towards
the eastern part of the SPF (figure 1). Some wildlife are also reported in other parts of the SPF,
mainly in the forested hill range that runs east-west (almost dividing the SPF into the northern
16
and southern halves). In the eastern part of the SPF, wildlife are reported mainly in ‘Dong Aa
Chien’ (the area south of Phou Mali), along the Phou Mali escarpment, and in ‘Dong Phali’ (in
the central part of Dong Sithouane SPF’s eastern boundary, along Highway No. 2313).
Among the species reported and/or recorded in Dong Sithouane SPF (see Appendix III), there
are 14 Globally Threatened species (IUCN, 1996), 31 species threatened and potentially
threatened by trade (WCMC, 1998), and 26 species at risk or potentially at risk in Lao PDR
(Duckworth et al., 1999). It should be noted that this list also included the Asian elephant,
although extirpated from the area, might occasionally use the SPF. Information regarding these
Globally Threatened species are briefly summarized in table 1. Most of these species are mainly
found in the eastern forested area of Dong Sithouane SPF.
The main threats to biodiversity in Dong Sithouane SPF include forest fire, wildlife hunting,
unregulated NTFP harvesting, and livestock grazing. Forest fire, both human induced and natural
is a common feature in the SPF, and is expected to increase in the future with expectedly
devastating results. One village was reportedly razed down as a result of this forest fire. Wildlife
hunting using muzzle-loading guns (in spite of such guns being already handed over to the
province), crossbows, hunting dogs and snares are not uncommon. Trophies and remains of
wildlife were frequently observed in the villages. There is a tendency among the villagers to
‘over harvest’ NTFP, e.g., two or more ‘wells’ in the extraction of ‘yaang’ oil. Sometimes, trees
are chopped down to capture wild animals. Some of the domestic cattle were observed suffering
from ‘foot and mouth’ disease, which could potentially spread to the wild cattle population, as
these domestic cattle ranged far and deep into the main forested areas.
Dong Sithouane SPF, located between Dong Phou Vieng NBCA and Xe Bang Nouan NBCA is
theoretically a ‘land corridor’ linking the two NBCAs. There is, however, very little contiguous
forest cover to directly link the SPF with the two NBCAs. Furthermore, there are more than 60
villages in the SPF, and more around it. With settlements at such a scale and with numerous
access roads throughout the SPF, it is not a realistic ‘land corridor’.
13Highway No. 23 forms part of the historically famous Ho Chi Minh trail. Much of the road and bridges have beenbombed out, making bomb craters a prominent feature along the route.
17
Table 1: Summarized account of the Globally Threatened species in Dong Sithouane SPF.
Species GTCategory
Location in SPF Threats Distribution in LaoPDR
Pygmy loris Vulnerable EW Hill Range;Dong Aa Chien
Fire;Loss of habitat;Possibly hunting
Provisionallylocalized to certainareas
Pig-tailedmacaque
Vulnerable EW Hill Range;Dong Aa Chien
Fire;Loss of habitat;Hunting
Common to mostareas
Douc langur Endangered Dong Aa Chien Fire;Loss of habitat;Hunting
Common in remoteareas of good habitat
Dhole Vulnerable EW Hill Range;Dong Aa Chien
Fire;Loss of habitat;Loss of prey
Common to mostareas
Asiatic blackbear
Vulnerable EW Hill Range?Dong Aa Chien
Fire;Loss of habitat
Possibly uncommonto most areas
Clouded leopard Vulnerable Dong Aa Chien Fire;Loss of habitat;Loss of prey
Uncertain
Tiger Endangered EW Hill Range;Dong Aa Chien
Fire;Loss of habitat;Loss of prey;
Common to mostareas, but possibly inlow numbers
Elephant Endangered Dong Aa Chien? Fire;Loss of habitat
Possibly restricted todense and hilly forestin some areas
Large-antleredmuntjac
Vulnerable Dong Aa Chien Fire;Loss of habitat;Hunting
Restricted to someareas
Gaur Vulnerable Dong Aa Chien Fire;Loss of habitat;Possibly hunting;Possible transferof diseases fromdomestic cattle
Possibly restricted tosome areas
Banteng Endangered Dong Aa Chien Fire;Loss of habitat;Possibly hunting;Possible transferof diseases fromdomestic cattle
Rare in most areas
Serow Vulnerable EW Hill Range;Dong Aa Chien
Possibly hunting Restricted to steepkarst mountains
East Asianporcupine
Vulnerable EW Hill Range;Dong Aa Chien
Fire;Loss of habitat;Hunting
Common to all areas
18
Siamesecrocodile
CriticallyEndangered
Xe Pa-em Loss of habitat Rare, if any found.
Note:EW Hills = the hill range running east west in the central part of Dong Sithouane SPF.Dong Aa Chien = main forest bloc in the eastern part of Dong Sithouane SPF, andinclude Dong Phali and Phou Mali areas.Xe Pa-em = a river in the eastern part of Dong Sithouane SPF. Crocodiles are supposedlyrestricted to the upper reaches of this riverDistribution in Lao PDR primarily with respect to protected areas
19
Plates 5 & 6: Captive primates in Dong Sithouane SPF
A young pig-tailed macaque at Ban Khoktheuleu
A young rhesus macaque at Ban Xeku
20
Plates 7 & 8: Evidence of wildlife presence
Thao Piu observing fresh droppings of sambar deer
KC with quills of recently poached Asiatic brush-tailed porcupine
21
Plates 9 & 10: Threats to wildlife in Dong Sithouane SPF
KC with an active snare of a 500 m long snareline.
