Avoiding the Unthinkable: What will it Cost to Prevent Tigers Becoming Extinct in the Wild? by World Bank Russia

Global Tiger Initiative: Mainstreaming Conservation into Development

An alliance of governments, international agencies, civil society, and the private sector united to save wild tigers from extinction

www.globaltigerinitiative.org

Working Paper under Discussion

Avoiding the Unthinkable: What will it Cost to Prevent Tigers Becoming Extinct in the Wild? Joe Walston, Ullas Karanth and Emma Stokes

GTI Thematic & Working Paper Series: • • • • • • •

Smart Green Infrastructure Conservation through Community Incentives Capacity-Building Landscape Scale Management Addressing Competing Demands Addressing Competing Demands Innovative Finance

• Costing Tiger Conservation

Washington, DC April 2010

© 2010 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org And Wildlife Conservation Society 2300 Southern Boulevard Bronx, New York 10460 All rights reserved World Bank Working Papers are published to communicate the results of the Bank’s work to the development community with the least possible delay. The manuscript of this paper therefore has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate for formally-edited texts. Some sources cited in this paper may be informal documents that are not readily available. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law.

This publication is available online at www.global tigerinitiative.org

Suggested citation: Walston J., Karanth U. and Stokes, E. 2010. Avoiding the Unthinkable: What will it Cost to Prevent Tigers Becoming Extinct in the Wild? Wildlife Conservation Society, New York and the World Bank, Washington D.C.

This report is a part of the Global Tiger Initiative’s Thematic and Working Paper Series to harvest and share the knowledge and experience of tiger conservation. The initial draft of this report has been prepared and presented during the Global Tiger Workshop in Kathmandu, Nepal, October 27-30, 2009.

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

Joe Walston (corresponding author) Senior Conservationist Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx New York 10460 USA jwalston@wcs.org 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 ukaranth@wcs.org 3

Emma J Stokes PhD Regional Tiger Monitoring Coordinator Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) House 21, Street 21, Tonle Bassac, Phnom Penh, Cambodia stokes@wcs.org

Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 9 WILD TIGERS TODAY ..............................................................................................................................................................9

METHODS ..........................................................................................................................................11 SOURCE SITES ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11 ESTIMATED FINANCIAL INPUTS AND NEEDS ................................................................................................................... 12

RESULTS.............................................................................................................................................14 SOURCE SITES ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14 COSTS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................16 WHAT DOES IT MEAN IF A TIGER CONSERVATION LANDSCAPE DOES NOT CONTAIN A SOURCE SITE? .................. 17 LAW ENFORCEMENT MONITORING .................................................................................................................................. 22 RANGER-‐BASED LAW ENFORCEMENT MONITORING ....................................................................................................... 22 MIST: AN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT TOOL FOR RANGER-‐BASED LEM ................................................................ 26

WHAT IS MIST? ................................................................................................................................26 INTELLIGENCE-‐BASED LAW ENFORCEMENT MONITORING ............................................................................................ 32 IMPROVING THE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT MONITORING DATA ............................ 34

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR THE MONITORING OF TIGERS AND TIGER PREY AT SOURCE SITES ..................................................................................................................................38 WHY MONITOR TIGER POPULATIONS AT SOURCE SITES? ............................................................................................ 38 MONITORING TIGER SOURCE SITES .................................................................................................................................. 38 THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................................................... 39 ASSESSING TIGER ABUNDANCE AND POPULATION DYNAMICS .................................................................................... 40 ASSESSING POTENTIAL TIGER NUMBERS BY ESTIMATING PREY DENSITIES ............................................................. 41 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 42

REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................50

Acknowledgements A recent assessment 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, Barney Long, Tony Lynam, Kathy MacKinnon, Peter Moss, Hannah O’Kelly, Bivash Pandav, Anak Pattanavibool, Edward Pollard, Colin Poole, Allan 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 Tizzard, 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. 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.

http://www.Tigersforever.org

Executive Summary The world’s wild Tiger population is at an historically unprecedented low of about 3,200 animals. Recent declines have affected every range state and though pockets of conservation success exist, they remain isolated exceptions to the overall range-wide trend of unremitting losses. While Tiger habitat still exists from India to the Russian Far East poaching continues to empty Asia’s forests of Tigers and much of their prey, a problem exacerbated by habitat destruction and fragmentation. In many places where Tigers persist today they are represented by remnant populations of a few isolated individuals. If the unthinkable is to be avoided and the Tiger is not to become extinct across much or all of its range, then conservation must focus on identifying those sites that offer the greatest potential for Tiger recovery and prioritising them for immediate, sustained and intensive protection and monitoring support. While the current international response to the crisis is growing, many conservation approaches are too broad, diffuse, complex and overly ambitious, and fail to reflect that possibly only 1,000 breeding females exist in the wild. This report identifies where the last Tiger populations are that have the highest potential of recovery. We suggest a challenging but straightforward strategy for their recovery based on proven examples of sustained Tiger recoveries, we quantify the potential population increase this could result in, and evaluate the costs of implementing this strategy across the Tiger’s range. The report focuses on Source Sites as the scale at which priority interventions should be targeted. We argue that protection of Tigers at Source Sites is a pragmatic and achievable goal that stands to provide a far greater return on conservation investments in Tiger recovery than current approaches: 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, ultimately, the potential to repopulate larger landscapes. 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 have any area that currently qualifies as a Source Site, though Potential Source Sites have been identified. Collectively the Source Sites cover 90,000km2, within which 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 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 were less than half their estimated natural densities. 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%. The cost of effective management, protection and monitoring of Source Sites is estimated to be US$90 million per year. 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. 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. 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.

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. Measures of accountability for the effective and sustained protection of Source Sites is thus paramount to their success: we provide a set of guidelines for monitoring enforcement effectiveness, and for monitoring tigers and their prey, which we recommend as minimum standards for all Source Sites. Regardless, considerably more funding is needed to effectively protect and monitor Tigers. Cost estimates were broadly similar across the sites when factors such as cost of living were included. On average, the amount required is US$900/km2 (US$9/ha) per year. 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, 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. However, progress on these fronts before Source Sites are secured would be folly. The results of this analysis demonstrate just how critical Source Sites are for the wild Tiger today. 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 worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Tigers within less than 6% of their current potential range, their disproportionate importance cannot be ignored.

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 they 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

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. 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 worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s wild Tiger population. The report does not attempt to cost out other essential components of a successful recovery of Asiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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.

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.

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 Tigerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 deomstrably 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.

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

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

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).

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 range2. This underlines one of 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 $$$ and $$$). 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. 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

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

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.

Costs The cost of effective management, protection and monitoring of Source Sites is estimated to be US$90 million per year (see Tables $$$ and $$$ 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).

DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS The Role of Source Sites The results of this analysis demonstrate just how critical Source Sites are for the wild Tiger today. 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 longer-term value of Source Sites. In a landscape where Tigers, Tiger prey, and threats to both are 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 The ability of Tigers to live 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 be a barrier to having functional, thriving 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 impacts unpredictable Tiger landscapes will always be prone to predictable and stochastic events that will cause short-term declines of Tigers such as rapid economic/infrastructure development, quasi-military insurgencies, disease, anthropogenic disasters like forest fires and pollution, natural crashes of prey populations, social unrest, spiking global prices for NTFPs, national political/ideological shifts, transboundary tension, and the loss of individual conservation champions. All these factors are possible - and for some areas, likely - 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 units of high-intensity protection will have greater chances of successfully 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 add robustness and stability to otherwise dynamic and unpredictable landscapes. They are Tiger bank accounts in a way. When times are good, investments can be spread, portfolios diversified, and 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 preeminent importance. Tigers are now going through their greatest, longest and deepest recession. Now is not the time to take risks with what 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, ever realistically become redundant. Human-dominated landscapes will always be prone to predictable and

stochastic events 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. 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 potential 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 along them, and this will require resources and effort. Therefore, their scale should be defined by what Tigers require to be able to pass between Protected Areas or Source Sites, not just by what potential Tiger habitat exists. There can be little utility 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 direct limited resources into low priority activities or to have them spread too thin to be effective. 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. Source Sites (SS) 2. Protected Areas with Tigers (PATs) 3. Corridors between SSs and/or PATs 4. Additional habitats contiguous with SSs and PATs 5. Additional habitats contiguous with corridors 6. Additional habitats within the landscape that are currently not connected

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.

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. 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.

Law Enforcement Monitoring Introduction 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.

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.

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.

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 1).

