Tiger - Prey Report 2019

STATUS OF TIGERS
AND PREY IN NEPAL

2018
S TAT U S O F T I G E R S A N D P R E Y I N N E PA L 2 0 1 8
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL

Ministry of Forests and Environment Ministry of Forests and Environment
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
and and
Department of Forests and Soil Conservation Department of Forests and Soil Conservation
Kathmandu, Nepal Kathmandu, Nepal
2018 2018
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Government of Nepal acknowledges and appreciates the financial and technical support received
from the following organizations to carry out the Status of Tigers and Prey in Nepal, 2018:
STATUS OF TIGERS
AND PREY IN NEPAL
2018
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL
Ministry of Forests and Environment
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
and
Department of Forests and Soil Conservation
Kathmandu, Nepal
2018
TECHNICAL TASK FORCE
Laxman Prasad Poudyal, Ecologist, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
Bhupendra Prasad Yadav, Assistant Ecologist, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
Rishi Ranabhat, Assistant Ecologist, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
Sujan Maharjan, Assistant Planning Officer, Department of Forests and Soil Conservation
Sabita Malla, Wildlife Biologist-Senior Manager, WWF Nepal
Babu Ram Lamichhane, Wildlife Research Officer, National Trust for Nature Conservation
Samundra Ambuhang Subba, Research Officer, WWF Nepal
Saroj Koirala, GIS Officer, WWF Nepal
Sheren Shrestha, Senior Research Officer, WWF Nepal
Ashish Gurung, Conservation Officer, National Trust for Nature Conservation
Umesh Paudel, Natural Resource Conservation Assistant, National Trust for Nature Conservation
Tek Raj Bhatt, Senior Program Officer, ZSL-Nepal
Sailendra Raj Giri, Field Biologist, ZSL-Nepal
TECHNICAL TEAM
Gopal Prakash Bhattarai, Deputy Director General, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
Madhuri Karki (Thapa), Under Secretary, Department of Forests & Soil Conservation
Dhananjaya Lamichhane, Under Secretary, Ministry of Forests and Environment
Rajendra Dhungana, Assistant Planning Officer, Ministry of Forests and Environment
Hari Bhadra Acharya, Chief Conservation Officer, Parsa National Park
Ram Chandra Kandel, Chief Conservation Officer, Chitwan National Park
Dil Bahadur Purja Pun, Chief Conservation Officer, Banke National Park
Ramesh Kumar Thapa, Chief Conservation Officer, Bardia National Park
Bed Kumar Dhakal, Chief Conservation Officer, Shuklaphanta National Park
Shant Raj Jnawali, PhD, Chief of Party, Hariyo Ban Program, WWF Nepal
Shiv Raj Bhatta, Director of Programs, WWF Nepal
Naresh Subedi, PhD, Conservation Program Manager, National Trust for Nature Conservation
Kanchan Thapa, PhD, Technical Advisor, Hariyo Ban Program, WWF Nepal
Bhagawan Raj Dahal, PhD, Program Manager, ZSL-Nepal
Chiranjibi Prasad Pokheral, PhD, Program Manager, National Trust for Nature Conservation
ADVISORS
Man Bahadur Khadka, Director General, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
Krishna Prasad Acharya, Director General, Department of Forests and Soil Conservation
Maheshwar Dhakal, PhD, Chief, Biodiversity and Environment Division, Ministry of Forests and Environment
Govinda Gajurel, Member Secretary, National Trust for Nature Conservation
Ghana Shyam Gurung, PhD, Country Representative, WWF Nepal
Hem Sagar Baral, PhD, Country Representative, ZSL-Nepal
CITATION:
DNPWC and DFSC. (2018). Status of Tigers and Prey in Nepal. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
& Department of Forests and Soil Conservation. Ministry of Forests and Environment, Kathmandu, Nepal.
STATUS OF TIGERS AND PREY IN NEPAL 2018 iii
STATUS OF TIGERS AND PREY IN NEPAL 2018 v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Nepal, among the 13 range states, is committed to Our special thanks go to all chief conservation officers
doubling tiger by 2022 as per St. Petersburg Declaration, and their staff of Parsa, Chitwan, Banke, Bardia, and
2010. Tiger is mainly found in the five protected areas Shuklaphanta National Parks; District Forest Officers of
and area outside the protected areas along the low land the (Dadeldhura, Kanchanpur, Kailali, Bardia, Surkhet,
area of Nepal. In line with Nepal Tiger Recovery Program Banke, Salyan, Dang, Arghakhanchi, Kapilvastu,
(NTRP) and Tiger Conservation Action Plan (2016-2021), Rupendehi, Palpa, Nawalparasi, Chitwan, Parsa,
third nationwide tiger and prey survey 2018 has been Makwanpur, Bara and Rautahat and their staff of tiger
conducted to update the national database on tiger and bearing forest districts, staff of NTNC, ZSL Nepal, WWF
their prey in Nepal. Nepal and TAL field offices for their participation and
support in the field survey implementations. Ms. Sabita
Third Nationwide Tiger and Prey Survey 2018 Nepal has Malla, Mr. Samundra Subba, Mr. Saroj Koirala, Mr.
shown 19% increase from 2013 estimate of 198 tigers and Shailendra Giri, Mr. Babu Ram Lamichhane deserves
results give us pride and encouragement to continue our special thanks for their outstanding contribution in
tireless efforts to save the magnificent animal which is designing the survey, field technical support, data
endangered globally. The survey was conducted by the analysis, report writing and publication. We would also
Government of Nepal in collaboration with National like to thank Dr. Rajan Amin, Dr. Marcella J. Kelly and Ms.
Trust for Nature Conservation, Zoological Society of Rebecca May for their thorough review and constructive
London-Nepal office, and World Wildlife Fund-Nepal comments in finalizing this report. Besides, Nepali Army,
office. We would like to thank Dr. Maheshwar Dhakal - law enforcement agencies, buffer zone user committees,
Joint Secretary, MoFE; Mr. Govinda Gajurel - Member community forest user groups, CBAPUs, citizen scientist,
Secretary, NTNC; Dr. Hem Sagar Baral - Country students and volunteers deserve special thanks for their
Representative, ZSL Nepal and Dr. Ghana Shyam Gurung role and participation in the survey.
- Country Representative, WWF Nepal for their support
and advice in making this national survey a success. The technical and financial support of WWF Nepal, ZSL
Nepal, NTNC, USAID-Hariyo Ban Program, Leonardo
We extend our thanks to the technical committee DiCaprio Foundation, KfW/IUCN, Panthera, WildCats
members: Mr. Gopal Prakash Bhattarai (DNPWC, Chair), Conservation Alliance for nationwide tiger survey
Mr. Dhananjaya Lamichhane (MoFE), Ms. Madhuri deserves special acknowledgement.
Karki (Thapa) (DFSC), Mr. Laxman Prasad Poudyal
(DNPWC), Dr. Shant Raj Jnawali (WWF Nepal), Mr. Shiv We hope this technical report will be useful to all policy
Raj Bhatta (WWF Nepal), Mr. Bhupendra Prasad Yadav makers, protected areas and divisional forest managers,
(DNPWC), Mr. Rishi Ranabhat (DNPWC), Mr. Sujan conservationist, academia, and general readers nationally
Maharjan (DFSC), Dr. Kanchan Thapa (WWF Nepal), Dr. and internationally. Finally, we reiterate our sincere
Naresh Subedi (NTNC), Dr. Chiranjibi Prasad Pokheral thanks to every individual and institutions who made
(NTNC), and Dr. Bhagawan Raj Dahal (ZSL Nepal) for the nationwide tiger and prey survey a huge success and
their untiring work throughout the survey. timely publication of this technical report.
Ram Prasad Lamsal, PhD Man Bahadur Khadka

Director General Director General
Department of Forests and Soil Conservation Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
STATUS OF TIGERS AND PREY IN NEPAL 2018 vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tiger is an apex predator and an umbrella species that a total sampling effort of 2,485 km, provided the prey
ensures well-being of entire ecosystems across its habitat density estimates. An extensive effort of 53,843 person-
range in Asia. Its population and distribution range had days and 1,735 elephant-days was invested to complete
drastically declined in the last century, with the species the field work for the nationwide survey.
verging towards extinction. Over the past few decades,
however, implementation of strategic conservation Data analysis was done with established latest software.
interventions has aided in the revival of the tiger. Occupancy estimate was derived using PRESENCE,
tiger abundance and density was analyzed using ‘secr’
In 2010, Nepal along with other range countries and SPACECAP package in R environment, respectively.
endorsed the St. Petersburg declaration to double the DISTANCE software was used to estimate prey density.
tiger population by 2022. Since then, Nepal has been
conducting four-year periodic assessments to track the Tiger signs were detected in 12 districts (Bara, Parsa,
progress towards reaching the national target of 250 Makwanpur, Chitwan, Nawalparasi, Dang, Salyan,
tigers. The first and the second nationwide assessments Banke, Bardia, Surkhet, Kailali and Kanchanpur) out of
carried out in 2009 and 2013 estimated 121 and 198 18 districts surveyed across TAL-Nepal. Altogether, 494
tigers, respectively. unique tiger signs were detected, providing an occupancy
estimate of approximately 68% (11,057 km2 of the total
This report synthesizes the findings of the third 16,261 km2) across the landscape. Segregating further,
nationwide tiger and prey survey, led by the Department habitat occupied by tigers in PAs was found to be as high
of National Parks & Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) and as 98% (6,828 km2), as against 60% (5,576 km2) outside
Department of Forests and Soil Conservation (DFSC) Protected Areas.
with the support from WWF Nepal, National Trust for
Nature Conservation (NTNC), and ZSL-Nepal. Citizen Tigers were captured in camera traps in 482 grids, or 29%
scientists and students of various institutions provided of the total 1,643 grids. Altogether, 4,388 photographs
for human resource needs to achieve this landscape-level of 209 individual tigers [Parsa National Park (PNP) -
exercise. 15, Chitwan National Park (CNP) - 85, Banke National
Park (BaNP) – 17, Bardia National Park (BNP) - 77 &
The survey was conducted in all potential tiger habitats Shuklaphanta National Park (ShNP) – 15] were obtained.
in the Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) of Nepal, following Independent detections (1,136) of identified individuals
nationally approved Tiger and Prey Base Monitoring were analyzed to estimate protected area-wise tiger
Protocol, 2017, between November 2017 to April 2018. populations. This revealed an estimate of 18 (16-24) tigers
The major objectives were to estimate: i) habitat occupied in Parsa National Park and adjoining forests, 93 (89-102)
by tigers, ii) tiger abundance and density, and iii) prey tigers in Chitwan National Park and adjoining forests,
density. This report also recommends appropriate 21 (18-30) tigers in Banke National Park and adjoining
measures to address challenges in tiger conservation and forests, 87 (82-97) tigers in Bardia National Park and
presents the road map towards achieving TX2 by 2022. adjoining forests, and 16 (15-21) tigers in Shuklaphanta
National Park and adjoining forests. This accounts for the
To implement this survey, various working committees total national estimate of 235 tigers. A naïve comparison
were formed at central to field levels. Orientation indicates an approximate increase in the national tiger
trainings were provided to field survey teams prior to population by 19%, within the four-year period. Notable
the field work. Habitat occupancy survey was carried increase was recorded in respective populations of BNP,
out in 112 (15 km×15 km) grid cells covering 16,261 km2 BaNP and PNP and their adjoining forests; population
of forested habitats to estimate tiger distribution across in ShNP remained stable, while a marginal decline was
TAL-Nepal. Camera-trap survey was carried out in 1,643 recorded in CNP.
(2 km×2 km) grid cells encompassing a) sampling area:
6,572 km2, b) effective sampling area (total sampling Tiger density (per 100 km2) in PAs and adjoining forests,
area plus buffer): 12,356.6 km2 (protected areas, buffer was estimated to be 0.92 (SD 0.15), 3.28 (SD 0.19),
zones, corridors, and adjoining forests) to estimate tiger 0.97 (SD 0.12), 4.74 (SD 0.28) and 0.96 (SD 0.14) in
population and density. Overall effective sampling effort PNP, CNP, BaNP, BNP, and ShNP, respectively. Habitat
was 27,829 trap days. Survey of 1,294 line transects, with occupancy and usage outside PAs, documented by the
viii STATUS OF TIGERS AND PREY IN NEPAL 2018
present survey, is well below the optimal potential; this better connectivity as well as greater support towards
provides opportunities for increase through management conservation by communities.
interventions that reduce human disturbances and
improve habitat quality outside PAs. Nepal has come a long way in its journey towards doubling
tiger numbers by 2022. Yet, strategic interventions over
Wild prey species detected during line transect survey the next four years will be critical to achieve this goal. This
included four deer species (spotted deer, sambar, hog report compiles necessary efforts needed at both national
deer, barking deer), two antelopes (blue bull and four- and site levels. These include policy initiatives, research
horned antelope), wild boar, gaur, and two primate priorities, further improvements in protection and
species (rhesus macaque and langur). Prey density (per management interventions as well as greater engagement
km2) in Protected Areas and adjoining forests were 22 with communities. Improving on current trends through
(SE 3.8), 70.7 (SE 7.5), 8.1 (SE 1.6), 77.5 (SE 6.6) and 68 these interventions and incorporation of new emerging
(SE 7) in PNP, CNP, BaNP, BNP, and ShNP, respectively. understanding, with sustained political commitment
The overall positive trends in habitat occupancy, tiger by the Government and consistent efforts of diverse
abundance in Nepal plausibly relates to positive outcomes stakeholders, Nepal may well become the first country to
of improved protection and management measures, achieve its commitment to global tiger conservation.
STATUS OF TIGERS AND PREY IN NEPAL 2018 ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword....................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgement............................................................................................v
Executive Summary.......................................................................................vii
1. Introduction.............................................................................................. 1
2. Objectives..................................................................................................3
3. Study Area.................................................................................................5
4.Materials and Methods..............................................................................7
4.1 Survey Organization............................................................................................... 7
4.2 Field Methods.........................................................................................................7
4.2.1 Field Training.............................................................................................. 7
4.2.2 Survey Time Frame and Human Resources............................................... 7
4.2.3 Tiger Habitat Occupancy Surveys............................................................... 7
4.2.4 Camera Trap Based Mark-Recapture of Tigers..........................................8
4.2.5. Line Transect Surveys for Prey Base Density Estimation..........................8
5. Data Analysis........................................................................................... 11
5.1 Tiger Habitat Occupancy Modeling......................................................................11
5.2 Tiger Population Abundance Estimation..............................................................11
5.3 Tiger Density Estimation.......................................................................................11
5.4 Tiger Prey Density Estimation............................................................................. 12
6 Results..................................................................................................... 13
6.1 Tiger Habitat Occupancy...................................................................................... 13
6.1.1 Sampling Effort and Sign Detection......................................................... 13
6.1.2 Tiger Habitat Occupancy and Detection Probability............................... 13
6.2 Tiger Abundance................................................................................................... 13
6.2.1 Sampling Effort and Tiger Captures........................................................ 13
6.2.2 Tiger Population Abundance Estimates.................................................. 15
6.3 Tiger Density Estimates........................................................................................ 16
6.4 Prey Density Estimates......................................................................................... 16
6.5 Habitat Use of Tigers Outside PAs....................................................................... 18
7.Discussion............................................................................................... 19
7.1 Tiger Distribution, Habitat Usage and Occupancy.............................................. 19
7.2 Tiger Abundance and Density ............................................................................. 19
7.2.1 Methods Used and the Extent of Areas Covered .................................... 19
7.2.2 Trend in Minimum Population Based on Individual Tiger Captures.....20
7.2.3 Tiger Abundance Estimates.....................................................................20
7.2.4 Tiger Density............................................................................................ 21
7.2.5 Factors Governing Tiger Population Abundance and Density................ 21
7.3 Prey Densities.......................................................................................................23
8. Management Implications and the Road Map Towards TX2....................25
9. References............................................................................................... 27
10. Annexure.................................................................................................29
x STATUS OF TIGERS AND PREY IN NEPAL 2018
© Samir Jung Thapa/WWF Nepal