A Phayre’s flying squirrel shot
with a muzzle-loading gun.
22
Plates 11 & 12: Impacts on habitat in Dong Sithouane SPF
‘Yaang ‘ oil extraction
This tree was apparently chopped
down to capture pangolins.
23
4. DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 DISCUSSIONSAssuming that all wildlife reported does indeed occur in Dong Sithouane SPF, then there exist
several species of low to high conservation significance. The wildlife population in Dong
Sithouane SPF, possibly representing a remnant population, is likely to be low and might not be
viable in the long-term. This will, however, require intensive field biological surveys before any
statements can be made regarding their density and viability. Furthermore, all the wildlife
reported have better representation in the Lao PDR’s system of protected areas within the
province and in other provinces.
Nevertheless, the species reported/recorded in Dong Sithouane SPF, by virtue of their existence
and conservation significance, and possibly representing an important gene pool, need active
protection and conservation efforts throughout their range. However, there is no further need to
establish Dong Sithouane SPF as an NBCA. Conservation needs of biodiversity in Dong
Sithouane SPF can, however, be addressed by setting aside a special conservation management
zone within the SPF, and establishing rules and regulations with regard to wildlife and NTFP
harvesting, habitat use and other practices, both inside and outside this special zone. The benefits
from ‘village forestry’ are already excellent incentives for the village forestry associations to
include a small component of biodiversity conservation and monitoring in the existing program.
Hence, continued benefits alone can ensure the villagers’ commitment towards biodiversity
conservation.
As mentioned in section 1.1, the biodiversity conservation needs in Savannakhet Province have
partly been addressed by the establishment of Phou Xang He and Xe Bang Nouan NBCAs.
Although realistically, however, setting aside areas for protection in Lao PDR have done very
little for biodiversity conservation and habitat protection in the country, as almost all these areas
receive little or no active management, or in most cases management have been obstacled by
bureaucratic and political issues. Furthermore, even with the establishment of NBCAs,
biodiversity loss is still proceeding at an alarming rate. Biodiversity conservation is currently not
the Government of Lao PDR’s top priority, whereas livelihood improvement is. This is
understandable, given that much of the population are living at subsistence level, and dependent
on the forest resources. However, current livelihood improvement activities would mean very
24
little once Lao PDR loses its biodiversity and natural resources. Then, if that should occur, the
majority would find it difficult even to live at subsistence level.
If FOMACOP’s ‘village forestry’ program can be true to its theory, then ‘village forestry’
program might possibly be one solution towards biodiversity conservation and habitat protection
in Lao PDR. Hence, the concept of ‘low impact and sustainable village forestry’ might actually
prevent the loss of biodiversity and habitats, and improve livelihoods at the same time. Hence, it
might be worth considering introducing ‘village forestry’ as one possible solution in managing
protected areas and preventing biodiversity loss in Lao PDR.
Thus, ‘village forestry’ in Dong Sithouane SPF can actually be a test case for the ‘Integrated
Conservation and Development’ concept. If ‘village forestry’ is unable to address the
conservation needs in Dong Sithouane SPF, even after following the implementation of
measures recommended, then the current ‘Integrated Conservation and Development’ approach
is obviously not the solution to protecting and managing protected areas. Conversely, if ‘village
forestry’ is able to address the biodiversity conservation needs in Dong Sithouane SPF, then the
application of this approach should be seriously considered as one possible option towards
biodiversity conservation in protected area.
Caution should be taken, if there comes a time when ‘village forestry’ should be considered for
introduction in protected areas. It is imperative that forestry activities be limited to restricted
parts of the NBCA’s Controlled Use Zone and forested ‘buffer zone’ areas outside the NBCA.
Nevertheless, even such ‘low impact and sustainable village forestry’ will have some impact on
wildlife and habitat. But this is probably more desirable than the current situation with most
NBCAs, where log and wildlife poaching, forest clearance, and other damaging activities go
unchecked. It must, however, be emphasized that such a program should not be attempted in the
NBCAs, until and unless, such a program has proven true to its theory and has successfully
provided adequate protection and conservation to biodiversity. Furthermore, it should not be
regarded as the only possible solution to the protection of NBCAs, but considered as one of the
possible options.
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS1. Establish a zone for biodiversity conservation in Dong Sithouane SPF:
25
Areas within the east-west hill range and Dong Aa Chien need to be identified and
demarcated as a special conservation management zone within the Dong Sithouane
SPF for biodiversity conservation purposes. Criteria needed for inclusion into this
zone are adequate forest cover, the presence of permanent water bodies and mineral
licks, and information on the distribution and range of wildlife. Wildlife distribution
and range can only be determined from field biological surveys. Such surveys would
also confirm wildlife presence in Dong Sithouane SPF, provide information on their
relative abundance, and provide baseline information for monitoring purposes. Also,
all known mineral licks should be visited, mapped and assessed for their viability
during these surveys.
2. Develop and establish conservation ‘rules and regulations’:
Rules and regulations with regard to wildlife and NTFP harvesting, and the special
conservation management zone, must be developed and established to prevent the
loss of biodiversity. This should be carried out in consultation with the stakeholders
in good faith, therefore ensuring commitment from them. A general ‘rules and
regulations’ with regard to this zone and NTFP harvest in the SPF should be
incorporated into the Village Forest Management Contract (FOMACOP, 1998), and
making appropriate amendments to the contract. A village-specific ‘rules and
regulations’ may also have to be developed for villages with key features (e.g.,
mineral licks).