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 1. 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 (CPUE overestimates actual level of threat)

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 (CPUE underestimates actual level of threat)

Law enforcement strategy

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

Law enforcement strategy

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

Law enforcement strategy

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

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 Ugandaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 planning3. 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 Asia4. 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.

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.

Box 1: Summary of steps for setting up MIST-based LEM at a site: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Define resources, personnel and training needs Define LEM objectives and monitoring indicators Create MIST data structure for patrol observations 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 8. Create pilot MIST database 9. Field test data forms and observation structure 10. Modify MIST database and data forms accordingly

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 English5 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 M anager 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.

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.

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. 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 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 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; or national â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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

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

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 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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.

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 â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;successâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 Â

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 this6. 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

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

to patrol-based data, given their relative robustness to missing values and unequal sampling effort over space and time. 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 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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.

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 Trade8

Human disturbance

Mammals9

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

REMARKS7 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

Wildlife use/not used Used/abandoned Used/abandoned

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 9 Observation categories for Birds and Mammals also included at some sites 7 8

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

General Guidelines for the Monitoring of Tigers and Tiger prey at Source Sites 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 â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;softâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 (<1-20 Tigers/100 km2), even in prime habitats. All these factors pose challenges that defeat counting methods that rely on direct visual detections. Investigators must therefore use non-visual methods to assess Tiger status. Tiger populations typically need to be assessed at two spatial scales: individual Tiger populations at specific Source Sites (e.g. reserves), and measurement of Tiger distribution or habitat occupancy over wider landscapes and regions (Karanth and Nichols 2002, 2010). In this chapter we focus on monitoring Tiger populations at Source Sites, and the reader is referred to relevant literature (Mackenzie et al. 2006, Karanth and Nichols 2002, 2010) with regard to landscape or regional level monitoring of Tiger distributions and habitat occupancy (Mackenzie et al. 2006, Karanth and Nichols 2002, 2010). Tiger populations can be monitored directly to estimate population size or indirectly by counting of ungulate prey animals to answer a slightly different question: How many Tigers can an area potentially support? The former approach is more relevant to fine-grained monitoring of known source populations of Tigers, whereas the latter approach is more appropriate for areas where Tigers may be difficult to monitor or the potential of the area to be a source population itself needs to be assessed. These two basic approaches are covered in separate sections below.

The Conceptual Framework There is now a clear scientific recognition that conventional statistical tools based on formal hypothesis testing (e.g., analysis of variance, power analysis) are not always appropriate (Anderson and Burnham 2000), particularly for observational data gathered in non-experimental contexts (Williams et al. 2002, MacKenzie et al. 2006, Royle and Dorazio 2008). Such is often the case with field surveys of Tigers. Therefore, we recommend methods that explicitly model both the system being observed (Tiger populations) and the survey process itself, followed by confrontation of alternative plausible models with survey data. We provide a simplified overview below on key conceptual issues involved in monitoring Tigers or their prey species (Williams et al. 2002, Karanth and Nichols 2002). Animal populations can be reliably estimated from ‘sample counts’ obtained in the field. This context can be represented by the following simple general estimator that relates the field counts (C) of Tigers or prey animal species to the ‘real numbers’ of these animals (N) in the population of interest: = Where

= Abundance estimate C = Count statistic = Estimated proportionality constant (detection probability) relating to the count statistic and abundance.

However much we may dislike detection probability p, this is a ‘nuisance parameter’ that afflicts all types of animal surveys which will not go away if simply ignored (as several current methods do). Our preference, therefore, is for Tiger and prey counting approaches that explicitly model and estimate this detection probability. In the case of Tigers, we recommend an approach based on ‘capture-recapture sampling’ and in the case of prey species we recommend ‘distance sampling’ methods, to estimate detection probability (see Williams et al 2002; Amstrup et al. 2004, Buckland et al. 2001, Royle and Dorazio 2008, for detailed conceptual treatments). We note that these two intensive methods are practical to employ only at the scale of, at maximum, a few thousand square kilometres or so. Thus, they are very relevant to monitoring of Tiger populations at most Source Sites, which typically exist at this spatial scale. At the wider spatial scales of landscapes/regions, these methods are impractical, although their results can be integrated profitably with data from habitat occupancy sampling feasible at such wider spatial scales. Sometimes, application of methods capable of direct estimation of detection probability even within Source Sites may be constrained by local factors of ecology or logistics (e.g. theft of camera traps, lack of accessibility due to difficult terrain, flooding etc.). Under such circumstances Tiger or prey signs (tracks, dung) have to be counted and the encounter rate data analyzed to yield some sort of an ‘index’ that is expected (hopefully) to reflect true abundance of animals. In such cases, the term p in the above equation can be thought of not as detection probability, but simply as coefficient that relates number of signs counted (C) to real Tiger numbers (N), if not exactly, at least in some sort of a monotonic manner. However, there is often poor correspondence between rigorous estimates of Tiger density derived from intensive methods and indexes generated from simple field surveys of Tiger signs (see Table-1), which renders the use of indices questionable. If use of indices becomes inevitable because of logistical constraints, we recommend indices that at least try to incorporate detection probability over indices which simply ignore it. Under such circumstances, we recommend another sampling approach known as habitat occupancy modelling (MacKenzie et al. 2006), which explicitly estimates detection probabilities under a specific modelling approach developed by Royle and Nichols (2003). This may yield a more robust index of animal abundance. In the sections that follow, we provide a brief overview of the field and analytical methods that are useful for estimating and monitoring populations of Tigers and ungulate prey species in Source Sites. The

concepts, field methods and analytical options related to these approaches are not explained in detail here and the reader is referred to relevant literature. However, we emphasize here that the methods we recommend have received substantial theoretical development, validation through simulations, and application in the field on a variety of species in different ecological settings - and most importantly - have been refined through the process of scientific peer-review and publication. Equally important, their utility for monitoring Tigers and prey species has been empirically tested for over two decades by WCS researchers in India and at most of the Tigers Forever sites. Although alternative methods are sometimes offered for monitoring Tiger and prey populations, we note these lack a comparable track record established through the process of peer-reviewed science.

Assessing Tiger Abundance and Population Dynamics In capture-recapture sampling of Tiger populations, multiple ‘samples’, each consisting of several identifiable individual Tigers, are drawn from a Tiger population of unknown size (N = abundance) over a short survey duration when the population is assumed to remain unchanged. From the frequencies with which distinct individual Tigers are captured in these detection histories, the ‘detection probability’ (p) is modelled and estimated. Thereafter, the unknown Tiger abundance (and density) can be computed. Furthermore, such capture-recapture surveys conducted sequentially over multiple years permit estimation of even more critical demographic parameters such as survival, recruitment and movement, providing a full understanding of Tiger population dynamics (Amstrup et al. 2006, Karanth et al. 2004, 2006). Considering natural variations, as well as pressures of direct hunting and prey depletion (Karanth and Stith 1999) which now impinge on most Tiger populations, the importance of such data for ‘real-time’ tracking of fate of these populations becomes obvious. Central to the effective application of capture-recapture methods is the samples of individual Tigers from a population. Currently, identifiable ‘captures’ of individual Tigers are possible using camera-trap photos (Karanth and Nichols 2002) or DNA extracted from Tiger scats or hair collected in the field (Mondol et al. 2009). Statistical discrimination of individual Tiger identifications from track-shape (Riardon 1998, Sharma et al. 2005) and scent recognition by trained dogs (Kerley et al. 2007) have also been tried out, but under small scale controlled experiments. The most widely practiced method of subjective Tiger track discrimination under India’s ‘pugmark census’, has now been abandoned as not useful after a quarter century of field application (Jhala et al. 2008, Karanth et al. 2003). We emphasize that sound survey designs and analyses are not irrelevant theoretical abstractions. They must be shaped by the ecology of the Tiger population and the logistical context of surveys. Specific insights on ecological variables such as potential Tiger density and home range size, as well as application of local field craft, are essential components of field surveys. We focus below on some key practical considerations, but refer readers to the literature on details of equipment or statistical methods (Karanth and Nichols 2002, 2010). Source Sites of Tigers must be surveyed to cover an area large enough to capture at least 10 or more individual Tigers, in multiple sample periods, within a short survey duration of 45-60 days to meet the demographic closure assumption. In the case of camera trap surveys, a trapping intensity of about 500 trap-nights/100 km2 must be aimed for and distance between camera traps set to ensure all animals in the sampled area have some probability of being captured. Meeting these criteria involves deployment of dozens rather than a handful of cameras, as most typical surveys do. Even in the case of sampling Tiger populations for capture-recapture analysis using fecal DNA, the above guidelines are relevant. Furthermore, care should be taken to collect and store scats and conduct subsequent laboratory procedures according to careful protocols (Mondol et al 2009). We refer the reader to extensive literature available on proper conduct of capture-recapture surveys of Tigers and analyses of resulting data (Karanth and Nichols 2002, 2010; Karanth et al. 2004, 2006; Dattatri and Karanth 2008; www.YouTube.com/monitoring Tigers).