STATUS OF TIGERS AND PREY IN NEPAL 2018 1
1 . INTRODUCTION
The tiger (Panthera tigris) is an icon for wildlife Monitoring Protocol (DNPWC, 2017). Two nationwide
conservation. Presently, there are estimated to be around tiger assessments were carried out in 2009 and 2013,
3,900 tigers in the wild (WWF, 2016) and the tiger’s range respectively. The first assessment estimated 121 tigers in
has reduced by 95% since historical times (Dinerstein Nepal (Karki et al., 2009), and was crucial in bringing
et al 2007). Realizing this, the 13 tiger range countries major conservation policy changes in the country. The
led by Global Tiger Initiative (GTI) and supported by survey also established the tiger population baseline
global community joined hands to reverse the decline for the government’s commitment to double the tiger
of this iconic species (GTRP, 2010). This culminated in population from 121 to 250 tigers by 2022. The second
a global commitment to double the tiger population by assessment recorded a 63% increase in the country’s tiger
2022 (TX2) and the adoption of Global Tiger Recovery population from the 2009 baseline, with an estimated
Program (GTRP) in 2010 (GTRP, 2010). population of 198 tigers (Dhakal et al., 2014). It also
provided better insight of tigers along the transboundary
Tiger conservation in Nepal began with the launch of Terai Arc Landscape with empirical evidence of tiger
the tiger ecology project in 1972 in Chitwan (McDougal, movement across the borders (Chanchani et al., 2014).
1977; Smith, 1993) followed by the establishment of The study identified several site-specific management
Chitwan National Park (CNP), the first national park of and conservation gaps and recommended appropriate
Nepal. Since then, Nepal Government has established measures to address them.
an additional four protected areas (PAs); Parsa National
Park (PNP), Banke National Park (BaNP), Bardia National Accordingly, Nepal has invested intensive efforts over the
Park (BNP) and Shuklaphanta National Park (ShNP) for last four years to strive towards Tx2. Policy documents
the conservation of tigers. Nepal also gradually shifted such as National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
its conservation focus from protecting isolated core PAs (2014-2020), Terai Arc Landscape Strategy and Action
to designing and managing conservation landscapes Plan (2015-2025), Forest Policy (2015), and President
focusing on providing connectivity between wildlife Chure Terai Madhesh Conservation and Management
populations (Wikramanayake et al., 1998). Terai Arc Master Plan (2017) and Tiger Conservation Action Plan
Landscape (TAL) was the first conservation landscape in (2016-2020) were developed and endorsed which are
Nepal that was designed based on tiger dispersal model the major guiding documents for tiger conservation in
with the larger goal of mainstreaming species and forest Nepal.
restoration into the rural development agenda. Almost
two decades of landscape level conservation coupled The third 2018 nationwide tiger and prey status
with law enforcement efforts has started to pay off with assessment was carried out by the Government of Nepal
increasing tiger numbers and extent illustrating tiger (GoN) led by Department of National Parks and Wildlife
dispersal is conceivable and breeding habitat can be Conservation (DNPWC) and Department of Forests and
restored and at the same time enhancing local livelihoods Soil Conservation (DFSC) in partnership with WWF-
(Chanchani et al., 2014; Thapa et al., 2018). Nepal, ZSL-Nepal and the National Trust for Nature
Conservation (NTNC). This report presents the findings
The Nepal Government conducts country-wide of the assessment along with appropriate measures to
assessment of the status of tiger and prey every four years, address identified challenges in tiger conservation and a
following the nationally approved Tiger and Prey Base road map for doubling tiger numbers by 2022.
2 STATUS OF TIGERS AND PREY IN NEPAL 2018
© DNPWC/WWF Nepal © DNPWC/WWF Nepal
© DNPWC/WWF Nepal
2 . OBJECTIVES
THE MAIN OBJECTIVES OF THE NATIONWIDE TIGER AND PREY SURVEY WERE:
1. TO ESTIMATE THE PERCENTAGE OF HABITAT OCCUPIED BY TIGERS AT

THE LANDSCAPE LEVEL, WITHIN AND OUTSIDE PROTECTED AREAS;
2. TO ESTIMATE TIGER POPULATION ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY

IN PROTECTED AREAS AND ADJOINING FORESTS;
3. TO ESTIMATE PREY DENSITY IN PROTECTED AREAS AND

ADJOINING FORESTS.
4
© WWF Nepal
STATUS OF TIGERS AND PREY IN NEPAL 2018
Figure 1.Location of TAL – Nepal showing tiger-bearing PAs and corridors with camera trap locations (black dots) and habitat occupancy grid cells (15 km x15 km).
3 . STUDY AREA
Tigers in Nepal are distributed across the Terai and species of herpeto-fauna and more than 125 species of
Churia habitats within TAL. The National Tiger and Prey fish (MoFSC, 2015). Other high profile threatened species
Survey - 2018 was conducted across TAL, Nepal (Figure include greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros
1). The TAL is a global priority conservation landscape unicornis), swamp deer (Rucervus duvaucelii), Asian
for tigers that extends from the Bagmati river, Nepal in elephant (Elephas maximus), Gangetic dolphin
the east to the Yamuna river in Uttarakhand, India in the (Platanista gangetica), Bengal florican (Houbaropsis
west, with an area of 51,002 km2 (Wikramanayake et al., bengalensis), Gyps vulture (Gyps spp) and gharial
1998). TAL-Nepal is spread over 24,710 km2, covering (Gavialis gangeticus). This landscape is a mosaic of
18 districts; Dadeldhura, Kanchanpur, Kailali, Bardia, early successional tall grasslands established in the
Salyan, Surkhet, Banke, Dang, Arghakhanchi, Kapilvastu, alluvial floodplains to climax stage Sal forests at lower
Rupendehi, Palpa, Nawalparasi, Chitwan, Makwanpur, elevations, and broad-leaved forests in the Churia range.
Bara, Parsa and Rautahat (MoFSC, 2015). PNP, CNP, Major habitat types include Sal forests, riverine forests,
BaNP, BNP and ShNP are prime tiger habitats in TAL- mixed hardwood forests and grasslands (MoFSC, 2015).
Nepal; biological corridors (Someshwor, Barandabhar, TAL represents sub-tropical monsoonal climate with
Kamdi, Khata, Karnali, Basanta, Laljhadi, Brahmadev three distinct seasons: cool-dry (November-February),
and Jogbuda) provide habitat connectivity among these hot-dry (March-June) and monsoon (July-October).
PAs of Nepal and with the transboundary PAs in India The average temperature in the cool season drops to
(Chanchani et al., 2014). 5°C in January and rises to 40°C in the hot dry season
(MoFSC, 2015).
The highly productive alluvial grasslands and riverine
forests of TAL are the major habitats of tigers; these also The tiger protected areas within Nepal TAL are listed in
supports 85 species of mammals, 565 species of birds, 47 Table 1.
Table 1. Tiger bearing protected areas in Nepal
IUCN Core Area Year of

Protected Area Buffer Zone Elevation (msl)
Category (km2) Establishment
1984 as WR and
Parsa NP ** II 627.39 285.3 435-950
upgraded to NP in 2017
Chitwan NP II 952.63 729.37 1973 150-815
Banke NP II 550 343 2010 153-1,247
Bardia NP II 968 507 1976 150-1,441
1976 as WR and
Shuklaphanta NP** II 305 243.5 174-1,386
upgraded to NP in 2017
(** denotes the PAs with revised status of PA or changes in their former size). WR = Wildlife Reserve; NP = National Park.
© WWF Nepal
4 . MATERIALS AND METHODS