Ideally, no harvest of wildlife whatsoever should be allowed in this special conservation
management zone. Outside this zone, wildlife harvest can be allowed only for those
species not listed as Globally Threatened by IUCN, in CITES Appendix I, and as At
Risk in Lao PDR. Also, harvest of wildlife outside the special management
conservation zone should be regulated. For example, frogs should not be harvested
during spawning period (see B.L. Stuart in Duckworth et al., 1999). Wildlife harvest
regulation would hopefully ensure a continued supply of protein to the SPF’s
residents.
3. Conservation awareness program in Dong Sithouane SPF:
The on-going conservation awareness program in the SPF should also include listing out
Lao PDR’s protected species to the residents, and laws and penalties with regard to
26
capturing or killing them. Rules and regulations with regard to wildlife and NTFP
harvesting within and outside the proposed special conservation management zone
should also be a priority of the conservation awareness program. This is, however,
possible once those rules and regulations, and the zone are established.
4. Initiate biodiversity monitoring activities for Dong Sithouane SPF:
Biodiversity monitoring can easily be an ‘add-on’ component to the VFA’s other
monitoring activities. Although focus should be on key wildlife species, observations
of other wildlife and human activities should also be recorded. A simple data
recording format currently in use in five NBCAs (appendices IV & V) in Lao PDR
can be used or adapted for use by the VFAs.
Biodiversity monitoring must be carried out regularly on a monthly basis, to observe
trends, if any. Monitoring patrols should focus on main existing wildlife trails, along
waterways, and at mineral licks. These are areas of wildlife concentration.
Information gathering should not, however, be restricted during the monitoring
activity alone. Information should also be gathered opportunistically i.e., when
carrying out other activities or when reported by fellow residents of Dong Sithouane
SPF. A ‘record book’ could be maintained in the villages, where such information
can be recorded and later disseminated. Information to be included can comprise date
of observation, species, evidence, location, name of person/persons reporting, and
remarks/comments.
Imperative to this village-based monitoring system, is to carry out a short training course
for members of the VFAs, both in the ‘classroom’ and in the field, translating theory
to practice. Even with simple data recording formats, training is needed to ensure
legibility and consistency of data recorded, lest the very idea of monitoring is
defeated. Training of village-based monitoring can follow that implemented for three
villages in Nakai - Nam Theun NBCA (Boonratana, 1998). After a year following the
implementation of biodiversity monitoring activities, another short training course is
needed to interpret the data collected, assessing trends in wildlife records and threats.
Training activities should also include the DAFO staff, as they similarly need to
understand the activities carried out by the VFAs. This ‘data interpretation’ training
can follow that carried out for Dong Hua Sao and Phou Xiang Thong NBCAs
(Boonratana, 1999).
27
5. Mitigate threats to wildlife and habitats:
Currently recognizable threats to biodiversity conservation in Dong Sithouane SPF are
forest fires, wildlife hunting and the possible transfer of diseases from domestic cattle
to the wild cattle population. To address forest fires, a comprehensive study on fire
ecology should be carried out. Following that, feasible and practicable management
plan and activities based on mitigation measures needed must be drawn up and
implemented. Also, it may be desirable to train villagers in fire prevention and
control. Guns, other than those issued to the militia, should be handed over to the
provincial authorities. Also, the militia should use their guns only for enforcing
security, and not for hunting. Current practices allow domestic cattle to graze far into
the proposed special conservation management zone. These cattle, some of which
have been observed suffering from ‘mouth and foot’ disease, may potentially transfer
it to the wild cattle.
6. Extend ‘village forestry’ program to totally cover Dong Sithouane SPF:
FOMACOP should extend its activities to include the villages in the eastern part of
the Dong Sithouane SPF. This is an important preliminary activity to ensure
biodiversity conservation needs are addressed, and benefits of village forestry in the
SPF are shared with those villages whose areas should fall partly or totally within the
proposed ‘special conservation management zone’. For those villages that cannot, by
default of the zone’s establishment, harvest timber and NTFP, should earn their share
of shared benefits through their commitment to patrolling and monitoring.
4.3 CONCLUSIONA rapid participatory wildlife diversity assessment in Dong Sithouane SPF has resulted in a
provisional list of at least 87 species, of which 13 are Globally Threatened species. The mammal
diversity value of the SPF is probably at par to the designated protected areas in the province,
although the density of wildlife population and amount of viable wildlife habitat available in the
SPF are very likely much lower than those in the protected areas. Mammal diversity found in the
SPF are, therefore, better represented in the established NBCAs. Thus, at the national level,
Dong Sithouane SPF does not rank high as a conservation priority area. Nevertheless,
biodiversity conservation in Dong Sithouane SPF can be addressed by establishing a ‘special
28
conservation management zone’ and ‘ conservation rules and regulations’. Known and clear
benefits from ‘village forestry’ are important incentives that will ensure the villagers’
commitment towards addressing the conservation needs of biodiversity in the SPF. If
conservation of biodiversity in Dong Sithouane SPF can be successfully achieved, then it might
be worth applying the ‘village forestry’ concept to Lao PDR’s protected areas.
29
REFERENCES
Boonratana, R. 1998. Nakai – Nam Theun Conservation Project [Phase 2]: Wildlife monitoringtechniques and participatory conservation at Nakai – Nam Theun NBCA. Vientiane:IUCN/WCS.
Boonratana, R. 1999. Biodiversity Conservation Project: Training in Field Techniques and DataAnalysis. Vientiane: IUCN/BCP.