Assessing Potential Tiger Numbers by Estimating Prey Densities There may be ‘potential Source Sites’ within Tiger range where immediate application of capture-recapture surveys using DNA or photographic captures may not be practical, e.g., where Tiger densities are extremely low. However, since the Tiger:prey ratio of 1:500 is established reasonably well (Karanth et al. 2004), potential carrying capacity of a site to hold Tigers can be assessed by estimating density of large ungulates which are the principal prey species of Tigers. However, in many cases, prey will be below their carrying capacity due to overharvest, so this may underestimate potential carrying capacity of prey. Where actual densities of prey species and terrain permit line transect surveys (a class of distance sampling methods, see Buckland et al. 2004 for a review), these can be applied. If the basic assumptions of 100% detectability on the transect line, absence of systematic, undetectable, evasive animal movement, and, accurate counting and distance measurements of animal groups are all satisfied, line transect method works very well (Buckland et al. 2004, Karanth and Nichols 2002). Line transect method has yielded excellent results since 1986 in WCS projects in India and since 2006 in Thailand. However, if ungulate densities are too low, or vegetation too thick to permit placement of transects or easy passage of personnel, this method may not be practical or will require a disproportionate amount of field effort. In some cases where the aforementioned techniques are not practical, investigators may be compelled to rely on counts of signs of prey species, such as dung and tracks, to get an assessment of relative prey densities. There are two approaches possible in this context. One involves first conducting standard line transect surveys incorporating detection probabilities to estimate densities of animal dung piles rather than of animals themselves. Thereafter, animal densities are derived from dung densities by applying correction factors in the form of species-specific daily defecation rates and estimates of dung decay rates. After extensive trials in the 1990’s, WCS researchers in India have found this “dung count corrected by decay and defecation rates” approach to be ecologically unreliable and logistically impractical for typical ungulate prey species in the tropical forest regions of southern Asia. Therefore, we do not recommend this method for assessing Tiger carrying capacity at potential Source Sites. The second approach is underdevelopment. For sites where line transect methods are no practical, we are developing an alternative ungulate density monitoring approach based on the idea of occupancy modelling using counts of track and dung. These occupancy methods involve field surveys of habitat patches (grid cells) and data from simple detection or non detection of signs. The analytical approach is rooted in an innovative model developed by Royle and Nichols (2003). This method yields a potentially robust ‘index of ungulate density’ which explicitly accounts for imperfect detection of ungulate signs. Initial calibrations against line-transect-derived ungulate densities in southern India show good correspondence, thus hold promise for eventually deriving density estimates from these occupancy surveys. More extensive field trials have been recently completed in Malaysia and Myanmar and results are currently under analysis. Finally, a method has more recently been proposed for estimating prey density from camera trapping rates instead of individual recognition, which is currently not possible for most Tiger prey species (Rowcliffe et al., 2008). This method has not yet been field tested on Tiger prey but, based on field trials on ungulates in Tanzania, shows potential as a cost-effective alternative to line-transects in remote areas provided model assumptions governing prey movement can be met (Rovero et al., 2009). Because ungulate densities fluctuate somewhat naturally and prey species are also prone to elimination by local hunters, it is important to keep track of their densities periodically. Ideally, if resources permit, such prey monitoring should be undertaken on an annual basis for each Tiger Source Site. If resources are a major constraint, prey monitoring should be conducted at least once in 2-3 year time frame. We refer readers to the literature on distance-sampling and occupancy sampling approaches for the proper conduct of field surveys to estimate prey densities (Buckland et al. 2001, 2004, Royle and Nichols 2003, MacKenzie et al. 2006, Dattatri and Karanth 2008, www.youtube.com/monitoring Tigers).

Tiger Monitoring Conclusions Based on over two decades of designing and implementing monitoring schemes for Tigers and prey species in a variety of ecological and social-capability contexts in throughout Asia, our conclusions with regard to monitoring of Tiger Source Sites are summarized below: 1. Tiger-prey monitoring has to be based on a sound statistical basis and firmly rooted in modelling approaches that explicitly deal with the critical issue of estimating probabilities of detecting animals or their signs during the field surveys. Methods that ignore this key nuisance parameter, which in fact obscures parameters of interest to us, such as Tiger or prey density and vital rates that drive changes in these, are in our opinion obsolete. 2. Instead of trying to reinvent statistical wheels, monitoring programs should strive to benefit from available peer reviewed literature, software and instructional manuals, which exist to support application of these methodologies to monitoring of Tiger and prey populations at Source Sites. Based on the above considerations we recommend following specific monitoring methods, with a proven track record (or under advanced stage of development): 3.1. Annual estimation of Tiger population size and density using closed model capture-recapture analyses based on photographic (camera trap) or non-invasive DNA sampling. 3.2. Estimation of rates of apparent survival, recruitment, temporary emigration and transience across multiple years using open model capture-recapture analyses of above mentioned genetic and photo-capture data by means of annual sampling to link closed model analyses across multiple years. 3.3. Estimation of densities of ungulate prey species using line transect (distance) sampling methods. Thereafter, use these prey density estimates to assess potential carrying capacity of the area for Tigers. Where line transect methods are not possible, use indices based on encounter rates with animal signs derived from field surveys conducted in an occupancy modelling and estimation framework. It is ironic that during past three decades, even as Tiger range and habitats have shrunk, and Tiger populations plummeted, monitoring efforts have been somewhat stuck in a quagmire of obsolete statistical ideas.. Although Tiger monitoring programs are eagerly rushing to embrace new and improved material tools in the form camera traps, GIS software, GPS units and DNA kits, they have not been equally eager to explore the rapid advances made in the field of allied statistical methods. These new methods substantially overcome key constraints of older survey methodologies still being used. Conservationists must now rapidly adopt these newer and freely available intellectual monitoring tools, as readily as they are acquiring the material tools in the market at substantial cost.

What does it mean if a Tiger Conservation Landscape does not contain a Source Site? This report has highlighted the fact that many areas that have recently supported Tigers no longer have an obvious Source Site, though this should in no way be considered definitive. Some Potential Source Sites might qualify as Source Sites once further surveys are undertaken, while it is also possible that areas not identified as either within the report could also contain breeding Tiger populations capable of recovery. However, an entire TCL without Tigers has obvious and profound implications for Tiger conservation. It suggests that natural recovery of Tigers is highly unlikely. As more and more landscapes are found to be devoid of Tigers, the possibility of reintroduction of Tigers into these landscapes by translocation of wild animals might be considered. Reintroduction from captive sources is a vastly more complicated process, which should not be considered so long as there are appropriate wild sources of Tigers (IUCN 1998, Breitenmoser et al. 2001, Hunter and Rabinowitz 2009, Jule et al. 2008). Regardless of the source, reintroduction should be considered the very last option (Johnsingh and Madhusudan 2009, Christie 2010). Unfortunately, in many landscapes, obvious alternatives have run out. However, before reintroduction can even be considered, conditions must be created in which a source population can thrive and Tigers can persist in a landscape surrounding that source. We propose the following conditions must be met before reintroducing Tigers to an area: 1. Factors leading to the extirpation of Tigers have been greatly reduced or completely reversed. In most cases, where reintroduction might be considered, the cause of extirpation will have been overharvesting of Tigers and/or prey. In this instance, a measurable and sustained reduction of hunting threats is necessary, and most easily demonstrated through the recovery of prey populations. While the complete removal of all threats is unlikely to be possible anywhere, and some losses of a founder population must be expected, all threats must be limited to extremely low levels. More rarely will reintroduction be possible in areas where Tigers have been lost due to habitat destruction. While Tigers often thrive in partially-logged or manipulated habitats (Linkie et al. 2008, Lynam et al. 2007, Miquelle et al. 1999a, Darmaraj and Mohamad 2009), there is little likelihood of successful Tiger reintroduction unless the area has management that is dedicated to prey recovery, has been made conflict-free, and is largely devoid of people. 2. There is a defined, delimited and inviolate core area large enough to hold at least 25 breeding females (c. 75 Tigers). The need for inviolate areas is essential given the fragility of a founder population and the high number of potential challenges facing translocated Tigers in deciding to remain within the area and avoiding conflict. The severe impacts of human-caused mortality of Tiger populations are well documented (Kenny et al. 1995, Goodrich et al. 2009, 2010). At the very least, the area must be free of poaching of both Tigers and prey, free of livestock, and have no people living inside its boundaries (Karanth et al. 2003, Karanth and Gopal 2005, Miquelle et al. 2010). Further, all resource extraction activities should be eliminated. 3. There is a well-defined landscape that is Tiger permeable and has the long-term potential to sustain 50 breeding females (c. 150 Tigers). The ultimate target should be to have resident Tigers across these landscapes, thus the definition of their boundaries should realistically reflect this potential. That is, habitat quality and prey density should be sufficient to support Tigers throughout the landscape and connectivity between patches must be sufficient to permit dispersal. The target numbers are indicative and there is some debate as to whether this number should be higher. For the purposes of this report we have been conservative, but recognize that this number may need to be increased under certain conditions. 4. Prey densities are sufficient to support 25 breeding females in the core area and, longer-term, an additional 25 breeding females in the surrounding landscape. Constructing Tiger landscapes will require building outwards from areas with high densities of Tiger prey. In many cases, areas will have depressed prey densities and incomplete prey communities, thus the focus of early efforts must be on re-building biomass of large prey, such as large cervids, bovids and suids, which are one Â