The national tiger survey was based on the 'Tiger and Prey Base Monitoring Protocol, 2017’ (DNPWC, 2017).
4.1 SURVEY ORGANIZATION 4.2.2 SURVEY TIME FRAME AND HUMAN RESOURCES
The field survey was carried out from December 2017
At the national level, an Advisory Committee was setup to April 2018 (Annex-9). It was initiated from PNP
under the chairmanship of the Director General, DNPWC following formal inauguration by Dr. Yubak Dhoj GC,
to provide overall guidance for the survey. Members of Secretary of MoFE. An extensive effort of 53,843 person-
this committee included Director General-DFSC, Member days and 1,735 elephant-days was invested to complete
Secretary - NTNC, Country Representative WWF-Nepal, the nationwide survey (Annex-9).
and Country Representative - ZSL-Nepal. A Technical
Committee chaired by Deputy Director General, DNPWC 4.2.3 TIGER HABITAT OCCUPANCY SURVEYS
was formed at the central level with representatives from Standardized method was followed for tiger occupancy
DNPWC, DFSC, WWF Nepal, ZSL-Nepal and NTNC for survey (DNPWC, 2012; DNPWC, 2017; Barber-Meyer et
overall coordination and supervision of the survey. A al., 2012). The occupancy survey was carried out in 112
Technical Task Force chaired by the Ecologist, DNPWC, grid cells (each measuring 15 km×15 km) that spanned
and comprising representatives of DNPWC and DFSC, across 16,261 km2 of potential tiger habitat (forested and
and wildlife biologists from WWF-Nepal, ZSL-Nepal and grassland) in TAL (Figure 1). Each grid cell was divided
NTNC, designed the survey, provided technical training into 16 sub-grid cells (3.75 km x 3.75 km). One sub-
and guidance for field work, analyzed data and produced grid cell was randomly selected to include an element
the report. of randomness in spatial distribution of survey routes
(Karanth et al., 2008; Barber-Meyer et al., 2012). The
Field Implementation Committees were formed at PA number of spatial replicates (i.e. km walked) per grid
level in PNP, CNP, BaNP, BNP, and ShNP under the cell was proportional to the percentage of tiger habitat
chairmanship of respective Chief Conservation Officers. (Karanth et al., 2008; Barber-Meyer et al., 2012). For
Members of these committees included respective District grid cells with 100% tiger habitat, 40 km was sampled
Forest Officers, Officers-in-Charge of NTNC field offices, by traversing random grid in every survey route. Grid
Managers of TAL-PABZ/CBRP, Field Officers from ZSL- cells with less than 10% habitat cover were discarded.
Nepal and other relevant stakeholders. The details of the Each contiguous 1 km segment was considered a ‘spatial
personnel involved is provided in Annex-10. replicate’ (Hines et al., 2010; Barber-Meyer et al., 2012).
Each replicate comprised 10 segments of 100 m each and
4.2 FIELD METHODS the data was recorded at every 100 m avoiding spatial
auto-correlation by accounting single records for each
4.2.1 FIELD TRAINING unique species per segment.
Training of survey field staff on occupancy surveys, camera
trap surveys, and line transect surveys were conducted in The trained personnel walked along high probability tiger
CNP (for Chitwan-Parsa complex), BNP (for Banke-Bardia sign areas such as forest trails, fire lines, ridge lines, river
Complex), and ShNP (for Shuklaphanta-Laljhadi-Jogbuda beds and streams searching for the signs of tiger (scats,
Complex). The trained personnel were deployed in groups pugmarks, scrapes, kills and urination), prey signs (dung,
of 6-8 at strategic locations across the study area. They footprints, sightings and calls) and human disturbances
were assigned to cover the allocated grid cells –to carry such as wood cutting, lopping, grazing and signs of
out tiger habitat occupancy surveys, to setup and monitor poaching.
camera traps, and to carry out line transect surveys.
4.2.4 CAMERA TRAP SURVEYS FOR ABUNDANCE ESTIMATION OF TIGERS 4.2.5 LINE TRANSECT SURVEYS FOR TIGER PREY DENSITY ESTIMATION
A pair of camera traps was systematically placed in Distance sampling (Buckland et al., 2001) was used for
1,643 locations of the total 2,045 grid cells (2 km x 2 km) estimating tiger prey densities. Line transects of 1.5-2
covering the entire area of tiger-bearing PAs and adjoining km lengths were systematically placed on 2 km x 2 km
forests (6,572 km2, Figure 2). The camera trap locations camera trap grid cells; areas falling in hilly terrains were
were selected based on extensive field surveys for signs avoided to adhere to the straight-line assumption of
of tiger such as pugmarks, scats, scrape and urination. distance sampling (Figure 3). Global Positioning System
Camera trapping was carried out in shifting blocks in (GPS) locations of the start and end points of each of the
each survey site (Royle et al., 2009). Cuddeback (C1) and transects were uploaded onto GPS receivers prior to the
Panthera (V5 and V6) digital cameras were used to obtain survey and the straight line was navigated following the
high quality images for individual tiger identification. bearing using Suunto compass and GPS receiver.
Cameras were programmed to take 3 pictures per trigger
with no delay (FAP mode) using white flash. The camera Line transect survey was conducted either on foot or on
traps were deployed for 15-20 nights in each of the grid elephant back. Each transect was traversed by two people
cells. with no delay (FAP mode) using white flash. between 0630 hours and 0930 hours; each transect was
Figure 2. Camera trap layout for Bardia National Park

(similar design was implemented in all other survey sites).
Figure 3. Distribution of line transects in Parsa National Park

(similar design was implemented in all other survey sites).
surveyed twice. Elephants were only used in tall flood radial distance to the animal/center of group and the
plain grasslands. The following data were recorded along bearing of the group and GPS locations of each sighting.
the transects - bearing, species sighted, group size, total Range finders and Suunto compass were used to measure
numbers of adult and young individuals in each group, radial distance and animal bearing.
© DNPWC/WWF Nepal
© DNPWC/WWF Nepal
5 . DATA ANALYSIS
5.1 TIGER HABITAT OCCUPANCY MODELLING Tiger abundance estimates were derived using Maximum
likelihood (ML) and Bayesian (B) based spatially-explicit
Standard occupancy modelling approach (MacKenzie et capture-recapture (SECR) (Royle et al., 2009; Efford and
al., 2002) was used to estimate occupancy (Psi), detection Fewster, 2012; Efford, 2018).
probabilities (p) and including modelling covariate
effects on detectability and occupancy. A detection/non- Input files i) a spatial capture history matrix, ii) a trap
detection history matrix was generated and imported into layout matrix and iii) a habitat mask excluding non-
the program PRESENCE 12.7 (Hines, 2013). Multiple habitat areas were prepared and analyzed using ‘secr’
season model (Hines et al., 2014) was used to estimate the package (version 3.1.6, Efford, 2018) in the R statistical
trend in occupancy dynamics across the landscape both environment (version 3.5.0, R Development Core Team,
spatially and temporally. For standard estimates, spatial 2018).
auto-correlation between sampled replicates was tested
using Hines et al., 2010 (for single season) and Hines et Range of models with biologically plausible covariates
al., 2014 (for multiple season) model respectively. on detection probability (g0) and space range (sigma)
were considered. The effects of time factor (t), time trend
5.2 TIGER POPULATION ABUNDANCE ESTIMATION (T), animal’s learned response (b), transient response
(B), animal x site learned response (bk), animal x site
Camera trap surveys are now a well-established transient response (Bk), and two-class mixtures (h2)
methodology for density and abundance estimation of were specified and modelled for both detection and
elusive carnivores (Karanth et al., 2008; Kelly and Holub distribution. All models were ranked based on Akaike’s
2008). Recent development of spatial capture-recapture Information Criterion (AICc) and model-averaging was
methods has led to greater clarity in abundance estimation done with models having delta AIC<2 to determine
by integrating spatial or “location” information of animal population estimates for each site.
captures. This involves identification of tigers based on
their unique stripe patterns, developing a capture history Since the PAs surveyed are contiguous (e.g. BaNP share
matrix detailing tiger ID, capture location and sampling its boundary with BNP, and PNP with CNP), taking
occasion over the sampling period (Karanth and Nichols population size (Ń) of PAs buffer would overestimate the
1998) and analysis of capture history data using maximum population. Therefore, SECR models were fitted using the
likelihood (Efford and Fewster, 2012; Efford, 2018), or stable buffer size first and then population estimates were
Bayesian framework (Royle et al., 2009; Gopalaswamy exclusively derived for the effectively sampled area or the
et al., 2012). The data is also amenable to analysis in a ellipse that contained all the detectors (camera traps).
non-spatial framework and can be used for conventional
mark-recapture analysis (White & Burnham, 1999). 5.3 TIGER DENSITY ESTIMATION
Individual tigers were visually identified by field SECR models under Bayesian framework using Markov-
technicians and trained biologists at three levels (i.e.- Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods were used to
field technicians, field implementation committee and estimate site-specific tiger densities in SPACECAP
wildlife biologists) by thoroughly examining all the (version 1.1.0) (Gopalaswamy et al., 2012) in R 3.4.0 (R
images obtained. Only adult tigers (animals captured Core Team, 2017). Three input files - “animal capture” file
independently without mother) were used in the analysis detailing trap location, animal ID and sampling occasion,
(Karanth et al., 1998). Individual tigers were given a “trap flag” file, and, “habitat mask” were prepared. Trap
consistent ID based on the national tiger database. The flag was created and included in the model to specify
tigers were also segregated by sex where possible. Tiger active days of each camera trap station. This incorporated
images from protected areas with shared boundary the block sampling design and explicitly accounted
were also compared and common tigers were identified. for dysfunctional cameras on account of theft, wildlife
Common tigers were assigned to the protected area with damage or malfunction. Habitat mask was created for
maximum spatial coverage to estimate site level tiger area that included camera trap array (MCP: Minimum
population abundance. Convex Polygon) surrounded by a buffer of half mean
maximum distance moved (1/2 MMDM) by the tigers camera locations of 2018 within the camera trap polygon
as range beyond this were all dominated by human of 2013 was used and tiger densities were estimated for
settlements. Pixelated habitat mesh size of 0.3364 all the study sites in TAL following the similar approach
km2 was used (Karanth et al., 2008). Models with four in SPACECAP.
different combinations - trap response present, trap
response absent, half normal and negative exponential 5.4 TIGER PREY DENSITY ESTIMATION
detection functions were used to fit the data.
Line transect data were analyzed using the program
MCMC simulations with over 1,00,000 iterations, burn- DISTANCE version 7.1 to obtain density estimates of
in of 15,000-25,000 and thinning rate of 1-5 and data prey species (Buckland et al., 2001; Thomas et al., 2010).
augmentation value of 5 times the number of animals Due to low detection of prey, multiple years’ data (2016-
captured was set for running the site-specific analysis. 2018) of similar season were used to estimate the prey
Geweke diagnostic scores (-1.64 to 1.64) was used to check density (Kumar et al., 2018). These yielded estimates
the convergence of chains and data fit (Gopalaswamy et of the density of principal prey species for each site.
al., 2012). Pixelated map showing the tiger density was Observation of all the species was pooled for fitting global
produced for each of the sites in ArcGIS (Ver. 10.1). detection function. For species with sufficient detections,
detection function was fitted at the species level. Chi
Two separate density estimates were derived by square goodness of fit test was used to assess the fit of the
accounting the area sampled in 2018 and 2013. For model, and the best model from the subset of models was
comparison with density estimates of 2013, site-specific selected using lowest AIC value.
© WWF Nepal
6 . RESULTS
6.1 TIGER HABITAT OCCUPANCY (16,261 km2) in the landscape, an estimated 11,057.5 km2
(SE 663.5 km2) was occupied by tigers as of 2018.
6.1.1 SAMPLING EFFORT AND TIGER SIGN DETECTION
The team surveyed 112 grid cells in TAL (Figure 4) with a In addition, the modelled occupancy inside the PAs was
sampling effort of 2,838 km with an area of 16,261 km2. 0.98 (SE 0.06) covering 6,828 km2 and 0.60 (SE 0.11)
A total of 494 unique tiger signs were detected. Of these, 5,576 km2 outside PAs. The detection probability inside
409 (83%) signs were recorded within 45 grid cells located PAs was 0.79 (SE 0.03) and outside PAs 0.37 (SE 0.08)
inside the juristic boundary of PAs (Core area and Buffer respectively.
zone) and 85 (17%) signs were recorded outside PAs in
67 grid cells. The majority of the detections outside PAs 6.2 TIGER ABUNDANCE
(41 tiger signs) were recorded in 25 grid cells located in
corridors. Overall, tiger signs were recorded in 12 districts 6.2.1 SAMPLING EFFORT AND TIGER CAPTURES
(Bara, Parsa, Makwanpur, Chitwan, Nawalparasi, Dang, A pair of cameras were deployed in 1,643 grid cells (2 km
Salyan, Banke, Bardia, Surkhet, Kailali and Kanchanpur) x 2 km) across five tiger bearing protected areas and their
out of 18 districts surveyed. adjoining forests. Tigers were captured in 482 (29%) grid
cells (Table 2). Total effective sampling area (ESA) was
6.1.2 TIGER HABITAT OCCUPANCY AND DETECTION PROBABILITY estimated at 12,356.64 km2.
The naïve tiger occupancy was 0.6 where tiger signs were
detected in 68 out of 112 grid cells. The modelled occupancy Camera trapping effort of 27,829 days across all sites
(proportion of area occupied) in the landscape was 0.68 resulted in tiger trap rate of 0.04 per trap day (4.2%)
(SE 0.06) with an estimated detection probability of with 4,388 tiger images and 1,136 independent tiger
0.73 (SE 0.03). Out of the total potential habitat of tigers detections. Individual tigers were identified using stripe
Table 2. Number of grid cells surveyed and number of grid cells with tiger captures in each site.
Number of surveyed camera trap Number of grid cells with tiger
Site
grid cells captures
PNP and adjoining forests 305 49 (16%)
CNP and adjoining forests 509 199 (39%)
BaNP and adjoining Forests 254 38 (15%)
BNP and adjoining Forests 323 149 (46%)
ShNP and adjoining forests 252 47 (19%)
Total 1,643 482 (29%)
Figure 4. Tiger occupancy in TAL-Nepal, 2018.

patterns of all available “both flank” pictures and either 6.2.2 TIGER POPULATION ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES
“right or left flank pictures” for each of the study sites. The estimated abundance of tigers in PNP and adjoining
Juveniles and cubs (N=28) captured were not included in forests is 18 (16-24), CNP and adjoining forests is 93
the analysis (Table 3). (89-102), BaNP and adjoining forests is 21 (18-30),
BNP and adjoining forests is 87 (82-97) and ShNP and
These resulted into 209 individual tigers (PNP and adjoining forests is 16 (15-21). The SECR-ML based tiger
surrounding forests-15, CNP and surrounding forests-85, population estimate for each tiger bearing PAs and the
BaNP and surrounding forests-17, BNP and surrounding adjoining forests is provided in Table 4. Summing up the
forests-77, ShNP and surrounding forests-15) (Table 3) site-wise estimates, the forests of TAL-Nepal support 235
including 78 males, 118 females and 13 of unknown sex. tigers as of 2018. The details of the model used, and the
Site-wise breakdown of tiger numbers is provided in Table real parameters are provided in Annex-1.
3 with respective sampling efforts.
Table 3: Site wise sampling effort and the minimum tigers (Mt+1) identified
Number
Survey Effective
Number Number of of Adult
effort sampling Adults Adult
Site of tiger independent individual unknown Cubs
(trap area males females
photos detections tigers sex
days) (km2)
captured
PNP and
adjoining 4,810 3,634.50 294 102 15 5 10 - 3
forests
CNP and
adjoining 8,433 2,281.10 1,744 480 85 30 50 5 12
forests
BaNP and
adjoining 4,503 2,311.70 565 61 17 6 10 1 0
forests
BNP and
adjoining 5,479 2,832.80 1,554 404 77 28 42 7 11
forests
ShNP and
adjoining 4,604 2,154.30 231 89 15 9 6 - 2
forests
Total 27,829 12,356.6 4,388 1,136 209 78 118 13 28
Table 4. Estimated site tiger population estimates in Nepal, 2018.