Corbet, G.B. and J.E. Hill.1992. Mammals of the Indomalayan Region: a systematic review.London and Oxford: Natural History Museum Publications and Oxford University Press.
Duckworth, J.W., R.E. Salter, and K. Khounboline (comps). 1999. Wildlife in Lao PDR: 1999Status Report. Vientiane: IUCN/WCS/CPAWM.
FOMACOP. 1998. Training Course on Procedures for Registering Village ForestryAssociations, Approving Village Forest Management Plans, and Signing Village ForestManagement Contracts. Savannakhet: FOMACOP.
Inskipp, T.P., N. Lindsey and W. Duckworth. 1996. An annonated checklist of the birds of theOriental Region. Sandy: Oriental Bird Club.
IUCN. 1996. 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN.Phanthanousy, B. and M. Katila. 1999. Village Forestry in Laos: Towards Sustainable Forest
Management. Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the Forest, Trees andPeople Program in Lao PDR from Oct. 22 - Dec. 3, 1999.
Thewlis, R.M, R.J. Timmins, T.D. Evans, and J.W. Duckworth. 1998. The conservation status ofbirds in Laos: a review of key species. Bird Conserv. Internat. 8 (suppl): 1-159.
WCMC. 1998. Checklist of CITES species. Cambridge: CITES and WCMC.
30
APPENDIX I: List of Wildlife Reported and/or Recorded at Dong Sithouane SPF, and
Their Local Names.
Evidence:1 = Sighting (including captive animals,carcasses, trophies & other remains)
6 = Scrapes/Claw Marks
2 = Tracks 7 = Feeding Signs3 = Vocalization 8 = Other (e.g., wallows, bathing pools, mud
smears, antler & horn marks, etc.)4 = Scat/Dung 9 = Verbal report5 = Nests
Mammals14:Common name Scientific name Lao name15 Katang name16 EvidencePangolin spp. Manis spp. Lin Maan-juel 9Chinese pangolin(?) Manis pendactyla(?) Lin ngoua Maan-juel 9Sunda pangolin(?) Manis javanica(?) Lin khwaai Maan-juel 9Northern treeshrew Tupaia belangeri Kachon Se-luay; Se-
lueh1,9
Primate spp. Ling Tamirr 9Loris spp. Nyticebus spp. Ling lom Tamirr kujaal 9Slow loris(?) Nycticebus coucang(?) Ling lom Tamirr kujaal 9Pygmy loris(?) Nycticebus pygmaeus(?) Ling lom Tamirr kujaal 9Macaque spp. Macaca spp. Ling Tamirr 9Pig-tailed macaque Macaca nemestrina Khamut; ling
haang san;ling houa taap
Tamirrkhamut;Tamirr choup;Tamirr khamit
1,9
Rhesus macaque Macaca mulatta Ling haangnyao
Tamirr ratoi 1,9
Silvered langur Semnopithecus cristatus Talung Talung 9Douc langur Pygathrix nemaeus Khadaeng;
Khaeng daengSab-lai; Soy-blai
9
Gibbon spp. Hylobates spp. Thanee Kouan 9White-cheekedcrested gibbon(?)
Hylobates leucogenys(?) Thanee Kouan 9
Golden jackal Canis aureus Ma chok Chi-chor 9Dhole Cuon alpinus Ma nai Se-kong 9Bear sp. Ursus sp. Mi 9Asiatic black bear Ursus thibetanus Meauy Se-kaow 9Sun bear Ursus malayanus Mi Se-koup; Te-
sai9
14 Sequence and names of species follow Corbett and Hill (1992), comparable to Duckworth et al., (1999).15It must be emphasized here that the Lao names for species recorded/reported are correct (unless stated otherwise)only for the Dong Sithouane SPF, and may differ with other areas of Lao PDR. [Note: see text in section 4.2.1]16The predominant Lao Theung ethnic group in Dong Sithouane SPF. [Note: some names vary between villages.]
31
Yellow throatedmarten(?)
Martes flavigula Haen khreua Sampiak pong-kroh?
9
Hog badger Arctonyx collaris Mou lung Paruul 9Ferret badger sp.(?) Melogale sp.(?) Haen kapoo Sampiak
ariang9
Otter spp. Naak Pa haer 9Civet spp. Haen Sampiak 9Large Indian civet(?)