of the key determinants of carrying capacity for Tigers and Tiger density (Karanth and Nichols 1998, Karanth et al. 2004). This is best done through first selecting core areas that can be made inviolate, where all human activity is strictly controlled and wildlife populations can recover unencumbered. The wider landscape should also be capable of maintaining an additional minimum of 25 breeding females, though these are likely to be at lower densities, thus requiring larger areas. Intensive law enforcement programs will be required to ensure the recovery of these areas well in advance of any reintroduction, with recovery of prey serving as a useful indicator of whether law enforcement efforts are effective and sufficient to prevent poaching of reintroduced Tigers. However, law enforcement may need to be increased following the release of Tigers because of the greater incentive to poach them. Details on protocols for law enforcement and law enforcement monitoring are provided above. Recovery of extirpated Tiger populations will require exceptional government commitment with recovery strategies integrated into national and regional development plans. This should be a precursor to the following actions and investments, and are also necessary to achieve the conditions listed above. 1. Clarification of authority. It is essential that governmental authority over the management of the area is unequivocal and straightforward. Although landscape conservation will usually involve multiple agencies, it is important that ultimate responsibility is not diluted by governance complexities. We suggest that a dedicated Tiger authority be convened with a clear terms of reference, staffed by qualified specialists rather than political appointees, suitably funded, and given sufficient authority to be both effective and accountable. 2. Landscape planning. Concurrent with the above activities, efforts should begin by establishing the conditions at a landscape-level for the eventual reintroduction of Tigers (e.g. Ranganathan et al. 2008). At the heart of this should be a conflict prevention and mitigation strategy for issues such as livestock management and direct human-Tiger conflict. These efforts should be detailed in a landscape strategy, setting out the specific conditions that need to be achieved for the landscape so that it can maintain a functional meta-population of Tigers. Ambitious but achievable goals with time-specific, explicit objectives and measurable indicators of success should be established. 3. Initiation of rigorous prey monitoring programs. A two-tier program of Tiger prey monitoring will be required from the beginning, both to feed into adaptive management planning and to inform decisions about when, how and where the Tiger translocations should occur. The first level, focused at the Source Site, should be intensive and follow the guidelines in the preceding sections of this report. The second should be implemented at the landscape level and follow occupancy protocols (e.g. Mackenzie et al., 2006) 4. Translocation strategy. Concurrent with all of the above, specialists with experience in Tiger biology, genetics, wildlife health, wildlife reintroduction, carnivore-human conflicts, and law enforcement should be convened to assist the relevant governments with the development of a translocation and reintroduction strategy. These specialists should include practitioners with experience of large carnivore restoration in other regions of the world, field veterinarians, Tiger ecologists, law enforcement officers, monitoring experts, and logisticians. 5. Consultations. While consultations should be conducted before and throughout the process, it will be especially necessary to hold a number of meetings with key stakeholders in the landscape, from central government to local authorities, farmers and communities, and relevant agencies. If sufficient support, or at least acceptance, is not established for Tiger reintroduction at all levels, it is unlikely to succeed. Thus, significant political commitment and resources will need to be invested before, during and after any reintroduction. 6. Recovery strategy. A post-release strategy should be developed that includes detailed contingency plans for all likely post-release scenarios. It is important that training in these scenarios is provided to project staff well in advance of the relocation. 7. Monitoring Tiger recovery. Prior to reintroduction, a plan must be developed for monitoring recovery of the Tiger population. All released animals should be equipped with telemetry collars (Goodrich and Miquelle 2010) and the plan should include monitoring of reproduction and new animals born into the population, e.g. via camera-trapping or non-invasive DNA sampling (Karanth and Nichols 1998, Karanth et al. 2002, Mondol et al. 2009). Â

These guidelines are meant to be broadly indicative and not prescriptive. We strongly recommend, however, that an international working group be convened to develop detailed guidelines for the possible translocation of wild Tigers.

Tiger Success Stories Although it is instructive to understand where and why Tiger conservation efforts have failed, it is possibly more constructive to examine where they have succeeded. Too often, however, high-profile Tiger â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;successâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; stories have focused on the promotion of perceived improvements for general conservation rather than saying anything about Tigers themselves. This is due in part to a lack of investment in monitoring at these sites, which would have provided this critical information but, for whatever reason, the most valuable lessons must surely be drawn from landscapes where there have been demonstrable and sustained recoveries of Tigers.

Russian Far East Following intensive commercial hunting of Tigers in Russia in the early 20th Century, the Tiger population was close to extinction and down to 20-30 individuals in the 1940s (Kaplonov 1948, Henry et al. 2009). In 1947, Russia became the first country to ban trade in and hunting of Tigers, which led to a dramatic reversal in the population decline (Miquelle et al. 2010). When the collapse of the Soviet Union occurred in 1992, political and economic chaos, as well as access to international black markets resulting from re-opened borders, resulted in soaring poaching rates on Tigers. At this key junction, the creation of an anti-poaching team, Inspection Tiger, was critical in bringing the situation under control. At the previous census in 2005, the Tiger population had increased and stabilized to between 428 and 502 individuals, largely as a result of effective law enforcement, a feat made all the more remarkable by the fact that the majority of these individuals are part of one contiguous population (Miquelle et al. 2010). The Siberian Tiger Monitoring Program, set up by WCS in collaboration with Russian scientists, NGOs, and government organizations, was established as an annual early-warning system for identifying potential declines in Tiger and prey populations between each full population census conducted roughly every 10 years. Recently, the monitoring program has demonstrated its utility by indentifying a short-term but significant decline in both prey and Tiger numbers since 2005. Most conservationists feel, however, this trend can be reversed with revised legislature and a renewed commitment to anti-poaching efforts. If this monitoring program were not in place, it is doubtful whether any response would have been put in place at this time.

Central Western Ghats, India The Malenad-Mysore Landscape in the Western Ghats of Karnataka, India presents a multitude of success stories in recovering wild Tigers and their prey. The Nagarahole National Park, Karnataka State, under strong management stewardship ensuring effective protection, has witnessed more than a 400% increase in the Tiger population over the last 30 years, and has sustained that through challenging times and increasing pressures. Most importantly, sustained protection and monitoring efforts in Nagarahole have, in recent years, succeeded in securing its status as a key Source Site in the landscape, maintaining its key function for putting Tigers out into the wider landscape. Together with the adjoining forests of Bandipur National Park, it is one of the two largest source populations of Tigers anywhere in the world. The landscape now has more than 220 Tigers just within its Source Sites and with dispersal pressures increasing, more and more animals are moving between Source Sites, forming a varied and functioning meta-population. Building on the success of Nagarahole, WCS is now transferring these lessons to other Source Sites within the Malenad-Mysore Landscape and other parts of the Western Ghats. The Bhadra Tiger Reserve, declared a Project Tiger Reserve in 1998, witnessed the culmination of a major village re-settlement scheme in 2002, with approximately 4,000 people re-settled to a new location outside of the Reserve. Under careful surveillance and monitoring by WCS, prey densities inside the Reserve were seen to double between 2005 and 2008, and the declining Tiger population, has now stabilised. As prey populations begin to recover, Tiger populations are expected to follow.