Detection 95% confidence
Site Mt+1 Model RN SE
Function interval
PNP and adjoining
15 M (g0~bk sigma~bk) HR 18 1.9 16 – 24
forests
CNP and adjoining M (g0~bk sigma~1, g0~bk
85 EX 93 3.14 89 – 102
forests sigma~T)
BaNP and adjoining
17 M (g0~B sigma~1) EX 21 2.63 18 – 30
forests
BNP and adjoining M (g0~bk sigma~1, g0~bk
77 EX 87 3.64 82 – 97
forests sigma~T)
ShNP and adjoining M (g0~h2 sigma~1 pmix~h2,
15 EX 16 1.16 15 – 21
forests g0~h2 sigma~T pmix~h2)
TOTAL 209 235
RN: Realized Number which refers to the number of tigers detected (N) plus a model-based estimate of tigers in the study area of interest that remain undetected,
g0: detection probability, Sigma:space range, T: time trend, B:transient response, bk: animal x site learned response,and h2: two-class mixtures, HR: hazard rate,
HN: half normal, EX: Negative exponential
The tiger population estimates generated using other 6.4 PREY DENSITY ESTIMATES
programs have been provided in Annex-2 for better
comparison with the earlier surveys. In total 1,294 transects were conducted covering 2,485
km. Tiger prey species recorded during the survey
6.3 TIGER DENSITY ESTIMATES included four deer species (spotted deer, sambar, hog
deer, barking deer), two antelope species (blue bull and
Data convergence was achieved for results of all the study four-horned antelope), wild boar, gaur, and two primate
sites accounting Geweke diagnostic score with other real species (rhesus macaque and langur).
parameters. The mean posterior density of tigers per 100
km2 in PNP and adjoining forests was 0.92 (SD 0.15), Combined density of prey (all prey per km2) varied
CNP and adjoining forests was 3.28 (SD 0.19), BaNP and between 8.1 and 77.51 animals per km2 across the sites.
adjoining forests was 0.97 (SD 0.12), BNP and adjoining The combined prey density per km2 in PNP and adjoining
forests was 4.74 (SD 0.28) and ShNP and adjoining forests is 22.03 (SE 3.8), CNP and adjoining forests is
forests was 0.96 (SD 0.14) respectively. 70.7 (SE 7.49), BaNP and adjoining forests is 8.1 (SE 1.6),
BNP and adjoining forests is 77.51 (SE 6.56) and ShNP
The density estimates with 95% confidence intervals are and adjoining forests is 68.04 (SE 6.95) respectively.
provided in Table 5. The summaries of real parameters
for each of the sites are provided in Annex-3 The site-wise sampling effort, number of observations
and prey density estimates are provided in Table 6
The pixelated tiger density map produced by combining and species-wise details and species-wise prey density
site-wise pixel values generated by program SPACECAP estimates are provided in Annex-7.
is provided in Figure 5.
Table 5: Tiger density estimates for the tiger-bearing protected areas including buffer zones, adjoining
forests and corridors.
Site Mean SD 95% CI

PNP and adjoining forests 0.92 0.15 0.64-1.20
CNP and adjoining forests 3.28 0.19 2.92-3.63
BaNP and adjoining forests 0.97 0.12 0.75-1.18
BNP and adjoining forests 4.74 0.28 4.20-5.28
ShNP and adjoining forests 0.96 0.14 0.72-1.21
SD: Standard Deviation.
Table 6.Overall prey density estimates in tiger bearing protected areas and adjoining forests.
Number
Effort No. of Density
Site of SE CV (%) 95% CI
(km) obs. (per km2)
transects
15.66 -
PNP and adjoining forests 482 248 194 22.02 3.8 17.48
30.96
57.49 -
CNP and adjoining forests 331.6 175 367 70.7 7.49 10.59
87.05
5.46 -
BaNP and adjoining forests 647 304 99 8.1 1.6 20.25
12.01
65.66 -
BNP and adjoining forests 745 414 776 77.51* 6.56 8.47
91.49
55.70 -
ShNP and adjoining forests 279 153 412 68.04* 6.95 10.22
83.10
Total 2,484.6 1,294 1,848
* denotes density estimates of all prey excluding swamp deer that was not detected during the line transect survey in both Bardia National Park and
Shuklaphanta National Park. SE: Standard Error of Mean, CI: Confidence Interval, CV: Coefficient of Variation (SD/Mean)
Figure 5. Tiger density within the Terai Arc Landscape, Nepal. The density map is composed of pixels (0.336 km2) representing potential activity centers of individual tigers.
6.5 HABITAT USE OF TIGERS OUTSIDE PAs 2 unknown) were observed in Someshwor hill forest
(CNP BZ), four tigers (2 male,2 female) were captured
In addition to the core tiger-bearing protected areas, the from Barandabhar corridor (CNP BZ) and two female
known tiger distribution range (buffer zones, corridors tigers were captured in the forests of Nawalparasi close to
and adjoining forests) within TAL were sampled using Binayee and Madhyabindu.
camera traps. Therefore, in the site-specific, spatially
explicit capture-recapture estimates of PAs and adjoining In western Terai, one tiger with a large spatial range
forests, the tigers with activity centers outside PAs have extending across BNP and BaNP was also observed in Dang
been included in the analysis. Altogether, twenty-two forest near Lauki guard post (Table 7; Annex-8: Figure
tigers were recorded outside PAs. However, only nine 8). Altogether, thirteen and three tigers were captured
tigers were exclusively captured outside PAs (Table 7). in Khata and Karnali river corridor respectively. Among
Of these, adult female captured in the district forest of the thirteen tigers captured in Khata corridor, four were
Nawalparasi was photographed with three healthy cubs. captured exclusively and nine tigers (6 male, 3 female) had
The rest of the fifteen tigers captured in district forests their home ranges extended within the habitats in BNP
had their home range extended to core and buffer zones and BNP BZ (Table 7; Annex-8: Figure 9).
(Table 7). Habitat use of tigers therefore was observed
to be minimal outside the juristic boundary of protected In far-west Terai, only one male tiger was recorded
areas during the study period (see maps in Annex-8). from outside ShNP in Laljhadi corridor. This male was
recorded from forests that spanned north-eastern part
In central Terai, a male and female tiger were recorded in of ShNP and fragmented forest patches in Laljhadi
the collaborative forests in Parsa, three tigers (1 female, corridor.
Table 7.Number of tigers captured within and outside the juristic boundary of protected areas and
exclusively outside protected areas.
S. N Site Male Female Unknown sex Total
1 Parsa collaborative forest* and PNP 1 1 - 2
2 Nawalparasi (exclusively) 0 2 - 2
3 Dang forest, BNP and BaNP 1 - - 1
4 Karnali river corridor (exclusively) - - 3 3
5 Khata corridor (exclusively) - 2 2 4
6 Khata, BNP BZ and BNP 6 3 - 9
7 ShNP core and Laljhadi corridor 1 - - 1
Total 9 8 5 22
*Collaborative forest: A forest jointly managed by national government, local government and local communities
7 . DISCUSSION
7.1. TIGER DISTRIBUTION, HABITAT USAGE AND OCCUPANCY
KEY FINDINGS:
Altogether 494 unique tiger signs were recorded by
habitat occupancy survey carried out across TAL. About 68% of the total potential habitat was occupied
Maximum signs (83%) were recorded within PAs and 17% by tigers across TAL, covering 11,057 km2.
of tiger signs were detected outside PAs in TAL. Similarly,
tigers were captured in 482 out of 1,643 grid cells which Camera trap survey identified a minimum of 209
is only 29% of the total area surveyed. Combining both individual tigers.
tiger signs and tiger captured locations in camera traps,
tigers were recorded in 12 districts. However, majority PA wise tiger population was estimated at PNP-18,
(96%) of the photo-captured tigers (N=200) were mostly CNP-93, BaNP-21, BNP-87 & ShNP-16. This summed
confined within protected areas and 9 tigers (4%) were up to 235 tigers in Nepal. 88% of the estimated tiger
captured in forests outside the protected areas in TAL. population were photo-captured (Mt+1) in the survey.
Thirteen individual tigers that used core and buffer
zones also had their territorial range extended to forests Nine tigers were found exclusively in areas outside
outside PAs. Twenty-four tigers were captured from five juristic boundary of PAs with 13 tigers using forested
biological corridors viz: Laljhadi (1), Khata (13), Karnali habitats both within and outside PAs.
(3), Barandabhar (4) and Someshwor hill forest (3). Only
few tiger signs were recorded from Kamdi and Basanta Tiger density/100 km2 ranged from lowest 0.9 in BaNP
corridors. to highest 4.7 in BNP.
Modelled tiger occupancy in the landscape is showing an Prey density/km2 ranged from lowest 8.1 in BaNP to
increasing trend. Between 2009-2013, there was a 47% highest 77.5 in BNP.
(λ=1.47) increase in occupancy. Similarly, between 2013-
2018 there was a 12% (λ=1.12) increase in occupancy
across the landscape. The likely reason for the increase
in occupancy can be attributed to the increasing tiger PAs more conducive for tigers and to facilitate their
population that are expanding, establishing their safe dispersal, measures should be focused towards
territories in areas previously unoccupied [colonization improving habitat quality, increasing prey population
probability, γ- 0.45 (SE 0.06)] and ongoing restoration and minimizing human disturbances at the level that
efforts. comply with tolerance level of tigers. Replicating success
of community forestry as seen in Khata corridor could
In totality, tigers occupied 11,057 km2 (68%) of the provide a potential solution that benefits both tigers and
available habitat (16,261 km2) in the landscape. Within people.
PAs tigers occupied 6,828 km2 (98%) of the available
habitat (6,968 km2). However, tigers occupied only 5,576 7.2 TIGER ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY
km2 (60%) of the available habitat 9,293 km2 outside the
PAs. The large tracts of forest exist outside the protected 7.2.1 METHODS USED, AND THE EXTENT OF AREAS COVERED
areas in TAL, but majority of these forest patches face SECR-ML and SECR-B are commonly used techniques in
high anthropogenic pressure. The ground forest cover is deriving population and density estimates (Gopalaswamy
literally non-existent with high cattle grazing, and prey- et al. 2012; Royle et al. 2009; Elliot and Gopalaswamy
base is extremely low to support resident tigers. Unlike 2016). In the present survey, tiger population estimates
PAs, these forested habitats have minimal protection, and were derived using SECR ML while density estimates
therefore face risk of becoming a sink for tigers. Thus, the were derived using SECR-B. In 2013, both population
existing limited use of forests by tigers outside PAs can and density estimates were derived using SECR-B
be enhanced through protection and other management without considering the overlaps between the contiguous
interventions similar to PAs. To make habitat outside protected areas in Nepal and India (e.g. CNP, PNP and
Valmiki Tiger Reserve (VTR)). This could have likely and adjoining forests-17, BNP and adjoining forests-77
overestimated the population abundance in the PAs that and ShNP and adjoining forests-15) compared to 142
shared contiguous habitats. The results of the present individuals (40 males, 102 females)
survey derived by both SECR-ML and SECR-B have
addressed the overlap issues and the estimates derived In PNP, BaNP and BNP where annual/bi-annual tiger
are similar with 95% CI overlaps (Table 8). In estimating monitoring was conducted, minimum population of
PA wise abundance coefficient of variation (CV %, tigers has increased against 2013 baseline. However,
Table 8) is relatively lower for SECR-ML (av. CV: 7.5%) since 2013, Mt+1 has remained stable in ShNP largely
as compared to SECR-B (av. CV: 11%). Therefore, PA because of the male biased sex ratio (2018 survey-1.5:1),
abundance estimate (∑ 235 tigers) have been reported that could be other reason impeding the growth in tiger
using SECR-ML. Similarly, as program CAPTURE and population.
Mark were used in 2009 and 2013 surveys, the results
obtained from these programs have also been reported In PNP, the highest number of individual tigers captured
for readers knowledge. For density estimates, the results was 19 in 2016. This has dropped down to 15 individuals
from both SECR-ML and SECR-B have been reported in the 2018 survey. Among the tigers not captured in
(Annex-6). PNP during the 2018 survey, two were earlier captured
in Someshwor hill corridor forest (a transboundary
The 2018 survey extensively covered potential tiger corridor linking CNP, PNP and VTR of India), indicating
habitat of TAL, Nepal. The sampling effort in this survey that these could be transients. It is only through regular/
was maximized by covering most of the known records annual surveys that the fate of individual tigers lost
of tiger distribution based on findings of annual tiger through natural death or dispersal and also recruitment
surveys since 2013 and thus, the extent of the area from births or immigration is understood, which can
covered by camera traps increased from 1,039 grid cells provide a rigorous audit for the successes or failures in
in 2013 survey to 1,643 grid cells in 2018 (58%). Tiger tiger conservation programs. Hence annual surveys are
captures were recorded in 29% (482) of the 1,643 grids. recommended to provide insights in tiger population
However, the 604 new grids added in 2018 accounted for dynamics.
only six tigers indicating minimal impact on the overall
status change. 7.2.3. TIGER ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES
Status of tigers in Nepal is estimated at 235 individuals
7.2.2 TREND IN MINIMUM POPULATION BASED ON INDIVIDUAL TIGER in 2018 which is simply a summation of PAs and their
CAPTURES adjoining forests-wise estimation without estimated
This study reports a minimum population of 209 variance. In 2013, a total of 198 tigers were estimated in
individual adult tigers; 78 males, 118 females and 13 Nepal (Dhakal et al., 2014). A naïve comparison indicates
unknow sex, from across the study sites (PNP and an increase of approximately 19% within the four-year
adjoining forests-15, CNP and adjoining forests-85, BaNP period. There has been notable increase in BNP, BaNP and
Table 8. Comparison of Population Estimates using SECR-ML and SECR-B
Site SECR-ML SECR-B