Viverra zibetha(?) Haen haangkaan
Sampiak haangkaan
9
Common palm civet Paradoxurushermaphrodatus
Haen om Sampiak om 9
?? Haen dok lao 9?? Haen daang 9?? Haen phaeng Sampiak
phaeng9
?? Haen i-tan Sampiakariang
9
?? Haen houbaang
9
?? Haen song 9?? Haen jong 9?? Haen khimin 9Binturong Arctictis binturong Haen khaw;
Haen haangkhut
Te-nyu 9
Mongoose spp. Herpestes spp. Chon phon Soon-puon 9Small Asianmongoose
Herpestes javanicus Chon phon Soon-puon tiah 9
Crab-eatingmongoose
Herpestes urva Chon phon Soon-puontreung
9
Leopard cat Prionailurus bengalensis Seua nok;Seua meo
Meo treung;Kola meo;Kola chaem
9
Marbled cat? Pardofelis marmorata? Seua mungmang
9
Asian golden cat? Catopuma temmincki? Seua faai;Seua leuang
Asang 9
Clouded leopard(?) Pardofelis nebulosa(?) Seua kaloot 9Leopard Panthera pardus Seua dao Asang 9Tiger Panthera tigris Seua nyai;
Seua krongAsang; Kolapeut
9
Asian elephant? Elephas maximus? Saang Aa-chiang 9Wild pig(?) Sus scrofa(?) Mou paa Alik krouang 2,4,7,8,9Lesser orientalchevrotain
Tragulus javanicus Kai Se-ang koi 9
Sambar deer Cervus unicolor Kouang Yert; Yourt 2,4,8,9Muntjac spp. Muntiacus spp. Faan Poih 4,9Red muntjac Muntiacus muntjak Faan; Faan Poih tia 1,9
32
thamada; Faankadow
Large-antleredmuntjac
Muntiacus vuquangensis Faan dong;Faan nawa
Poih treung 9
Gaur Bos gaurus Meauy;Khouay paa
Sa-ngorr 2,4,9
Banteng Bos javanicus Ngoua paa;ngoua kathing
Ta-keng; Ta-keng krouang
9
Serow Naemorhedus sumatrensis Nyeuang Keh 9Squirrel spp. Kahok ProokBlack giant squirrel Ratufa bicolor Kahok mo;
Khadaang;Kahok daang
Te-song 9
Variable squirrel(?) Callosciurus finlaysonii(?) Kerhok daeng Prook 9Striped squirrel Tamiops sp. Kalaen Te-lia 9Berdmore’s squirrel Menetes berdmorei Katae Kraaih 9Flying squirrel sp. Baang 9(Larger type) flyingsquirrel sp.
Petaurista philippensis(?) Baang loua;Baang nyai
Te-jurr 9
Phayre’ flyingsquirrel
Hylopetes phayrei Baang tong;Baang noi
Te-liang 1,9
East Asianporcupine
Hystrix brachyura Min Se-keay 1,9
Asiatic brush-tailedporcupine
Atherurus macrourus Hon Se-kai 1,9
Siamese hare(?) Lepus peguensis(?) Katai Te-sai 4,9
Birds17:Common name Scientific name Local Lao name EvidenceChinese francolin Fracolinus pintadeanus Nok katha dong 1,9Scaly-breasted partridge Arborophilia charltonii Nok khaw 1,3,9Red junglefowl Gallus gallus Kai pa 1,3,9Black-headed woodpecker Picus erythropygius Nok sai 1Lineated barbet Megalaima lineata Nok kondok 1,3Oriental pied hornbill Anthracoceros albirostris Nok kaeng 1,9Hornbill sp. Nok kok 9Common hoopoe Upupa epops Nok sai hon kuan 1Indian roller Coracias benghalensis Nok khaochao 1White-throated kingfisher Halcyon pileata Nok kataen 1Greater coucal Centropus sinensis Nok kapoot 1,9Lesser coucal Centropus bengalensis Nok kapoot 1Red-breasted parakeet Psittacula alexandri Nok khaek 1Spotted dove Streptopelia tranquebarica Nok khao 1Red-wattled lapwing Vanellus vanellus Nok tae-tae 1,3Chinese pond heron Ardeola bacchus Nok nyaang 1Red-billed blue magpie Urocissa erythrorhyncha Nok khangkhaet 1 17 Sequence and names follow Inskipp et al. (1996), comparable to Duckworth et al., (1999).
33
Large-billed crow Corvus macrorhynchos Nok kaa 1Black drongo Dicrurus macrocerus Nok saew 1Greater racket-tailed drongo Dicrurus paradiseus Nok saew 1Oriental magpie robin Copsychus saularis 1Black collared starling Sturnus nugricollis Nok ieang mong 1Common myna Acridotheres tristis Nok ieang 1White-vented myna Acridotheres javanicus Nok ieang 1Hill myna Gracula religiosa Nok sieang kaa 1White-crestedlaughingthrush
Garrulax leucolophus Nok kathoua 1
White wagtail Motacilla alba Nok kadaep dau 1Yellow wagtail Motacilla flava Nok kadaep dau 1
Reptiles and Amphibians18:Common name Scientific name Local Lao name Evidence
Rana nigrovittata Khiat 1Rana limnocharis Khiat 1Hoplobatrachus rugulosa Kob 1Microhyla ornata Khiat 1Microhyla berdmorei Khiat 1Microhyla pulchra Khiat 1Mabuya multifasciata Ki-ko 1Calotes versicolor Kapom 1
Water dragon Physignathus cocincinus Kathang 9Bengal monitor Varanus bengalensis Laan 9Water monitor Varanus salvator Hiea 3,9Python sp. Python sp. Ngou leam 9King cobra Ophiophagus hannah Chong-ang 9Siamese crocodile Crocodylus siamensis Khae 9
Note:(?) = animal recorded/reported most likely belongs to the species listed; e.g., Chinese
pangolin? = provisional; subject to confirmation; e.g., Asian golden cat?? = indeterminate
18See Bryan L. Stuart in Duckworth et al., (1999).