Increase in Tiger populations in the Nagarahole National Park The notable elements of success in this landscape have been a State government that considers Tiger conservation a priority, the creation of inviolate core areas through voluntary, thoughtful, long-term and transparent relocation programs, and the application of strict protection for both Tigers and their prey. It has also pioneered the Source Site conservation model, whereby a strong focus on building-up core areas and not allowing conservation efforts to be diluted or distracted, has now resulted in a functioning metapopulation in one of the most densely populated conservation landscapes on earth. The Russian Far East and the Western Ghats share few geographic, demographic, cultural or ecological features. In fact, the Tiger is one of the few notable commonalities. So what is it about these sites that have made them arguably the only two landscapes to have effected and sustained long-term Tiger recoveries? The first is the most obvious: genuine political commitment. Although each has had their problems, both Project Tiger in India and Inspection Tiger in Russia were instrumental in the recoveries, representing the manifestation of the commitment from their governments. India and Russia developed and, almost uniquely, implemented Tiger-specific policies and provided political backing for tough decisions and strong enforcement. The second feature is that they created a physical task force for these commitments, rather than just adding the entire burden on existing staff within, say, the protected area network. Furthermore, they provided funds sufficient for effective implementation. At least in Indiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s case this was far in excess of the international communities combined contribution for Tiger conservation. Many countries have made verbal commitments to Tigers, most have strong legislation in place, but only India and Russia have been both able and willing to initiate, fund, and maintain these commitments over a significant period of time. The third is relative stability and wealth. It should be noted that some countries such as Nepal, Cambodia, Laos and Bangladesh have each made significant strides towards foundations for Tiger conservation, though each have been hampered either by internal strife or lack of sufficient available funds. While India and Russia have been the long-term examples of success, it is encouraging to see other countries such as Thailand now making similar progress.

Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand The Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary represents a model Source Site for Tiger conservation in SouthEast Asia. In 2006, WCS, in collaboration with the Thai government, launched a Law Enforcement Â

Monitoring program in Huai Kha Khaeng, and in 2008, under the Tigers Forever collaborative program with Panthera, enforcement operations were intensified through the launch of the ‘Smart Patrolling’ system, using MIST to monitor law enforcement efforts and improve management effectiveness accordingly. In line with the Smart Patrolling strategy, the government has allocated some 170 patrol staff to law enforcement efforts in Huai Kha Khaeng. The primary current threat to Tiger recovery in Huai Kha Khaeng is poaching of Tiger prey. Between 2006 and 2009, LEM data indicated that a sustained law enforcement effort had succeeded in reducing and stabilizing incidences of prey poaching. These data were also able to focus law enforcement teams in areas of high poaching threat. In 2004, annual monitoring of Tigers and their prey was also initiated by WCS in collaboration with government partners. Annual monitoring data indicate that between 2007 and 2009, Tiger densities in Huai Kha Khaeng increased from 1.74 (SE 0.24) inds/100km2 to 2.39 (SE 0.29) inds/100km2. Replication of this model throughout the Western Forest Complex of Thailand has enormous potential for recovering – and securing - Tiger populations in this landscape and in mainland South-East Asia.

Nam-Et Phou Louey National Protected Area, Lao PDR The Nam Et Phou Louey National Protected Area (NPA) is a key site for Tiger recovery under the Tigers Forever collaborative program with Panthera, and characteristic of many Source Sites and potential Source Sites in South East Asia, where sufficient habitat remains, but where Tiger and prey populations have been extremely depleted and efforts are currently focused on reversing the overall trend in population decline. In 2007, under the Tigers Forever program, the Lao government, with the full support of the WCS Lao Program, considerably scaled up enforcement efforts in the Nam Et-Phou Louey NPA with the implementation of a MIST-based LEM program. Patrol staffing, effort and coverage increased four-fold between 2007 and 2009, with a focus on reducing poaching of Tigers and prey in the core zone, and on clamping down on the possession of illegal firearms. Baseline surveys of prey populations conducted in 2008 indicated that the current prey population can support approximately 20 adult Tigers (Karanth et al. 2004). In 2009, minimum population estimates from DNA-analysis of Tiger scat, indicated at least nine individual Tigers are currently using the core zone.

Final Remarks 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, 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. However, progress on these fronts before Source Sites are secured is the equivalent of constructing stories on a building with fragile foundations. There is a very real danger that in all the encouragingly ambitious discussions about how tall the building should be (or how many Tigers do we aim for?), that we forget just how fundamental the foundations are. Today, we believe that some grandiose plans for constructing Tiger landscapes might not reflect the frangible nature of these foundations, what it will take to reinforce them, or how best we should go about doing this. If there were already more than enough funds to secure these sites and fund the other essential activities, then there would be no issue. However, this report has shown that far great resources are going to be needed than are currently available, and very quickly, if Tigers are not to be lost from more countries across their range. This report has aimed to identify where we should build (Source Sites), how we should do it (bottom up), and how much more is needed to do it (US35 million a year). We believe that this price is a bargain we can’t afford to miss. This report is also intended to link investments with results. Beyond sourcing a price, we have presented a set of guiding protocols for how to monitor and guide this investment, and how best we can show our conservation investors - whether they be governments, banks or beer companies - how we turn a profit by increasing wild Tiger numbers. While the international community spent US$34 million on Tiger protection from 1998 to 2003 (Christie 2006), most of this came from western nations, western-funded multi-laterals, and western companies. As Asia increasingly becomes the driving force behind the world’s economy it is humbling to see how insignificant $35 million per year really is in some contexts: 1. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) spent US$274 million on technical advisors, US$1.5 billion on private sector assistance, US$10.5 billion in loans and $811.4 million in grants. This was in 2008 alone. 2. This year Tiger Beer is running a series of promotional events to coincide with the Chinese Year of the Tiger. The company alone made well over US$100 million profit last year, selling beer. 3. One of Malaysia’s banks made a profit of US$210 million during the same period Singapore Airlines made nearly US$200 million profit. That period was the first three months of 2008. Asia may no longer have the large intact landscapes that once allowed the Tiger to walk from the Pacific Ocean to the Caspian Sea, but it certainly now has the capacity, wealth and knowledge to take control of the wild Tiger’s destiny.

References Ahmad, I. U., C. J. Greenwood, A. C. D. Barlow, M. A. Islam, A. N. M. Hossain, M. M. H. Khan, J. L. D. Smith. 2009. Bangladesh Tiger Action Plan 2009-2017. Bangladesh Forest Department, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Amstrup, S. C., McDonald, T. L. & Manly, B. F. J. 2006. Editors. Handbook of Capture-Recapture Analysis. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P. & Thompson, W. L. 2000. Null hypothesis testing: problems, prevalence, and an alternative. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:912-923. Balmford, A., and Whitten, T. 2003. Who should pay for tropical conservation, and how could the costs be met? Oryx Vol 37 No 2 April 2003 Barlow, A. C. D., M. I. U. Ahmed, M. M. Rahman., A. Howlader, A. C. Smith, and J. L. D. Smith. 2008. Linking monitoring and intervention for improved management of Tigers in the Sundarbans of Bangladesh. Biological Conservation, 141:2031-2040. Breitenmoser, U., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., Carbyn, L.N. & Funk, S.M. 2001 Assessment of carnivore reintroductions. In Carnivore Conservation (eds J.L. Gittleman, S.M. Funk, D. Macdonald & R.K. Wayne), pp. 242–281. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Buckland, S. T., Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., Laake, J. L., Borchers, D.L., & Thomas, L. 2001. Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. Buckland, S. T., Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., Laake, J. L., Borchers, D.L., & Thomas, L. 2004. Advanced Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. Bruner, A., Gullison, R., Rice, R. & Fonseca, G. 2001 Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical diversity. SCIENCE, 29, 125-128. Bruner, A., Gullison, R., and Balmford, A. 2004. Financial Costs and Shortfalls of Managing and Expanding Protected-Area Systems in Developing Countries. December 2004 / Vol. 54 No. 12 BioScience. Burton, M. 1999 An assessment of alternative methods of estimating the effect of the ivory trade ban on poaching effort. Ecological Economics, 30, 93-106. Byers, J. E. & Noonburg, E. G. 2007 Poaching, enforcement, and the efficacy of marine reserves. Ecological Applications, 17, 1851-1856. Chapron, G., Miquelle, D.G., Lambert, A., Goodrich, J.M., Legrandre, S. & Clobert, J. 2008 The impact on Tigers of poaching versus prey depletion. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, 1667-1674. Christie, S. 2010. Why keep Tigers in zoos? in R. Tilson and P. Nyhus (eds), Tigers of the world: the science, politics, and conservation of Panthera tigris. 2nd ed. Elsevier Limited, Oxford, United Kingdom, Pp. 203212. Chupein, T. 2008. World Bank Group Resources & Debt Cancellation. American Friends Service Committee. Damania, R., J. Seidensticker, T. Whitten, G Sethi, K Mackinnon, A Kiss, and A Kushlin. 2008. A Future for Wild Tigers. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Darmaraj, M. R. 2007. Tiger Monitoring Study in Gunung Basor Forest Reserve, Jeli, Kelantan. WWF- Malaysia unpublished report, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Darmaraj M. R. and W. M. Shariff Mohammad 2009. The importance of selectively logged forests for Tiger Panthera tigris conservation: a population density estimate in Peninsular Malaysia. Oryx, 43(1), 48–51 Dattatri, S. and Karanth, K. U. 2008. Monitoring Tigers and their prey: The Right Way. A companion video guide to the Manual ‘Monitoring Tigers and their prey’ edited by K. U. Karanth and J. D. Nichols. Trust for Environmental Education (TREE) and Centre for Wildlife Studies (CWS), India