Mt+1 Population SE 95% CI CV Population SE 95% CI CV
Estimate (in %) Estimate (in %)
PNP and adjoining forests 15 18 1.9 16-24 10.6 17 2.8 12-22 16.5
CNP and adjoining forests 85 93 3.1 89-102 3.3 82 4.6 73-90 5.6
BaNP and adjoining forests 17 21 2.6 18-30 12.4 19 2.3 16-25 12.1
BNP and adjoining forests 77 87 3.6 82-97 4.1 89 5.2 78-99 5.8
ShNP and adjoining forests 15 16 1.16 15-21 7.3 16 2.3 12-20 14.4
Total 235 223
CV: Coefficient of Variation, Mt+1: Minimum individual identified, SE: Standard error of Mean, SECR: Spatially Explicit Capture Recapture, ML: Maximum
Likelihood, B: Bayesian
120
80
60
40
20
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
-20
ShNP BNP BaNP PNP CNP
Linear (ShNP) Linear (BNP) Linear (BaNP) Linear (PNP) Linear (CNP)
Figure 6. Trend in tiger population (2009-2018) based on Mt+1
PNP (including adjoining forests) whereas the population mostly confined within the boundaries of protected areas
has remained stable in ShNP and adjoining forests and and associated buffer zones. Therefore, to determine
declined in CNP and adjoining forests. Further, unlike the true change in density from 2013 to 2018, density
the other protected areas, CNP lacks annual monitoring estimates were generated for the effective sampled area
data to confirm the actual trend in population estimates. of 2013 for better comparison
In BaNP and adjoining forests, tiger population has Detailed outputs from SECR-B analysis for 2013 and
increased by more than five-fold i.e. from 4 (3-7) tigers in 2018 are provided Annex-4. The pixelated tiger density
2013 to 21 (18-30) tigers in 2018 (P =0.001). In Bardia, maps for 2013 and 2018 produced by combining site-
tiger population almost doubled from 50 (45-55) in wise pixel values generated by program SPACECAP are
2013 to 87 (82-97) in 2018 (P=0.002) Likewise, PNP provided in Annex-5.
and adjoining forests, the tiger population significantly
increased from 7 (4-7) in 2013 to 18 (16-24) tigers in 2018 Site-level tiger densities (individuals per 100 km2) from
(P=0.03). In contrast, the estimated population of CNP 2013 to 2018 increased from 0.65 (SD 0.28) to 1.49 (SD
has marginally declined from 120 (98-139) in 2013 to 93 0.23) in PNP (P =0.088), 0.16 (SD 0.05) to 1.38 (SD 0.17)
(89-102) tigers in 2018 (P = 0.06). The population has in BaNP (P =0.002) and 3.38 (SD 0.19) to 5.4 (SD 0.29)
remained stable in ShNP and adjoining forest with 17 (13- in BNP (P =0.03). The tiger density estimates for CNP
21) estimated tigers in 2013 to 16 (15-21) tigers in 2018 has marginally declined from 3.84 (SD 0.34) to 3.81 (SD
(P =0.86). 0.25) (P=0.97) whereas it has remained stable in ShNP at
3.4 (SD 0.65) (P=0.92).
7.2.4. TIGER DENSITY
Tiger density (no. of tigers per 100 km2) ranged from 0.9 7.2.5. FACTORS GOVERNING TIGER POPULATION ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY
in BaNP (lowest) to 4.7 in BNP (highest). Tiger density The conservation of tigers is dependent on appropriate
estimates for 2018 was lower compared to 2013. This was protection measures, prey densities, habitat connectivity,
because the additional habitats (~2400 km2) sampled habitat management of the critical habitats, park-people
in 2018 supported only a few tigers (n=6). Tigers were relationship and human-tiger interaction across TAL,
2013 2018
6
5
5.4
3.81
3
3.84
3.38 3.48
2 3.4
1 1.49
1.38
0.65 0.6
0
PNP* CNP* BaNP* BNP* ShNP*
Figure 7. Site-level tiger density estimates with respective standard error bars for 2013 and 2018.
* denotes respective PAs and adjoining forests.
Nepal. These are discussed in detailed below. recorded from as early as 2014 and the cubs born in 2014,
2015 and 2016 have survived to adulthood. Therefore,
The significant increase in tiger population abundance a detailed study to understand the meta-population
in BNP and its adjoining forests can be attributed to dynamics of tigers is suggested as future priorities for
enhanced protection measures, increased support from managing the tigers in Banke-Bardia complex.
communities in buffer zone and corridors and regular
practice of habitat management by park authorities. The In PNP, study by Lamichhane et al. (2017) reported a total
park has been equipped with 10 additional protection of 25 individuals from the annual surveys carried out from
posts strategically placed at Lamidamar, Kalinara, 2013 to 2016. Of these, 10 tigers were earlier reported in
Ratamate, Lekhparajul, Taranga, Thuloshree, Sotkhola, CNP thus PNP has benefitted through tiger dispersal from
Banspani, Telpani and Okhariya in the last four years. the adjoining CNP. The tiger recovery can also be credited
Patrol coverage throughout the PA and buffer zone has to voluntary relocation of villages from the park; these areas
been achieved through the implementation of real-time now support higher numbers of ungulates and breeding
SMART covering 31 protection/army posts. BNP also tigers. In 2015, the core area of PNP was extended by 128
benefits from the adjoining Khata corridor that provides km2 to 627 km2. Park protection and management have been
direct habitat linkage to Katerniaghat Wildlife Sanctuary enhanced through construction of park posts in strategic
(KWS) in India through regular transboundary movement locations at northern part of the park including Annexed
of animals ensuring genetic exchange between the two area and increased number of Nepali Army personnel in the
populations (Chanchani et al.,2014; Thapa et al., 2018). park.
BNP is also acting as a source site for BaNP; three tigers (2 Chitwan-Valmiki-Parsa complex holds a significant
male, 1 female) born and raised in BNP have overlapped population of tigers within the eastern part of Terai Arc
territories with BaNP. Thus, the increase population in Landscape. CNP acts as source population replenishing
BaNP is partially contributed by the dispersal of tigers tigers to the adjoining and contiguous protected areas
from adjoining BNP. There has also been improvement in of PNP in the east and VTR in the south. Recent survey
park management and protection over the last four years. has showed a decline in tiger population in CNP and
Since 2013, total of 15 park posts were constructed along adjoining forests. This could be attributed to 1) dispersal
the northern border and in strategic sites in the south. In of tigers to neighboring sites (PNP and VTR), 2) increased
2013, real-time SMART was implemented starting with intraspecific competition, 3) human-wildlife conflicts
two park posts and extended to fourteen posts to date. (two were reported killed in retaliation), 4) poaching (one
Habitat improvement has also been undertaken including case), and 5) natural disasters such as the catastrophic
restoring and creating water holes (n=17) and managing flood of 2017.
grasslands (147 hectares). Signs of tiger breeding have been
The loss of eight tigers due to territorial fights between note, existing method of line transect survey was heavily
2014-2018 suggests space could be a limiting factor concentrated in Terai, thus the species like sambar
within CNP. Two tigers were killed in retaliation (Rusa unicolor), four-horned antelope (Tetraceros
suggesting further interventions are needed in garnering quadricornis), ghoral (Naemorhedus goral) and
community support. One recorded case of poaching also Himalayan tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus) that are well
captures the prevailing threat of poaching in the park. adapted to undulating Churias were not accounted for.
In addition, massive flood in August 2017 swept away
unaccounted numbers of wildlife in CNP. Park authorities Other possible reason for decline in prey density could
rescued a total of 10 rhinos from downstream riverine be the catastrophic flood in Chitwan in 2017 and Bardia
habitat in India. Furthermore, the flood could have in 2015. In one event alone, 28 hog deer carcasses were
affected significant number of prey species consequently found from a single site, after being washed away by the
affecting the tiger’s space use. However, a detailed study swelling Narayani and similar cases were reported in
(including carrying capacity) is needed to understand the Babai valley of Bardia in 2015.
tiger population in CNP.
Moreover, swamp deer which occurs in high density in
Tiger populations in PNP and VTR have increased ShNP has not been accounted as they were not sighted
substantially in recent years. The turnover rate (defined in the transect survey. This could have contributed
as loss and gain) of tigers in CNP based on camera trap to lower density estimates in ShNP. Recently, prime
data was found to be almost 70% in the last 4 years with wetlands (Rani taal, Salgaudi taal and Kalikich taal)
only 19 tigers recorded in 2013. Of the 31 individual tigers have deteriorated in the core area of ShNP primarily
captured in PNP between 2013-2018, 10 were earlier due to siltation, while grasslands have been encroached
captured in Chitwan and the rest 12 documented were not by woody perennials along Chaudhar river. This may
born and raised in PNP suggesting high dispersal from also have contributed in the decline of prey base when
CNP. In VTR, tiger population has increased from 10 compared to 2013 study.
individuals in 2008 to 31 individuals in 2016/17 (Source:
WWF India). Prey density in BaNP and PNP is notably lower than other
three tiger bearing PAs (CNP, BNP and ShNP) in Nepal.
The major reason for the stagnant population of ShNP is Larger parts of BaNP and PNP are covered by Churia
the male biased sex-ratio (1.5:1). The females are known forests, while the remaining lowland area is dominated
to give births occasionally but the survival of cubs by homogenous Sal forests that have lower potential to
to adulthood has been a major factor. Two cubs died support high prey density. CNP, BNP and ShNP have
because of possible infanticide in 2017 and one sub- extensive riparian forests and tall floodplain grasslands
adult tiger was killed by the dominant male in territorial regulated by annual floods where ungulates can reach
fight (ShNP, 2018). Furthermore, southern section of their highest densities. BaNP and PNP are also extremely
national park, along Lagga Bagga, offers an opportunity dry due to the physical characteristics of Bhabar region
to tigers to disperse into India. Security of dispersing and therefore water may be another limiting factor for
tigers and/or resident tigers along the transboundary prey species.
protected areas requires special attention.
Sightings of prey outside PAs were negligible owing to
7.3. PREY DENSITY large scale disturbances. Hence, prey recovery in the
surrounding forests of PAs with focus on regulating
Prey density estimates marginally declined across the and reducing disturbances should be emphasized in the
survey sites as compared to 2013. The prey densities management plan.
per km2 decreased from 25.33 to 22.02 (SE 3.8) in PNP
(P=0.6), 73.63 to 70.7 (SE 7.49) in CNP (P=0.8), 10.27 Based on documented records, the issue of prey poaching
to 8.1 (SE 1.6) in BaNP (P=0.6), 92.6 to 77.51 (SE 6.56) across the sites outside PAs cannot be overlooked
in BNP (P=0.3) and 78.62 to 68.04 (SE 3.8) in ShNP either, and therefore, it demands a timely investment to
(P=0.12) with no significant difference (Dhakal et al., elevate protection measures in all such vulnerable sites.
2014). Undoubtedly, low prey density will have an impact on
tiger populations as tiger densities are mediated mainly
The lower density estimates from the present survey by prey abundance (Karanth et al., 2004).
could be the results of difference in the study time frame.
Field survey for this study was conducted in mid-winter In addition, roads and highways bisect several forests
(Jan-Feb) when it was mostly misty until late morning, in TAL (tiger bearing PAs and critical corridors)
leading to poor visibility. The 2013 survey was conducted causing fatalities of predators and prey. On average, 26
in March-April when the weather was clear and the road kills in BNP and 55 road kills in BaNP occur per
grass much shorter (Dhakal et al., 2014). On another year, comprising 70-80% of prey species (chital, wild
boar, sambar, barking deer and langur). The proposed the fragile corridors. Usage of underpasses by wildlife has
expansion of existing highways to four-lane and the been documented in Barandabhar corridor; placement of
construction of Hulaki road that will pass through crossing overs (under or over passes) along vulnerable
hundreds of kilometers along the Terai forests could sections could mitigate some losses.
further worsen this situation by severing connectivity in
8 . MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS AND THE