34
APPENDIX II: Villages Interviewed and Animals Reported
1. Ban Nasano[16บ 02’20”N/105บ 43’15”E]
8. Ban Kamep Noy[16บ 06’57”N/106บ 08’22”E]
15. Ban Lavang Gnai[16บ 14’30”N/105บ 55’35”E]
2. Ban Napheu[16บ 07’56”N/105บ 49’13”E]
9. Ban Mai Xe[16บ 02’05”N/105บ 49’16”E]
16. Ban Mai No.23[16บ 11’30”N/106บ 00’05”E]
3. Ban Khoktheuleu[16บ 08’40”N/105บ 48’44”E]
10. Ban Napasat[15บ 59’29”N/105บ 57’02”E]
17. Ban Bakkhoumkham[16บ 09’55”N/105บ 41’38”E]
4. Ban Houay Lai[16บ 12’33”N/105บ 52’49”E]
11. Ban Phoumali[16บ 01’53”N/105บ 58’37”E]
18. Ban Nathamou[16บ 10’13”N/105บ 35’53”E]
5. Ban Padong (Lanong)[16บ 10’53”N/105บ 59’28”E]
12. Ban Xe Ku[16บ 02’22”N/106บ 02’45”E]
19. Ban Naklung[16บ 11’35”N/105บ 30’59”E]
6. Ban Nahangkhae[16บ 01’52”N/105บ 30’56”E]
13. Ban Hintangkhok[16บ 11’06”N/105บ 47’07”E]
20. Ban Nongkhone[16บ 05’32”N/105บ 26’32”E]
7. Ban Naxuak[16บ 01’00”N/105บ 40’10”E]
14. Ban Nadokthong[16บ 12’17”N/105บ 49’35”E]
Species/Village 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.Pangolin sp. ! + + x + # + + + + + + +Chinese pangolin(?) + + + + + + +Sunda pangolin(?) + + + + + + +Northern treeshrew + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Loris sp. + + + + + + + + + +Slow loris(?) + + + + + + + + + +Pygmy loris(?) + + + + + + - + + +Pig-tailed macaque + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Rhesus macaque + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Silvered langur + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Douc langur + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +White-cheekedcrested gibbon(?)
+ + + + + + x + + - + + + + - + + + + x
Golden jackal + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Dhole + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + + + - +Bear sp. ! ! + + ! + + -Asiatic black bear + + ! ! ! + + x + ! ! !Sun bear + + + + + + + + + + + +Haen khreua[Yellow throatedmarten(?)]
- + + - + - ! - + + + + + - - + - - - -
Hog badger + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + x +Haen kapoo [Ferretbadger(?)]
- - - - + + + + - - - + - - + - - + + +
Otter sp. - - x # # - - # # x - # - - # # - - - -Large Indian civet(?) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Common palm civet + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Haen phaeng?? - + + - + + - + + + + + - + - + + + - +Haen daang?? - + + - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Haen dok lao?? + + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + -
35
Haen i-tan?? - - + - + - - - + + - - + - - - - + - +Haen khimin?? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - -Haen hou baang?? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +Haen song?? - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - -Haen jong?? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + -Binturong ! + + + + + + + + + + + - - + + + + - -Small Asianmongoose
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Crab-eatingmongoose
- - - - - - + - + + - - - x - - + - + +
Leopard cat + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Seua mung-mang[Marbled cat?]
- - - - - - - + - - - - - + - + - - - -
Seua leuang [Asiangolden cat?]
- + + + + - - - + - - + - - - + - - - -
Seua kaloot[Clouded leopard(?)]
- + + # + + # + - + ! + - + + + - - - -
Leopard ! ! + # + ! # + x # # + # + # + ! - # !Tiger + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + !Seua cham-lod?? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - -Asian elephant? x x x x c x x x x x x x x x x c x x x xWild pig + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Lesser orientalchevrotain
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Sambar deer - + + + + + x + + + + + + + + + + + + xRed muntjac + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Large-antleredmuntjac
- - + - + + + - + - - + - - + - - - -
Gaur ! + + + + x x + + + + + + + + + + + x xBanteng ! ! + + + + + + + + - + + + + + x x x xSerow - # + - # - ! + - + - + - ! + - - - - -Black giant squirrel ! + + # + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Variable squirrel(?) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Striped squirrel + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Berdmore’s squirrel + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +(Larger type) flyingsquirrel
+ + + # + + + - + + + + + + + + + + -
Phayre’ flyingsquirrel
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
East Asianporcupine
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Asiatic brush-tailedporcupine
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Siamese hare(?) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Green peafowl x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xLarge hornbill sp. - - - - ! ! x + x + + + - + + x + x x xOriental piedhornbill
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Water dragon + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Bengal monitor + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Water monitor + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Python sp. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
36
King cobra + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Siamese crocodile(?) - - - - # - - # - - - + - - + x - - - -
Key:+ = reported extant, with evidence encountered in recent years (c. 5 yrs)# = reported extant, but no evidence encountered in recent yearsx = none reported in recent years and/or locally extirpated- = not reported! = uncertain (either respondents were uncertain or team was uncertain of respondents’
answers)
Note:(?) = animal recorded/reported most likely belongs to the species listed; e.g., Chinese
pangolin? = provisional; subject to confirmation; e.g., Asian golden cat?? = indeterminate
37
APPENDIX III: Conservation Significance of Wildlife Recorded/Reported at Dong
Sithouane SPF
Mammals:Common name Scientific name IUCN19 CITES20 Lao PDR21
Chinese pangolin(?) Manis pendactyla(?) NT II RSunda pangolin(?) Manis javanica(?) NT II RNorthern treeshrew Tupaia belangeri IISlow loris(?) Nycticebus coucang(?) II LKPygmy loris(?) Nycticebus pygmaeus(?) V II LKPig-tailed macaque Macaca nemestrina V II PRRhesus macaque Macaca mulatta II RSilvered langur Semnopithecus cristatus NT II RDouc langur Pygathrix nemaeus E I RWhite-cheeked crestedgibbon(?)