de Merode, E., Smith, K. H., Homewood, K., Pettifor, R., Rowcliffe, M. & Cowlishaw, G. 2007 The impact of armed conflict on protected-area efficacy in Central Africa. Biology Letters, 3, 299-301. DTCP (Department of Town and Country Planning). 2005. National Physical Plan. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Department of Wildlife and National Parks Peninsular Malaysia. 2008. National Tiger Action Plan for Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C., Wikramanayake, E., Ginsberg, J., Sanderson, E., Seidensticker, J., Forrest, J., Bryja, G., Heydlauff, A., Klenzendorf, S., Leimgruber, P., Mills, J., O’Brien, T. G., Shresths, M., Simons, R. and Songer, M. 2007. The fate of wild Tigers. BioScience 57: 508-514. Dinerstein, E., C. Loucks, A. Heydlauff, E. Wikramanayake, G. Bryja, J. Forrest, J. Ginsberg, S. Klenzendorf, P. Leimgruber, T. O'Brien, E. Sanderson, J. Seidensticker and M. Songer. 2006. Setting priorities for the conservation and recovery of wild Tigers: 2005-2015. A user's guide. WWF, WCS, Smithsonian, and NFWF-STF, Washington, D.C.-New York, USA. DNPWC/MoFSC/GoN. 2007. Tiger Conservation Action Plan for Nepal. Kathmandu: Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation. Dobson, A. & Lynes, L. 2008 How does poaching affect the size of national parks? TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution, 23, 177-180. Duckworth, J. W., R. E. Salter, and K. Khounboline. 1999. Wildlife in Lao PDR: 1999 Status Report. The World Conservation Union (IUCN), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Centre for Protected Areas and Watershed Management (CPAWM), Vientiane, Lao PDR. Duckworth, J.W. & Hedges, S. 1998. Tracking Tigers: a review of the status of Tiger, Asian elephant, gaur and banteng in Vietnam, Lao, Cambodia and Yannan province (China) with recommendations for future conservation action. Hanoi: WWF Indochina Programme. Duckworth, J.W. and Pine, R. H. 2003. English names for a world list of mammals, exemplified by species of Indochina. Mammal Review. Volume 33, No. 2, 151–173. EIA. 2006. Skinning the Cat. Crime and Politics of the Big Cat Skin Trade. EIA/WPSI India Gavin, M. C., Solomon, J. N. & Blank, S. G. 2009. Measuring and Monitoring the Illegal Use of Natural Resources. Conservation Biology, 24, 89-100. GoL. 1991. Constitution of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Vientiane: National Assembly. GoL. 2004. National Ecotourism Strategy and Action Plan 2004-2010. Vientiane: Lao National Tourism Administration. GoL. 2005. Forestry strategy to the year 2020 of the Lao PDR. Prime Minister's Office, Vientiane, Lao PDR. GoL. 2007. Wildlife Law 07; 24 December 2007. Lao People's Democratic Republic National Assembly, Vientiane, Lao PDR. Goodrich, J. M. and D. G. Miquelle. 2005. Translocation of problem Amur Tigers to alleviate Tiger-human conflicts. Oryx 39:1-4. Goodrich, J. M., L. L. Kerley, E. N. Smirnov, D. G. Miquelle, L. McDonald, H. B. Quigley, M. G. Hornocker, & T. McDonald. 2008. Survival Rates and Causes of Mortality of Amur Tigers on and near the Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Zapovednik. Journal of Zoology 276: 323-329. Goodrich J. M., D. G. Miquelle, E. N. Smirnov, L. L. Kerley, H. B. Quigley, M. G. Hornocker. 2010. Spatial structure of Amur (Siberian) Tigers (Panthera tigris altaica) on Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Zapovednik, Russia. Journal of Mammalogy, in press. Goodrich J.M. and Miquelle, D.G. 2010. Tiger telemetry. In R. Tilson and P. Nyhus (eds), Tigers of the world: the science, politics, and conservation of Panthera tigris. 2nd ed. Elsevier Limited, Oxford, United Kingdom Pp. 261-273.