ROAD MAP TOWARDS TX2
Nepal has come a long way in its journey of doubling the Improved coordination, joint patrolling and information
tiger numbers by 2022. This has been possible through sharing between border security force-Seema Suraksha
sustained political commitment from the Government of Bal (SSB) in India and, Armed Police Force and Nepali
Nepal and consistent efforts made by the conservation Army in Nepal will additionally help control illegal
stakeholders at all levels. While celebrating this success, wildlife trade.
it is necessary to note that the present results are an
outcome of recovery programs investing significant 8.2. ADDRESSING LOW PREY DENSITY WITHIN PAs
resources. Therefore, though the TX2 goal may be just a
step ahead, efforts must not be reduced. The next four Within PAs, there are extensive areas where the
years will remain equally challenging in the present existing tiger density is relatively low. Management
context with insights provided by the 2018 results. Main is recommended to emphasize recovery of both tiger
challenges include managing human-wildlife conflicts in and prey population based on site-specific tiger density
CNP and potentially in BNP due to high tiger densities, results presented in pixelated site-wise maps (Refer to
addressing skewed sex ratio of tigers in ShNP and low Annex-5). Recommended management measures in
prey base in BaNP, PNP and forested habitats outside PAs. these areas include scientific management of grasslands
Management recommendations are therefore, made both to maintain grazing lawns for ungulates, removal of
at national and site levels. These include policy initiatives, invasive alien plant species (IAPs), ensuring year-round
key habitat protection and management interventions, water availability by creating/restoring wetlands and
tiger and prey protection, creating safe environment intensifying patrol efforts and monitoring changes of prey
for people and wildlife and identifying areas for further recovery over time. Immediate intervention is required
research and monitoring. Specific recommended actions to address siltation and invasive plant issues in wetlands
are provided below. situated within core areas. Majority of wetlands in ShNP
are drying up, reducing productivity.
8.1. ADDRESSING SECURITY ISSUES
8.3. ADDRESSING LIMITED HABITAT USAGE OF TIGERS AND PREY
Poaching continues to be a threat to tigers in Nepal. IN FORESTS OUTSIDE PAs (NATIONAL FORESTS, PROTECTION
Genetics studies of seized tiger parts in Nepal have FORESTS AND OTHER IDENTIFIED BIOLOGICAL CORRIDORS)
traced their origins to ShNP, BNP and CNP. Detailed
security assessment may be required on the ground and A combination of efforts will be required to address the
appropriate protection measures should be in place in the limited habitat use by tigers and prey in forests outside
vulnerable sites. ShNP could benefit from additional anti- PAs (National Forests, Protection Forests and identified
poaching measures such as construction of guard posts, biological corridors). Engagement with local communities
particularly along the southern parts, to facilitate real should be scaled up to reduce their dependence on forests.
time SMART adaptive patrolling. Legal protection to biological corridors and the remaining
forests outside PAs in TAL should be implemented where
With improved protection inside PAs, non-protected feasible, to prevent encroachment and fragmentation.
forests beyond PA boundaries are becoming sinks for
tigers. For protection of tigers outside PAs, district forest Improving these habitats will help reduce anthropogenic
officials/staff should be capacitated and equipped on anti- pressures, prevent further fragmentation and thus improve
poaching measures. Local communities need to be further prey densities and provide dispersal grounds for tigers.
capacitated through institutionalization of CBAPUs, This will be crucial to help sustain metapopulation of tigers
Coordination with Wildlife Crime Control Bureau in TAL. Initiating long-term forest monitoring program
(WCCB) cells, particularly in districts surrounding tiger- to track land use land cover changes will help evaluate
bearing PAs, is crucial in curbing illegal wildlife trade. changes and inform management and policy makers.
8.4 ADDRESSING THE IMPACT OF LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURES relief to victims of conflicts needs to be implemented.
Simplification of the claiming procedures for quick relief
The number and extent of infrastructure is likely to and enhancing transparency and efficiency at all levels is
increase within TAL, Nepal, further fragmenting and recommended.
severing the already fragile forested habitats. Efforts
need to continue to ensure the right balance between Focus must be made on understanding conflicts (both
conservation and development through i) engagement social and ecological dimensions), and on monitoring,
with policy makers to ensure that inviolate zones responding and preventing conflicts, as compensation
(critical tiger habitats) are avoided; ii) engagement measures in the long run will become a financial
with developmental agencies to promote smart green liability to the government. Promoting private
infrastructures (SGIs), and integration of effective insurance schemes (human, livestock, property and the
mitigation measures in the infrastructural planning crops) would help reduce the perpetual dependence on
process; and iii) developing appropriate mitigative the government. Likewise, the government’s Rapid
measures in existing linear infrastructures (for example- Response Team (RRT) in Chitwan and Bardia NPs
automated barriers to maintain speed limits, digital need to be strengthened and scaled up to additional
tracking of passing vehicles, construction of over/ sites to provide pro-active response to conflict cases.
underpasses or guiding fence in vulnerable sites to Rehabilitation of individual animals rescued from
provide safe passage for wildlife). conflicts should be carefully done and supported by
long-term monitoring.
8.5 ENHANCING TRANSBOUNDARY CO-OPERATION
8.7 STRENGTHENING ANNUAL TIGER, PREY AND HABITAT
Nepal shares approximately 800 km stretches of open MONITORING PROGRAMS
border with India, presenting opportunities for the two
countries to collaborate closely in conservation. The joint Data on survivorship, reproduction and social
tiger monitoring exercise carried out by the two countries structure in tiger populations is possible only through
in 2013 identified at least 10 tigers sharing the habitat standardized long-term monitoring programs. Annual
across borders, highlighting the need to manage tigers as monitoring would help keep pulse on core populations.
a transboundary metapopulation. However, the porous The management is recommended to establish long-
border between two countries adds challenges to the term monitoring programs in the respective PAs to keep
conservation of these endangered wildlife. Transboundary constant surveillance of the tiger population - increase
cooperation needs to be strengthened through intelligence (through new births or immigration) and losses (due to
sharing, joint patrols, standardized wildlife monitoring natural death, poaching or emigration). For Banke-Bardia
programs and data sharing, restoration and management and Chitwan-Parsa which serve as ecological units, it is
of the transboundary corridors, addressing the threats recommended to derive complex wise estimates for tiger
posed by infrastructure and knowledge sharing. population for greater ecological insights and to address
the issues of area overlap.
8.6 CREATING SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR PEOPLE AND WILDLIFE
Similarly, prey monitoring is recommended during the
At the national level, tigers contribute only around time of the year when the visibility is optimal in stratified
2.78% of the total human-wildlife conflict compared to sampling blocks as per the habitat types for robust
67.52%, 12.85% and 10.65% caused by elephant, rhino estimates. This is also recommended in areas that are
and common leopard respectively (DNPWC, 2018). subject to annual habitat management for monitoring the
To manage conflicts, it is pertinent to understand the impact of habitat interventions.
overall conflict dynamics and consequently create safe
environment for both people and wildlife. The survival Increasing habitat potential of the existing habitats
of these species will depend upon tolerance level of the by increasing forage productivity would have direct
local communities which is determined by how well the relevance to increasing and sustaining growing tiger
overall conflict is managed, as well as ownership by the population. Therefore, research and monitoring
communities. programs such as estimating ecological carrying capacity
for the preparation of site specific management plans
Wildlife Damage Relief Guidelines (2069 BS, third and its implementation to provide scientific guidance for
amendment 2075) provisioned for providing the monetary habitat management in PAs and forests outside PAs.
9 . REFERENCES
Barber-Meyer, S, Jnawali, S., Karki, J., Khanal, P., Raj., Subedi, N., Pradhan, N.M.B., Malla, S., Lamichhane,
Lohani, S., Long, B., MacKenzie, D., Pandav, B., B.R., Pokheral, C.P., Thapa, G.J., Oglethorpe, J., Subba,
Pradhan, N., Shrestha, R., Subedi, N., Thapa, K., and S.A., Bajracharya, P., Y, H. (2014). Status of Tigers and
Wikramanayake E. (2012). Influence of prey depletion Prey in Nepal. Department of National Parks and Wildlife
and human disturbance on tiger occupancy in Nepal. Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Journal of Zoology 289 (1): 10–18.
Dinerstein, E. (1979). An ecological survey of the
Buckland, S.T. (2001). Introduction to distance sampling: Royal Karnali-Bardia Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Part
Estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford I: Vegetation, modifying factors, and successional
University Press, USA. relationships. Biological Conservation, 15 (2): 127-150.
Burnham K.P and Anderson D.R (2004), Multi-model Efford, M.G. (2018). Package ‘secr’. University of Otago,
inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. New Zealand.
Social Methods Res 33:261–304.
Efford, M.G., Fewster, R.M. (2012). Estimating
Burnham, K. P. and Anderson D. R. (1998). Model population size by spatially explicit capture-recapture.
selection and inference: A practical information- Oikos 122: 918-928.
theoretical approach. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.
Elliot, N. B., & Gopalaswamy, A. M. (2017). Toward
Chanchani P., Lamichhane B. R., Malla S., Maurya accurate and precise estimates of lion density.
K., Bista A., Warrier R., Nair S., Almeida M., Ravi R., Conservation Biology, 31(4), 934–943.
Sharma R., Dhakal M., Yadav S. P., Thapa M., Jnawali
S. R., Pradhan N. M. B., Subedi N., Thapa G. J., Yadav Gopalaswamy, A.M., Royle, J.A., Hines, J.E., Singh, P.,
H., Jhala Y. V., Qureshi Q., Vattakaven J. and Borah J. Jathana, D., Kumar, N.S., Karanth, U.K. (2012). Program
(2014). Tigers of the Transboundary Terai Arc Landscape: SPACECAP: software for estimating animal density using
Status, distribution and movement in the Terai of India spatially explicit capture-recapture studies. Methods in
and Nepal. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Ecology and Evolution 3: 1067-1072.
Government of India, and Department of National Park
and Wildlife Conservation, Government of Nepal. GTRP. (2010). Global Tiger Recovery Program (Executive
Volume – September 20, 2010). St. Petersburg
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Declaration on Tiger Conservation at the International
(DNPWC). (2018). Annual report: Wildlife Crime. Tiger Forum (‘Tiger Summit’), held in St. Petersburg,
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Russia, November 21–24, 2010.
Babarmahal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Hines, J.E., Nichols, J.D., Collazo, J.A. (2014).
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Multiseason occupancy models for correlated replicate
(DNPWC). (2017). Tiger and Prey Base Monitoring surveys. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 583–591.
Protocol (Nepal). Government of Nepal, Ministry
of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of Hines, J. E. (2013). PRESENCE 6.2: Software to estimate
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Babarmahal, patch occupancy and related parameters. United States
Kathmandu, Nepal. Geological Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,
Laurel, Maryland, USA.
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
(DNPWC). (2016). Annual monitoring report, Western Hines, J.E., Nichols, J.D., Royle, J.A., MacKenzie, D.I.,
Terai. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Gopalaswamy, A.M., Kumar, N.S. and Karanth, K.U.
Conservation, Babarmahal, Kathmandu, Nepal. (2010). Tigers on trails: occupancy modeling for cluster
sampling. Ecol. Appl. 20: 1456–1466.
Dhakal, Maheshwar., Karki, Madhuri., Jnawali, Shant
Karanth, K.U., Kumar, N.S., Srinivas, V. and Mishra, H.R. and Jefferies, M. (1991). Royal Chitwan
Gopalaswamy, A. (2008). Revised monitoring framework National Park: Wildlife Heritage of Nepal. The
for Tigers Forever: Panthera sites. Technical Support Mountaineers in association with David Bateman.
Team, Tigers Forever. Bangalore, India: WCS India.
Royle J.A., Nichols J.D., Karanth K.U. and Gopalaswamy,
Karanth, K.U., Nichols, J.D., Kumar, N.S., Link, W.A., M. (2009). A hierarchical model for estimating density
Hines, J.E., (2004). Tigers and their prey: Predicting in camera trap studies. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:
carnivore densities from prey abundance. Proc. Natl. 118-127.
Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101: 4854–8.
Sanderson, J. (2010). Framing Tiger’s Troubles:
Karanth, K.U., Nichols, J.D. (1998). Estimation of Tiger Comparing Traditional and Social Media. International
Densities in India Using Photographic Captures and Journal of Sport Communication 3 (4): 438-453.
Recaptures. Ecology 79, 2852–2862.
Seidensticker, J. (2010). Saving wild tigers: A case study
Karki, J.B., Jnawali, S.R., Shrestha, R., Pandey, M.B., in biodiversity loss and challenges to be met for recovery
Gurung, G., Thapa, Karki, M. (2009). Tiger and their beyond 2010. Integrative Zoology 5 (4): 285-299.
prey base abundance in Terai Arc Landscape, Nepal.
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Smith, J.L.D. (1993). The Role of Dispersal in Structuring
and Department of Forests, Kathmandu, Nepal. the Chitwan Tiger Population. Behavior 124: 165-195.
Kelly, M.J., Holub, E.L. (2008). Camera trapping of Srivathsa, A., Parameshwaran, R., Sharma, S., Karanth,
carnivores: trap success among camera types and U.K. (2015). Estimating population sizes of leopard cats
across species and habitat selection by species, on salt in the Western Ghats using camera surveys. Journal of
pond mountains, Giles County, Virginia. Northeastern Mammalogy 96 (4): 742-750.
Naturalist, 15(2): 249-262.
Sunquist, M. E. (1981). The social organization of tigers
Kumar, C.V.P., Reddy, K.S., Srinivas, M.A.S.(2018). (Panthera tigris) in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal.
Dynamics of prey predator with Holling interactions and Smithsonian Contr. Zool. No. 336: 1-98.
stochastic influences. Alexandria Eng. J. 57: 1079–1086.
Thapa, K., Manandhar, S., Bista, M., Shakya, J., Sah,
Lamichhane, B.R., Pokharel, C.P., Poudel, S., Adhikari, G., Dhakal, M., Sharma, N., Llewellyn, B., Wultsch, C.,
D., Giri, S.R., Bhattarai, S., Bhatta, T.R., Pickles, R., Waits, L.P., Kelly, M.J., Hero, J., Huges, J., Karmacharya,
Amin, R., Acharya, K.P., Dhakal, M., Regmi, U.R., Ram, D. (2018). Assessment of genetic diversity, population
A.K., Subedi, N. (2017). Rapid recovery of tigers Panthera structure, and gene flow of tigers (Panthera tigris tigris)
tigris in Parsa Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Oryx, 52(1): 16- across Nepal’s Terai Arc Landscape. PLoS ONE 13 (3):
24. 1-25.
MacKenzie, D.I. and Kendall, W.L. (2002). How should Thomas, L., Buckland, S.T., Rexstad, E.A., Laake, J.L.,
detection probability be incorporated into estimates of Strindberg, S., Hedley, S.L., Bishop, J.R.B. and Marques,
relative abundance. Ecology 83: 2387–2393. T.A. (2010). Distance software: design and analysis of
distance sampling surveys for estimating population size.
MacKenzie, D.I., Nichols, J.D., Lachman, G.B., Droege, Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 5-14.
S., Andrew R. J. and Langtimm, C.A. (2002). Estimating
site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less White, G.C., Burnham, K.P.(1999). Program MARK:
than one. Ecology 83: 2248-2255. survival estimation from populations of marked animals.
Bird Study 46: S120–S139.
McDougal, C. (1977). The Face of the Tiger. Rivington
Books, London, UK. Wikramanayake, E.D., Dinerstein, E., Robinson, J.G.,
Karanth, U., Rabinowitz, A., Olson, D., Mathew, T.,
Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation (MoFSC). Hedao, P., Conner, M., Hemley, G. and Bolze, D. (1998).
(2015). Strategy and Action Plan 2015-2025, Terai An ecology-based method for defining priorities for
Arc Landscape, Nepal. Ministry of Forests and Soil large mammal conservation: the tiger as case study.
Conservation, Singha Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal. Conservation Biology 12 (4): 865-878.
10 . ANNEXURE
Annex- 1. Summary of Spatially Explicit Capture Recapture (SECR) models for population estimation at site
level. Only the top models are presented.
PROTECTED
MODEL DETECTFN PAR LOGLIK AIC AICc AICc AICcWT g0 sigma
AREA
g0~bk
PNP hazard rate 5 -542.763 1095.526 1102.193 0 0.8517 0.02 3882.7
sigma~bk z~1
g0~bk
PNP hazard rate 4 -546.845 1101.689 1105.689 3.496 0.1483
sigma~1 z~1
g0~bk
CNP Exponential 3 -2565.33 5136.651 5136.947 0 1 0.03 2611
sigma~1
CNP g0~B sigma~1 Exponential 3 -2647.35 5300.708 5301.004 164.057 0
BaNP g0~B sigma~1 Exponential 3 -371.107 748.214 750.06 0 0.7197 0.03 2134.6
BaNP g0~B sigma~T Exponential 4 -370.999 749.999 753.332 3.272 0.1402
BaNP g0~T sigma~1 Exponential 3 -377.033 760.066 761.912 11.852 0
g0~bk
BNP Exponential 3 -2021.99 4049.987 4050.316 0 0.5544 0.04 2010.9
sigma~1
g0~bk
BNP Exponential 4 -2021.1 4050.197 4050.753 0.437 0.4456
sigma~T
BNP g0~B sigma~1 Exponential 3 -2091.47 4188.934 4189.262 138.946 0
g0~h2
ShNP sigma~1 Exponential 4 -512.691 1033.382 1037.382 0 0.7114 0.03 2369.2
pmix~h2
g0~h2
ShNP sigma~T Exponential 5 -511.26 1032.52 1039.186 1.804 0.2886
pmix~h2
g0: detection probability, Sigma:space range, T: time trend, B:transient response, bk: animal x site learned response, and h2: two-class mixtures
Annex- 2. Population abundance estimates with standard errors and 95% confidence intervals and detection probability estimates using program Capture and Mark
Protected Area CAPTURE Program MARK Program