Hylobates leucogenys(?) DD I PR
Golden jackal Canis aureus LKDhole Cuon alpinus V II RAsiatic black bear Ursus thibetanus V I RSun bear Ursus malayanus DD I RHog badger Arctonyx collaris LKFerret badger sp. Melogale sp. LKOtter sp. I/II CR/RBinturong Arctictis binturong RLeopard cat Prionailurus bengalensis IIAsian golden cat? Catopuma temmincki? NT I LKMarbled cat? Pardofelis marmorata? DD I LKClouded leopard(?) Pardofelis nebulosa(?) V I RLeopard Panthera pardus I RTiger Panthera tigris E I RAsian elephant? Elephas maximus E I RWild pig Sus scrofa(?) LKSambar deer Cervus unicolor RLarge-antlered muntjac Muntiacus vuquangensis V I PRGaur Bos gaurus V I RBanteng Bos javanicus E RSerow Naemorhedus sumatrensis V I PRBlack giant squirrel Ratufa bicolor II PRPhayre’ flying squirrel Hylopetes phayrei LKEast Asian porcupine Hystrix brachyura V NRWater dragon Physignathus cocincinus PR
19 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals (IUCN, 1996).20 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (WCMC, 1998).21 Lao PDR Risk Categories (Thewlis et al.,1998 & Duckworth et al., 1999)
38
Bengal monitor Varanus bengalensis I PRWater monitor Varanus salvator II PRPython sp. Python sp. NT II PRKing cobra Ophiophagus hannah II PRSiamese crocodile Crocodylus siamensis C I R
Hoplobatrachus rugulosa II
Conservation Significance:IUCN C = Globally threatened - Critical (the species faces an extremely high risk of
extinction in the wild in the immediate future).E = Globally threatened - Endangered (the taxon is facing a very high risk of
extinction in the wild in the near future).V = Globally threatened - Vulnerable (the taxon is facing a high risk of extinction in
the wild in the medium-term future).NT = Near Threatened (the taxon is close to qualifying for Vulnerable).DD = Data Deficient (a taxon for which there is inadequate information to make a
direct or indirect assessment of its risk of global extinction in the wild).CITES I = Appendix I (Species threatened with extinction which are or may be affected by
trade. Trade in specimens between parties is only authorised in exceptionalcircustances, although import and export for scientific purposes may bepermitted.)
II = Appendix II (Species which although not necessarily now threatened withextinction may become so unless trade in specimens is subject to strict regulationin order to avoid overutilisation. Species may also be listed in Appendix IIbecause of their similarity to more threatened species, as an aid to enforcement.Commercial trade in wild specimens listed in Appendix II is permitted betweenmembers of the convention, but is controlled and monitored through a licensingsystem.)
Lao PDR R = at Risk (Species approximately equivalent to the Globally Threatened species ofIUCN.)
PR = Potentially at Risk (Species suspected to be at Risk, but lacking informationon threats and status, or almost at Risk.)
CR = Conditionally at Risk (Globally Threatened species of IUCN that mightpossibly be present.)
LK = Little Known (Species whose conservation status cannot currently beassessed.)
NR = Not at Risk.
Note:(?) = animal recorded/reported most likely belongs to the species listed; e.g., Chinese
pangolin? = provisional; subject to confirmation; e.g., Asian golden cat
39
APPENDIX IV: Wildlife Data Recording Format
Location:...........................………………………………….......................... Date:………………...Time Start:….......……… Time End:....…................. Distance Covered:...........................................Personnel:.............................................................……….…….......……………......................……Evidence:1.Sighting2.Tracks3.Vocalization4.Scat/Dung5.Nests6.Scrapes/Claw Marks
7.Feeding Signs8.Other:- Wallows- Bathing Pools- Mud Smears- Antler/Horn marks9.Reliable Report
Time Species Location Evidence Remarks
40
APPENDIX V: Human/Habitat Impact Data Recording Format
Location:...........................…………………………..................……… Date:…………..............….Time Start:……….....… Time End:............…......... Distance Covered:.............................................Personnel:.......................................................................……….………………..................………A: Hunting Activities1. Traps/Snares2. Guns/Crossbows3. Fishing gear4. Hunting dogs5. Camps6. Wildlife7. Other
B: Non-Hunting Activities1. Forest clearance2. Timber-cutting3. Huts4. NTFP collection5. Livestock grazing6. House construction7. Other
Time Activity Location* Active/Non-active Remarks**
*Latitude and longitude, if possible**To also include information on the number of persons, their ethnic group, purpose, residence,names, etc.
41
APPENDIX VI: Brief Discussion on Methodology
Given that time was a constraint, and the main objective was to obtain an assessment of the
biodiversity values of Dong Sithouane SPF, the methodology used was hence apt. Furthermore,
local knowledge is an important source of information about wildlife presence in any area, and is
essential towards the planning of field surveys. Village-based PWA is not, however, without its
limitations. Hence, it should not be used as substitute to field biological surveys.
The main limitation encountered during this study was with regard to the Lao names for wildlife
species. There are several wildlife species with no ‘official’ Lao names. Many of the ‘official’
Lao names currently in use by the Department of Forestry and conservation non-governmental
organizations are borrowed from the Thai language, therefore, unfamiliar to the general Lao
public. For example, “seua laai maek” in Thai means clouded leopard, but “seua laai maek” is
not known to the general Lao public. To overcome this, respondents were requested to name and
describe all cat species known to be present in Dong Sithouane SPF.
Likewise, as many species in the Lao language have a common generic name, but no specific
name, it was adequate to refer to their taxonomic group. Following that, if that taxonomic group
was present, further inquiries were made. For example, the crab-eating mongoose and the small
Asian mongoose are both known as “chon-phon” in Lao. Thus, respondents were asked to
describe the mongoose/mongooses present.