Government of Thailand (in prep) Thailand Tiger National Action Plan. Department of National Parks, Wildlife, and Plant Conservation, Bangkok. Gratwicke, B. 2007 Poaching laws are useless without solid enforcement. Nature, 445, 147. Gray, M. & Kalpers, J. 2005. Ranger based monitoring in the Virunga–Bwindi region of East-Central Africa: a simple data collection tool for park management. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14, 2723-2741. GTI. 2009. Saving Wild Tigers: Kathmandu Summary Document. A report on the Global Tiger Workshop, October 27-30, 2009, Kathmandu, Nepal. Harihar, A., Prasad, D. L., Ri C, and Goyal, S.P. 2009. Losing ground: Tigers Panthera tigris in the northwestern Shivalik landscape of India. Oryx 43(1): 35-43. Henry, P., Miquelle, D., Sugimoto, T., McCullough, D. R., Caccone A. and Russello, M. A. 2009. In situ population structure and ex situ representation of the endangered Amur tiger. Molecular Ecology 18:3173-3184. Hilborn, R., Arcese, P., Borner, M., Hando, J., Hopcraft, G., Loibooki, M., Mduma, S. & Sinclair, A. R. E. 2006 Effective enforcement in a conservation area. SCIENCE, 314, 1266. Hossain, A.N.M., A.C. D. Barlow, I. U. Ahmad, J.L.D. Smith. In prep. Designing a long term Tiger monitoring system based on detection probabilities and rate of encounter of Tiger sign. Hunter, L. and A. Rabinowitz. 2009. Felid reintroduction using captive founders: poor science and worst practices. Cat News 51: 28-29. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources). 1998. IUCN Guidelines for Re-introductions. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group. Jachmann, H. 2008 Illegal wildlife use and protected area management in Ghana. Biol. Conserv., 141, 19061918. Jhala, Y.V., Gopal.R., Qureshi.Q., (eds.) 2008. Status of he Tigers, Co-predators, and Prey in India. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. TR 08/001 pp-151 Johnsingh, A.J.T. 2006 Status and conservation of the Tiger in Uttaranchal, Northern India. Ambio, 35, 135–137 Johnson, A. & Johnston, J. 2007. Biodiversity Monitoring and Enforcement Project in the Nam Theun 2 Watershed. Final Report V1.1. November 2007, Wildlife Conservation Society, Vientiane, Lao PDR. Johnson, A., C. Vongkhamheng, M. Hedemark, and T. Saithongdam. 2006. Effects of human-carnivore conflict on Tiger (Panthera tigris) and prey populations in Lao PDR. Animal Conservation 9: 421-430. Johnson, A., Venevongphet and C. Vongkhamheng. 2008. Narrative Report on Tigers Forever in the Nam EtPhou Louey National Protected Area, Lao PDR (Year 2: July 2007-June 2008). Wildlife Conservation Society, Vientiane, Lao PDR. Jule, K.R., Leaver, L.A., and Lea, S.E.G. 2008. The effects of captive experience on reintroduction survival in carnivores: a review and analysis. Biol. Conserv. 141:355-363. Kaplanov, L.G. 1948. Tigers in Sikhote-Alin. In Tiger, red deer, and moose, Materialy k 20 poznaniyu fauny i flory SSSR. Moscow: Izd. Mosk. Obschestva Ispytateley Prirody. 21 Novaya seria. Otdel zool., 14, 18-49. Karanth, K. U., Nichols, J. D., Kumar, N. S. & Hines, J. E. 2006. Assessing Tiger population dynamics using photographic capture-recapture sampling. Ecology 87: 2925-2937. Karanth, K. U. and Nichols J. D. 2010. Non-invasive survey methods for assessing Tiger populations. In R. Tilson and P. Nyhus (eds), Tigers of the world: the science, politics, and conservation of Panthera tigris. 2nd ed. Elsevier Limited, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Karanth. U. L. 2003. Tiger ecology and conservation on the Indian sub-continent. Journal Bombay Natural History Society 100:169-189. Karanth, K.U. and Nichols, J.D. 1998. Estimation of Tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79, 2852–2862. Karanth, K. U. and Nichols, J. D. 2002. Editors. Monitoring Tigers and their prey: A Manual for Wildlife Researchers, Managers and Conservationists in Tropical Asia. Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India. Karanth, K. U. and R. Gopal. 2005. An ecology-based policy framework for human-Tiger coexistence in India. Pages 373-387 in Woodruffe, R., S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz (eds.). People and wildlife: conflict or co-existence? Cambridge University Press. Karanth KU, Kumar NS, Nichols JD. 2002. Field surveys: Estimating absolute densities of Tigers using capture-recapture sampling. In KU Karanth and JD Nichols (eds.), Monitoring Tigers and their Prey: A manual for researchers, managers, and conservationists in Tropical Asia. (pp. 139-152). Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India. Karanth, K. U. and Stith, B. M. 1999. Prey depletion as a critical determinant of Tiger population viability. Pages 100-113 in Riding the Tiger: Tiger conservation in human dominated landscapes (Editors: J. Seidensticker, S. Christie and P. Jackson). Cambridge University Press. Karanth, K. U., Nichols, J. D., Kumar, N. S., Link, W. A. and Hines, J. E. 2004. Tigers and their prey: predicting carnivore densities from prey abundance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 101: 4854-4858. Karanth, K. K. 2007. Making resettlement work: The case of India’s Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary. Biological Conservation 139: 315-324. Karanth, K. U. and Karanth K. K. 2007. Free to Move: Conservation and Voluntary resettlement in the Western Ghats of Karnataka, India. Pages 48-59 in Protected Areas and Human Displacement: A conservation perspective. Working paper: 29, K. Redford and E. Fern (editors), WCS, New York. Karanth K. K., Nichols J. D., Hines J. E., Karanth K.U. and Christensen N.L Patterns and determinants of mammal species occurrence in India. 2009a. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 1189-1200. Karanth, K. U., Goodrich, J. M., Vaidyanathan, S., and Vishwanatha Reddy, G. 2009. Landscape-scale, ecology-based management of wild Tiger populations (proceedings of the GTI Kathmandu meeting, October 2009). Karanth K. U., Goodrich J. M., Srinivas V., and Reddy G. V. 2009b. Landscape-scale, ecology-based management of wild Tiger populations. Thematic paper # 4, Global Tiger Initiative, World Bank, Kathmandu. Karki, J. B., Jnawali, S. R., Shrestha, R., Pandey, M. B., Gurung, G., Thapa (Karki), M. 2009. Estimating Tiger and Their Prey Base Abundance in Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation and Department of Forests. Kawanishi, K., Siti Hawa, Y., Abdul Kadir, A. H. and Rahmat, T. 2003. Distribution and potential population size of the Tiger in Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Wildlife and Parks (Malaysia) 21: 29 – 50. Kawanishi, K. and Sunquist, M. E. 2004. Conservation status of Tigers in a primary rainforest of Peninsular Malaysia. Biological Conservation 120:329-344. Kenney, J.S., Smith, J.L.D., Starfield, A.M. & McDougal, C.W. 1995. The long-term effects of Tiger poaching on population viability. Conserv. Biol. 9, 1127–1133. Kerley, L. L. Scent dog monitoring of Amur Tigers – III (2002-0301-016). March 1, 2003 – March 1, 2004. A report to Save the Tiger Fund. www.5Tigers.org Kerley, L. L. and G. P. Salkina. 2007. Using Scent-Matching Dogs to Identify Individual Amur Tigers from Scats. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4):1349-1356 Khan, M. M. H. 2004. Ecology and conservation of the Bengal Tiger in the Sundarbans mangrove forest of

Bangladesh. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge. Khan, M.K.M., 1987. Tiger in Malaysia: prospects for the future. In: Tilson, R.C., Seal, U.S. (Eds.), Tigers of the World. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, pp. 75–84. Koenig, A. & S. Suarez, Kitti Kreetiyutanont, J. Prabansuk. 2004. Sighting of an Immature Indochinese Tiger (Panthera tigris corbetti) at Phu Kieo Wildlife Sanctuary, Northeast Thailand. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 52: 219-220. Leader-Williams, N., and S.D. Albon, 1988. Allocation of resources for conservation. Nature 336:533--535. Leader-Williams, N., Albon, S.D. & Berry, P.S.M. 1990 Illegal exploitation of black rhinoceros and elephant populations – patterns of decline, law-enforcement and patrol effort in Luangwa Valley, Zambia. Journal of Applied Ecology, 27, 1055-1087. Leader-Williams, N. Milner-Gulland, E.J. 1993 Policies for the enforcement of wildlife laws: the balance between detection and penalties in Luangwa Valley, Zambia. Conservation Biology, 7, 611-617. Linke, M., I. A. Haidirb, A. Nugrohoc, Y. Dinatac. 2008. Conserving Tigers Panthera tigris in selectively logged Sumatran forests. Biol. Cons. Linkie, M., G. Chapron, et al. 2006. Assessing the viability of Tiger subpopulations in a fragmented landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology 43: 576-586. Locke, A., 1954. The Tigers of Trengganu. Museum Press Ltd., London. Lynam, A.J. 2003. A National Tiger Action Plan for the Union of Myanmar. Myanmar Forest Department and Wildlife Conservation Society. Lynam, A. J., K. Kreetiyutanont and R. Mather. 2001. Conservation status and distribution of the Indochinese Tiger (Panthera tigris corbetti) and other large mammals in a forest complex in northeastern Thailand. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society. 49: 61-75. Lynam, A.J. 2006. Developing a National Tiger Action Plan for the Union of Myanmar. Environmental Management. 37: 30 – 39. Lynam, A.J., Round, P. and Brockelman, W.Y. 2006. Status of birds and large mammals of the Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex, Thailand. BRT Programme and Wildlife Conservation Society, Bangkok. 244 pp. Lynam, A. J., R. Laidlaw, W. S. W. Noordin, S. Elagupillay and E. L. Bennett. 2007. Assessing the conservation status of the Tiger Panthera tigris at priority sites in Peninsular Malaysia. Oryx 41:454462. MacKenzie, D.I., Nichols, J.D., Lachman, G.B., Droege, S., Royle, J.A. & Langtimm, C.A. 2002 Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology, 83, 2248-2255. MacKenzie, D.I., Nichols, J.D., Royle, J.A., Pollock, K.H., Hines, J.E. & Bailey, L.L. 2006. Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence, Elsevier, San Diego Malaysia. Journal of Wildlife and Parks (Malaysia) 9: 71–102. Maunder, M. N. & Punt, A. E. 2004 Standardizing catch and effort data: a review of recent approaches. Fisheries Research, 70, 141-159. Milner-Gulland, E. & Leader-Williams, N. 1992. A model of incentives for the illegal exploitation of black rhinos and elephants - poaching pays in Luangwa-Valley, Zambia. Journal of Applied Ecology, 29, 388401. Milner-Gulland, E. & Rowcliffe, J. M. 2007. Conservation and Sustainable Use: A handbook of techniques, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Miquelle, D. G., Dunishenko, Yu. M. Zvyagintsev, D. A. ,Darensky, A.A., Golyb, A. M., Dolinin, V. V. Shvetx, V. G., Kostomarov, S. V.Aramilev, V. V., Fomenko, P. V., Litvinov, M. N., Nikolaev, I. G., Pikunov, D. G., Salkina, G. P., Zaumyslova, O. Yu. Kozichev, R. P. 2009. A monitoring program for the Amur Tiger: Twelve-year report: 1998-2009.