Number CI (lower) CI SE P-hat Selection Number SE CI CI P-hat Model
(higher) criteria (value) (lower) (higher)
Parsa NP 17 16 25 2.02 0.2 M(h) = 0.99 16 1.8 13 20 0.4 MoRE+Mh2+MBRE
Chitwan NP 92 87 122 7.2 0.2 M(h) = 0.95 89 2.5 84 94 0.3 Mt+MtRE+Mth2
Banke NP 18 18 25 2.4 0.2 M(h) = 1.0 18 1.2 16 20 0.2 Mo+Mb
Bardia NP 81 77 118 5.57 0.14 M(tb) = 1.0 79 2.6 74 84 0.2 MtRE+Mt+Mth2
Shukla NP 15 15 15 3.9 0.27 M(h) = 1.0 16 0.8 15 20 0.4 Mh2
Total 223 213 305 218 202 238
Annex- 3. Bayesian spatially explicit capture-recapture (SECR) analysis summary outputs from program SPACECAP. Density is presented as per 100 km2.
95%_UPPER_HPD_ GEWEKE DIAGNOSTIC

SITES MODEL PARAMETER POSTERIOR_ MEAN POSTERIORSD 95%_LOWER_HPD LEVEL BAYESIAN P VALUE
LEVEL SCORE
PNP Half normal Sigma 2670.9 161.8 2381.4 2982.9 0.99 -0.2492
lam0 0.049 0.007 0.034 0.063 0.3931
Psi 0.269 0.061 0.156 0.391 0.4644
N 23.707 3.712 16 30 0.3822
P 0.047 0.007 0.033 0.061
D 0.92 0.15 0.64 1.2
CNP Half normal Sigma 3554.5 102 3376.5 3782.6 1 -0.1086
lam0 0.021 0.001 0.018 0.024 0.2122
Psi 0.229 0.022 0.185 0.272

0.8617
N 119.127 6.783 105 131 0.6023
P 0.033 0.002 0.029 0.036
D 3.28 0.19 2.92 3.63
BaNP Half normal Sigma 4612.1 487.9 3706.4 5585.4 0.54 0.9231
lam0 0.015 0.003 0.009 0.021 -1.1754
Psi 0.204 0.046 0.121 0.296 1.2175
N 21.297 2.638 17 26 0.9745
P 0.014 0.003 0.009 0.021
D 0.97 0.12 0.75 1.18
BNP Half normal Sigma 3495.4 122.9 3270.7 3751.9 0.98 1.2984
lam0 0.024 0.002 0.02 0.027 -0.7936
Psi 0.211 0.022 0.168 0.255 -0.4294
N 95.672 5.189 85 105 -0.8301
P 0.023 0.002 0.02 0.027
D 4.74 0.28 4.20 5.28
ShNP Half normal Sigma 3025.8 236.9 2608.1 3519.9 0.79 0.9037
lam0 0.029 0.005 0.02 0.039 -0.4291
Psi 0.352 0.08 0.2 0.511 -1.0914
N 31.37 5.859 20 42 -1.238
P 0.029 0.005 0.02 0.039
D 0.96 0.14 0.72 1.21
Annex- 4: Site-level tiger density estimates per 100 km2 based on the area surveyed in 2013 (for comparison).
Sites in bold show significant difference in density between 2013 and 2018.
National Tiger Survey 2018 National Tiger Survey 2013

SITES Density SD 95%_LCL 95%_UCL Density SD 95%_LCL 95%_UCL
PNP 1.49 0.23 1.01 1.89 0.65 0.28 0.38 1.24
CNP 3.81 0.25 3.35 4.31 3.84 0.34 3.15 4.46
BaNP 1.38 0.17 1.1 1.68 0.16 0.05 0.13 0.3
BNP 5.4 0.29 4.8 5.93 3.38 0.19 3.03 3.7
ShNP 3.48 0.65 2.22 4.66 3.4 0.46 2.67 4.32
Annex- 5. A comparative assessment of change in spatial density between 2013 and 2018 for each protected area.
Figure 1. Pixelated tiger density map of Parsa National Park and adjoining forests.
Figure 2. Pixelated tiger density map of Chitwan National Park, adjoining forests and corridors.
Figure 3. Pixelated tiger density map of Banke National Park, adjoining forests and corridors.
Figure 4. Pixelated tiger density map of Bardia National Park, adjoining forests and corridors.
Figure 5. Pixelated tiger density map of Shuklaphanta National Park, adjoining forests and
corridors.
Annex- 6: A comparison of tiger density estimates derived by SECR-ML and SECR- Bayesian approaches.
(* denotes “and adjoining forest”) for effective sampling area of 2018 survey).
SECR- Bayesian SECR- ML

SITES Density SD 95%_LCL 95%_UCL Density SE 95%_LCL 95%_UCL
PNP* 0.9 0.2 0.6 1.2 1.1 0.3 0.7 1.8
CNP* 3.3 0.2 2.9 3.6 4.1 0.5 3.3 5.1
BaNP* 1 0.1 0.8 1.2 1.1 0.3 0.7 1.8
BNP* 4.7 0.3 4.2 5.3 5.6 0.6 4.4 6.9
ShNP* 1 0.1 0.7 1.2 1.4 0.4 0.9 2.3
Annex-7: Prey density estimates and survey effort in each protected area and adjoining forests.
Protected Effort Spatial No. of Density % of GoF-

Species SE 95% CI p ESW (SE)
area (km) Replicates obs. (per km2) CV Chi-P
PNP* 482 248 All prey 194 22.02 3.8 17.48 15.66 - 30.96 0.3 28.2 (3.6) 0.76
Spotted deer 30 8.82 3.6 40.83 4.06 - 19.17 0.3 26.4 (5.1) 0.6
Sambar 40 2.2 0.6 27.67 1.29 - 3.76 0.3 37.7 (5.2) 0.9
Wild boar 47 4.89 1.2 24.36 3.05 - 7.86 0.2 18.5 (2.8) 0.7
CNP* 331.6 175 All prey 367 70.7 7.49 10.59 57.49 - 87.05 0.2 20.7 (1.1) 0.3
Spotted deer 131 43.85 8.2 18.77 30.42 - 63.20 0.2 24.8 (2.4) 0.5
Sambar 73 9.96 2.04 20.44 6.69 - 14.83 0.2 19.4 (2.4) 0.8
Barking deer 27 3.84 1.19 31.1 2.09 -7.01 0.2 17.1 (3.7) 0.7
Hog deer 70 13.4 3.4 25.0 8.19 -22.04 0.2 14.5 (1.9) 0.8
Wild boar 37 3.8 0.89 23.18 2.45 - 6.04 0.3 20.9 (2.6) 0.5
BaNP* 647 304 All prey 99 8.1 1.6 20.25 5.46 - 12.01 0.4 37.3 (2.8) 0.4
BNP* 745 414 All prey 776 77.51** 6.56 8.47 65.66 - 91.49 0.4 42.2 (2.1) 0.3
Spotted deer 480 56.44 5.75 10.19 46.24 -68.9 0.3 35.6 (2.2) 0.4
Sambar 48 1.48 0.32 21.83 0.97 - 2.27 0.3 39.8 (4.2) 0.9
Wild boar 30 2.04 0.57 28.04 1.18 - 3.52 0.5 32.8 (5.1) 0.8
Langur 83 15.02 3.2 21.42 9.89 - 22.78 0.4 46.4 (3.8) 0.8
ShNP* 279 153 All prey 412 68.04** 6.95 10.22 55.70 - 83.10 0.2 36.3 (2) 0.4
Spotted deer 242 48.8 6.6 13.59 37.43 - 63.68 0.3 39.9 (2.9) 0.7
Hog deer 41 10.14 3.33 32.81 5.39 - 19.06 0.3 15.4 (2.8) 1
Wild boar 62 9.03 2.15 23.82 5.68 - 14.36 0.4 35 (5.5) 0.9
Total 2,484.6 1,294
*Denotes the coverage of adjoining forests in line transect survey. ** denotes density estimates of all prey excluding swamp deer that was not detected during the line
transect survey in both Bardia National Park and Shuklaphanta National Park. (p denotes detection probability at defined area, ESW denotes Effective Strip Width of
detection, GOF- Chi P- denotes probability of chi square for goodness of fit test
Annex- 8. Maps illustrating movement of tigers outside protected area boundary (the usage is illustrated by tiger
individuals having their MCP lying beyond the boundary)
Figure 6.Movement of tigers in adjoining forests of Parsa National Park.
Figure 7. Movement of tigers in adjoining forests of Chitwan National Park.