Also, although some species’ names are both there in Lao and Thai, they do not necessarily refer
to the same species. “Kathing” in Thai refers to gaur, but “ngoua kathing” in some parts of Lao
PDR refers to banteng, although the more common name in Lao for banteng is “ngoua paa”.
Furthermore, within the Lao language, the same name can refer to different species. “Khouay
paa” in Lao usually refer to wild water buffalo, but in many parts of Lao, it is synonymously
used to refer to gaur, which otherwise is commonly known as “meauy”. Frequently, common
Lao names for a species may locally refer to another species in the absence of the former. Long-
tailed macaque is widely referred to as “ling haang nyao”, but in the absence of long-tailed
macaques, the same Lao name can refer to any other ‘long-tailed’ macaques, such as rhesus or
Assamese macaques. In Dong Sithouane SPF, “ling haang nyao” refers to rhesus macaques.
42
Thus, in conducting interviews, it is important to treat Thai and Lao languages as two distinct
languages to avoid errors in species identification. Secondly, the interviewer must have had
some training in wildlife biology, familiar with species description, behavior and ecology, to
assist in correct identification. Finally, as there is currently no Lao wildlife biologist, it is
therefore important that interviewers must be proficient in the usage of the Lao language, to
avoid misinterpretation of information.
Based on past experiences in Indochina, Thailand and Borneo, respondents were not asked to
identify species from illustrations (drawings, photographs, etc.) at the start of the PWA. It was
observed that in many parts of the region, experienced hunters could not identify common
species or misidentified many species illustrated. This is primarily because these simple
communities have little exposure to such illustrations, hence are not able to discern the size and
shape of those wildlife illustrated, unless it is highly distinguishable (e.g., tiger and elephant).
Nevertheless, illustrations were used during this study, but only at the end of the main semi-
structured interviews.
Although the interviews were primarily addressed to village elders and individuals with forest
experience, children and the women frequently participated, and most often than not frequently
contributed useful information. This sort of participation may likely lay the groundwork for
future conservation awareness and education.
43
APPENDIX VII: Study’s Itinerary
Date Location Activity
9/1/00 Travel RB arrives Vientiane.
10-11/1/00 Vientiane Primary preparations
10/1/00 Vientiane RB meets Bouahong Phanthanousy (FOMACOP NationalDirector), Bouaphanh, Marko Katila (CTA for ForestManagement), Vannalack Sengsavanh. Introductions & briefingby FOMACOP staff/advisers.
Gather & review existing & relevant literature, information &maps.
11/1/00 Vientiane Preliminary preparation for study (review materials & purchaseadditional topographic maps)
12/1/00 Travel RB & VS arrive Savannakhet.
13-14/1/00 Savannakhet Secondary preparations
13/1/00 Savannakhet RB & VS meet Somsakoune (Project Coordinator). Briefintroductions & briefing.
RB & VS meet Dr. Manuel Bonita (Village Forestry Adviser),Edwin Payuan (Village Forestry Adviser), Vaneska Litz andKongsavanh Chounlamonty. Introductions & briefing byFOMACOP staff/advisers.
Gather further information & materials.
RB & VS review aerial maps, land use maps and topographicmaps of DSSPF.
RB, VS & KC (team) discuss appropriate plan of field activities,logistics, & methodology.
14/1/00 Savannakhet RB & VS meet Boonyot Namsena & Puthavong Sitthidet(Deputiesto the Project Coordinator). Introductions & briefing.
RB gathers more information from FOMACOP advisers.
RB & KC meet Sengpaseut Southammavong (Deputy ForestySection of PAFO). Introductions & briefing.
VS & KC prepare travel documents, equipment, supplies and otherlogistics.
15-30/1/00 DSSPF Field work
15/1/00 Travel RB, VS & KC arrive Muang Thapanthong (after losing more thanhalf a day in Savannakhet repairing an apparently ‘repaired and
44
serviced’ vehicle.
16/1/00 DSSPF Team meets Kongsawaeng Buttawong (Deputy DAFO).Introductions, briefing & registration with police.
Village PWA at Ban Nasano, Ban Napheu, & Ban Khoktheuleu.
17-19/1/00 DSSPF Field PWA at Dong Aa Chien
20/1/00 DSSPF Village PWA at Ban Houay Lai & Ban Padong.
21/1/00 DSSPF Village PWA at Ban Nahangkhae & Ban Naxuat
22/1/00 DSSPF Village PWA at Ban Kamep Noy (Tumlan District, SalavanProvince).
Field PWA along southern section of Highway No. 23
23/1/00 DSSPF Village PWA at Ban Mai Xe, Ban Napasat & Ban Phoumali
24/1/00 DSSPF Village PWA at Ban Xe Ku
25/1/00 DSSPF Village PWA at Ban Hintangkhok, Ban Nadokthong & BanLavang Gnai.
Field PWA along northern section of Highway No. 23
26/1/00 DSSPF Village PWA at Ban Mai No.23 (Ban Padong Noy)
Field PWA along central section of Highway No. 23
27/1/00 DSSPF PWA at Ban Bakkhoumkham, Ban Nathamou, Ban Nakalung, &Ban Nongkhone.
28/1/00 Savannakhet Team debrief Sikeo (Head Forestry Section, PAFO Savannakhet)
29/1/00 Travel RB & VS return to Vientiane.
30/1-9/2/00 Vientiane Documentation of findings
31/1/00 Vientiane RB & VS debrief Marko Katila
10/2/00 Travel RB departs Vientiane.