Miquelle, D.G., Smirnov, E.N., Merrill, T.W., Myslenkov, A.E., Quigley, H.B., Hornocker, M.G. & Schleyer, B. 1999. Hierarchical spatial analysis of Amur Tiger relationships to habitat and prey. In Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-dominated Landscapes (eds J. Seidensticker, S. Christie & P. Jackson), pp. 71–99. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Miquelle, D.G., Goodrich, J.M., Kerley, L.L., Pikunov, D.G., Dunishenko, Y.M., Aramiliev, V.V., Nikolaev, I.G., Smirnov, E.N., Salkina, G.P., Zhang Endi, Seryodkin, I.V., Carroll, C., Gapanov, V.V., Fomenko, P.V., Kostyria, A.V., Murzin, A.A., Quigley, H., and Hornocker, M.G. 2010. Science-based conservation of Amur Tigers in Russian Far East and Northeast China, in R. Tilson and P. Nyhus (eds), Tigers of the world: the science, politics, and conservation of Panthera tigris. 2nd ed. Elsevier Limited, Oxford, United Kingdom, Pp. 399-419. Mondol S. et al. 2009. Evaluation of non-invasive genetic sampling methods for estimating Tiger population size. Biological Conservation 142, no. 10: 2350-2360. Monitoring Tigers - A 9-part Online video clip. YouTube. Posted on February 22, 2009. http://www.youtube.com/monitoring Tigers Myanmar Forest Department. 2003. A National Action Plan for Tigers in the Union of Myanmar. Ministry of Forestry, Yangon. Ngoprasert, D. and Lynam A.J. 2002. A preliminary survey of Tiger and other large mammals at Kaeng Krachan National Park, Phetchaburi Province, Thailand. Journal of Wildlife in Thailand 10: 33-38. Ngoprasert, D. A.J. Lynam, G. Gale. 2007. Human disturbance affects habitat use and behaviour of Asiatic leopard Panthera pardus in Kaeng Krachan National Park, Thailand. Oryx. 41: 343-351. Nooren, H., and G. Claridge. 2001. Wildlife Trade in Laos: The End of the Game. Netherlands Committee for IUCN, Amsterdam. Pitcher, T. J., Watson, R., Forrest, R., Valtysson, H. P. & Guenette, S. 2002. Estimating illegal and unreported catches from marine ecosystems: A basis for change. Fish and Fisheries (Oxford), 3, 317339. Rabinowitz, A. 1993. Estimating the Indochinese Tiger Panthera tigris corbetti population in Thailand. Biological Conservation. 65: 213-217. Rabinowitz, A., G. B. Schaller, and Uga. 1995. A survey to assess the status of Sumatran rhinoceros and other large mammal species in Tamanthi Wildlife Sanctuary, Myanmar. Oryx 29:123–128. Ranganathan, J., Chan, K. M.A., Karanth, K.U., and Smith, J.L.D. 2008. Where can Tigers persist in the future? A landscape-scale, density-based population model for the Indian subcontinent. Biological Conservation 141 67–77 Rayan, D. M. and Mohamad, S. W. 2009. The importance of selectively logged forests for Tiger Panthera tigris conservation: a population density estimate in Peninsular Malaysia. Reed, D. H., J. J. O'Grady, et al. 2003. Estimates of minimum viable population sizes for vertebrates and factors influencing those estimates. Biological Conservation 113: 23-34. Riordan, P. 1998. Unsupervised recognition of individual Tigers and snow leopards from their footprints. Animal Conservation. 1: 253–262. Rovero, F. and Marshall, A. R. 2009. Camera trapping photographic rate as an index of density in forest ungulates. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 1011–1017 Rowcliffe, J. M., F. Field, T. T. Samuel, and C. Carbone. 2008. Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:1228 - 1236 Royle, J.A. & Dorazio, R.M. 2008 Hierarchical Models and Inference in Ecology: The Analysis of Data from Populations, Metapopulations and Communities. Academic Press, Bullington, MA, USA. Royle, J.A., Nichols J.D. 2003. Estimating abundance from repeated presence absence data or point counts. Ecology. 84:777–790.

Salafsky, N., Salzer, D., Stattersfield, A. J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Neugarten, R., Butchart, S. H. M., Collen, B., Cox, N., Master, L. L., O'Connor, S. & Wilkie, D. 2008. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. . Conserv. Biol., 22, 897-911. Sanderson, E.W., Forrest, J., Loucks, C., Ginsberg, J., Dinerstein, E., Seidensticker, J., Leimgruber, P., Songer, M., Heydlauff, A., O’Brien, T. G., Bryja, G., Klenzendorf, S. & Wikramanayake, E. 2006. Setting Priorities for the Conservation and Recovery of Wild Tigers: 2005-2015. The Technical Assessment., Wildlife Conservation Society, World Wildlife Fund, Smithsonian, and Save the Tiger Fund, Washington, D.C. Sanderson, E.W., J. Forrest, C. Loucks, J. Ginsberg, E. Dinerstein, J. Seidensticker, P. Leimgruber, M. Songer, A. Heydlauff, T. O’Brien, G. Bryja, S. Klenzendorf, and E. Wikramanayake. 2010. Setting Priorities for Tiger Conservation: 2005 – 2015. In editors R. Tilson and P. Nyhus, Tigers of the World, 2nd edition: The Science, Politics and Conservation of Panthera Tigris. Academic Press (Elsevier): Oxford, UK. Sharma, S., Jhala, Y. V. & Sawarkar, V. B. 2005. Identification of individual Tigers from their pugmarks. Journal of Zoology 267: 11-18. Simcharoen, S., A. Pattanavibool, K. U. Karanth, J. D. Nichols and N. S. Kumar 2007. How many Tigers Panthera tigris are there in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand? An estimate using photographic capture-recapture sampling. Oryx. 41: 447-453. Smith, J.L.D. 1993. The role of dispersal in structuring the Chitwan tiger population. Behaviour. 1993;124:165–195. Smith, J.L.D., S. Tunikhorn, S. Tanhan, S. Simcharoen and B. Kanchanasaka. 1999. Mapping the metapopulation structure of Thailand’s Tigers. In John Seidensticker, Sarah Christie and Peter Jackson, Eds. Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-dominated Landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Smith, J.L.D., Ahearn, S.C, McDougal C. 1998. Landscape analysis of tiger distribution and habitat quality in Nepal. Conserv Biol. 1998; 12:1338–1346. Smith, M. 2008. Wildlife Monitoring Surveys in NNT NPA 2007-2008: Supplement Report. Nakai: Watershed Management and Protection Authority. Sunquist, M. E., Karanth, K. U. and Sunquist, F. 1999. Ecology, behaviour and resilience of the Tiger and its conservation needs. Pages 5 – 18 in Seidensticker, J., Christie, S., Jackson, P. Eds. Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human Dominated Landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Steinmetz, R., Seuaturien, N., Chutipong, W. Poonnil, B. 2009. The ecology and conservation of Tigers and their prey in Kuiburi National Park, Thailand. WWF Thailand, and Department of National Parks, Wildlife, and Plant Conservation, Bangkok. Taylor, R. 2009. Community based natural resource management in Zimbabwe: the experience of CAMPFIRE. Biodivers. Conserv 18:2563-2583 Topani, R., 1990. Status and distribution of Tiger in Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Wildlife and Parks (Malaysia) 9: 71–102 Tunhikorn, S., J.L.D. Smith, T. Prayurasiddhi, M. Graham, P. Jackson, and P. Cutter. 2004. Saving Thailand’s Tigers: an action plan. Wildlife Conservation Office, Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Bangkok. Tungittiplakorn, W., and P. Dearden. 2002. Hunting and wildlife use in some Hmong communities in northern Thailand. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 50: 57-73. Vongkhamheng, C. and A. Johnson. 2009. Background notes for the Lao PDR National Tiger Action Plan: Status of Tigers and their conservation in Lao PDR. Vientiane: Division of Forestry Resource Conservation and the Wildlife Conservation Society. WCS Malaysia 2009. Interim annual report to Johor Government (unpublished).

WCS Thailand. 2009. Asian Elephant Surveys and Human–Elephant Conflict Mitigation in Kaeng Krachan National Park, Thailand, Year 4. A mid-term performance report to USFWS Asian elephant conservation fund. Wikramanayake, E., E. Dinerstein, J. G. Robinson, K. U. Ka- ranth, A. Rabinowitz, D. Olson, T. Mathew, P. Hedao, M. Conner, G. Hemley, and D. Bolze. 1998. An ecology-based method for defining priorities for large mammal conservation: The Tiger as case study. Conservation Biology 12:865– 878. Wikramanayake, E., M. McKnight, E. Dinerstein, A. Joshi, B. Gurung, and D. Smith. 2004. Designing a conservation landscape for Tigers in human-dominated environments. Conservation Biology 18:839– 844. Williams, B. K., Nichols, J. D. & Conroy, M. J. 2002. Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic Press, San Diego. World Bank. 2005. Going, going, gone. The illegal trade of wildlife in East and Southeast Asia. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. WWF Nepal 2009 Country profile on Tiger conservation actions and strategies, Nepal. WWF Nepal.