Figure 8. Movement of tigers in adjoining forests of Banke National Park.
Figure 9. Movement of tigers in adjoining forests of Bardia National Park.

Figure 10. Movement of tigers in adjoining forests of Shuklaphanta National Park.
Annex- 9. National Tiger Survey time frame and human resource involved.
No of No of
Person Elephant
SN Protected Area Training organized Field survey working personnel
days days
days involved
1 Chitwan NP, Parsa NP 28-29 November, 1 Dec, 2017- 3
63 411 25,893 1,575
and adjoining forests 2017 Feb 2018
2 Banke NP, Bardia NP 14-15 December, 17-Dec, 2017-
81 285 23,085 80
and adjoining forests 2018 11-March, 2018
3 Shuklaphanta NP, 23-March,
Laljhadi corridor and 3-4 February, 2018 2018-3-April, 20 81 1,620 80
Jogbuda forest 2018
4 1-Dec,
Habitat Occupancy Same date as to the
2017-3-April, 55 59 3,245
survey respective study sites
2018
Total 53,843 1,735
Annex- 10. Ground personnel involved in National Tiger Survey.
SN Name of participant Protected Area Institution

1 Ashish Bhandari Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
2 Amrita Pudasaini Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
3 Chhatra Khadka Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
4 Gaurishankar Bhagat Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
5 Him Lal Subedi Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
6 Ishwari Mahato Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
7 Kamal Bhujel Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
8 Kshitiz Shrestha Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
9 Lalit Malla Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
10 Laxmi Bahadur Mahat Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
11 Mahendra Mahato Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
12 Narayan Baniya Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park PNP
13 Pahuwari Yadav Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
14 Prativa Kakshapati Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
15 Pravin Shrestha Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
16 Prem Chaulagain Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
17 Ram Bahadur Suyal Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
18 Ram Julum Yadav Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
19 Ramchandra Raila Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
20 Ramnath Yadav Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
21 Ranger, GS Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
22 Sajan Pariyar Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
23 Sanjeet Timilsina Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
24 Suman Chaudhary Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
25 Surendra Subedi Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
26 Suresh Lama Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
27 Toplal Shrestha Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
28 Tularam Mahato Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
29 Umesh Poudel Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
30 Yadav Shahi Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park CNP
31 Shanta Budha Magar Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Database
32 Bishal Kushuwar Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park DFO Rautahat
33 Sahendra Jha Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park DFO Rautahat
34 Ashish Gurung Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park NTNC
35 Amar Singh Thakur Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park NTNC
36 Binod Darai Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park NTNC
37 Birendra Gautam Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park NTNC
38 Dip Chaudhary Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park NTNC
39 Ganesh Rana Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park NTNC
40 Harka Man Lama Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park NTNC
41 Om Prakash Chaudhary Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park NTNC
42 Pramod Raj Regmi Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park NTNC
43 Ramesh Darai Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park NTNC
44 Saneer Lamichhane Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park NTNC

45 Saneer Lamichhane Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park NTNC
46 Tika Ram Tharu Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park NTNC
47 Tirtha Lama Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park NTNC
48 Birendra Karki Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park PNP
49 Kiran Giri Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park PNP
50 Kumar Dhungana Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park PNP
51 Manoj Kafle Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park PNP
52 Narbadev Prasad Yadav Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park PNP
53 Prakash Pun Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park PNP
54 Alina Ale Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
55 Amit Chaudhary Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
56 Ananda Kumar Shrestha Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
57 Ashik Thapa Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
58 Ashish Subedi Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
59 Basanta Lamsal Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
60 Bibek Baiju Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
61 Bijaya Kunwar Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
62 Bikram Singh Dhami Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
63 Dinesh Bhujel Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
64 Karan Shahi Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
65 Kiran Rayamajhi Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
66 Man Bahadur Bohara Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
67 Nanda Phadera Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
68 Prabin Poudel Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
69 Pramod Sunar Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
70 Purnima Acharya Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
71 Ramit Rawat Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
72 Ruben Raj Giri Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
73 Rupesh Maharjan Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
74 Sapana Kaiju Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
75 Sarjan Gwachha Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
76 Sushil Dhakal Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Student volunteer
77 Anish Lama Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
78 Ashish Bhusal Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
79 Asre Rana Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
80 Babu Ram Mahato Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
81 Bikash Pathak Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
82 Bir Bahadur Kumal Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
83 Devendra Gotame Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
84 Ganesh Lama Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
85 Gopi Chaudhary Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
86 Govinda Tharu Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
87 Hom Bahadur Dala Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
88 Manoj Kumar Mahato Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
89 Manoj Rai Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
90 Mithun Tharu Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant

91 Naresh Tharu Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
92 Pawan Kumar Basnet Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
93 Pradeep Chaudhary Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
94 Prem Mahato Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
95 Rajesh Mardaniya Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
96 Raju Kumal Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
97 Rohit Giri Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
98 Sachin Lamichhane Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
99 Samir Shrestha Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
100 Sandip Syangtang Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
101 Sanjaya Acharya Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
102 Santosh Lama Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
103 Suman Lama Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
104 Suraj Tharu Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
105 Tarapati Mahato Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
106 Yuvanath Padhya Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
107 Bibek Chaudhary Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park ZSL
108 Suman Acharya Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park ZSL
109 Deepak Kumar Mahato Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
110 Santosh Chaudhary Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Technician assistant
111 Devan Chaudhary Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Cook
112 Devraj Tharu Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park cook
113 Ganesh Chaudhary Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Cook
114 Jaliram Mahato Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Cook
115 Jana Bahadur Kumal Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Cook
116 Kiran Thakuri Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Cook
117 Manoj Chaudhary Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Cook
118 Padam Raj Kunwar Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Cook
119 Subash Tharu Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Cook
120 Suresh Chaudhary Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Cook
121 Yubaraj Kumal Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Cook
122 Jeevan Tharu Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Cook
123 Rita Mandal Chitwan National Park & Parsa National Park Cook
124 Binti Ram Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park NTNC-BCP
125 Phiru Lal Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park NTNC-BCP
126 Ramraj Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park NTNC-BCP
127 Khusi Ram Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park NTNC-BCP
128 Hari Lal Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park NTNC-BCP
129 Kabiraj Jaisi Acharya Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Cook
130 Ganesh Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU Cook
131 Sitaram Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
132 Suraj Lal Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
133 Rajesh Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
134 Om Prakash Rajbansi Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
135 Asaram Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
136 Om Prakash Yogi Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU

137 Pramod Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
138 Rim Bahadur Magar Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
139 Anasram Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
140 Anu Ram Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
141 Lalitram Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
142 Dharmendra Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
143 Hari Ram Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
144 Dewari Lal Dahit Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
145 Khom Lal Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
146 Nirmal Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
147 Lokraj Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
148 Bishal Bhujel Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
149 Maniram Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Forest Bardia
150 Lok Bahadur Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Forest Bardia
151 Kabiram Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Khata/CBAPU
152 Hiramani Parajuli Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Khata/CBAPU
153 Salikram Reule Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
154 Ganga Bahadur Buda Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
155 Kulraj Bhatta Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
156 Tek Bahadur Bhandari Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
157 Prakash Adhikari Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
158 Dipendra Basnet Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
159 Dan Bahadur Bista Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
160 Maniram Gayali Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
161 Gopal Singh Aeri Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
162 Jatiram Gharti Magar Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
163 Harka Bahadur Chand Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
164 Sandip Rana Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
165 Hari Ram Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Kailali forest
166 Antaram Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Kailali forest
167 Saroj Khadka Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
168 Puspadeep Shrestha Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
169 Narayan Devkota Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
170 Shyam Prakash Tamang Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
171 Binod Dahal Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
172 Mahesh Shahi Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
173 Kaladhar Gautam Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
174 Pradip Thapa Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
175 Ratiman Raut Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
176 Khum Bahadur Mahatara Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
177 Bharat Paudel Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
178 Indra Prasad Jaisi Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
179 Hingua Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
180 Kalu Thapa Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
181 Kalu Chand Thakuri Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
182 Surya Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP

183 Prasad Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP Hattisar
184 Bishnu Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP Hattisar
185 Mim Raj Acharya Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP Hattisar
186 Ishwar BK Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP Hattisar
187 Hirasingh Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP Hattisar
188 Min Bahadur Magar Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP Hattisar
189 Rabi Lal Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP Hattisar
190 Cheduwa Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
191 Chitra Bahadur Khatri Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP Hattisar
192 Sukhlal Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
193 Bichitra Kumar Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
194 Punsaram Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP Hattisar
195 Balkisun Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP Hattisar
196 Biru Lal Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP Hattisar
197 Akshaya Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BaNP
198 Rajan Pandit Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BaNP
199 Pankharaj Tiruwa Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BaNP
200 Hari Kafle Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BaNP
201 Bishnu Bahadur Kumal Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BaNP
202 Bishal Thapa Magar Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BaNP
203 Gopal Singh Basnet Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BaNP
204 Purna Bahadur Lama Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BaNP
205 Sahadev Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BaNP
206 Karan Buda Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BaNP
207 Yuraj Siris Magar Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BaNP
208 Topendra Bahadur Thapa Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BaNP
209 Chandra Bahadur Buda Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
210 Samjhana Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
211 Shiva Bahadur Thapa Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
212 Dambar Bahadur Raut Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
213 Sanjeev Babu Shrestha Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
214 Subaraj Bhujel Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
215 Ganga Bahadur Oli Chhetri Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
216 Jeevan Ale Magar Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
217 Yek Mani Basnet Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
218 Janak Bahadur Devkota Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Nepali Army
219 Suman Kathayat Bardia National Park & Banke National Park DFO
220 Umesh Rai Bardia National Park & Banke National Park ZSL Kohalpur
221 Amrit Rai Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU Banke
222 Purna Bahadur Magar Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU Banke
223 SantoshKhatri Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU Banke
224 Surendra Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU Banke
225 Sharada Khuna Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU Banke
226 Krishna Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU Banke
227 Sovaram Oli Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU Banke
228 Rama Khanal Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU Banke

229 Tejkumari Oli Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU Banke
230 Khusiram Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU Banke
231 Bhimsing Rokaya Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU Banke
232 Prabhat Shah Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Student Volunteer
233 Rajkumar Tharu Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Student Volunteer
234 Bhim Bahadur Dangi Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Student Volunteer
235 Prem Prasad Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park Student Volunteer
236 Deepa Dangol Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BaNP
237 Sabina Dahal Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BaNP
238 Melina Karki Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU Bardia
239 Anupama Dahal Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU Bardia
240 Ganesh Shahi Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BaNP
241 Bed Bahadur Magar Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BaNP
242 Binod Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU Bardia
243 Nabin Acharya Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU Bardia
244 Sanjok Shahi Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
245 Prem Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BNP
246 Rom Harsa Khadka Bardia National Park & Banke National Park BaNP
247 Bintiram Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU Bardia
248 Hem Raj Parajuli Bardia National Park & Banke National Park CBAPU
249 Chabilal Buda Magar Bardia National Park & Banke National Park DFO
250 Ganesh Kumar Chaudhary Bardia National Park & Banke National Park DFO
251 Bhagwati Dhungana Shuklaphanta National Park BAFER Nepal
252 Karan Sing Bist Shuklaphanta National Park Chure Sanjal
253 Naresh Tharu Shuklaphanta National Park Bardia CBAPU
254 Hari Bahadur Thapa Shuklaphanta National Park Nepali Army
255 Raju Dura Shuklaphanta National Park Nepali Army
256 Prakash Chaudhary Shuklaphanta National Park Nepali Army
257 Amar Buda Chhetri Shuklaphanta National Park Nepali Army
258 Rabin Shrestha Shuklaphanta National Park Nepali Army
259 Birendra Kumal Shuklaphanta National Park Nepali Army
260 Padam Pun Shuklaphanta National Park Nepali Army
261 Indra Singh Karki Shuklaphanta National Park Nepali Army
262 Dhan Bahadur Thapa Shuklaphanta National Park Nepali Army
Birendra Campus,
263 Purushottam Pokharel Shuklaphanta National Park
Chitwan
264 Anta Ram Chaudhary Shuklaphanta National Park CBAPU
265 Punaram Chaudhary Shuklaphanta National Park CFCC Kanchanpur
266 NirmalaDadel Shuklaphanta National Park CFCC Kamdi
267 Maya Chaudhari Shuklaphanta National Park CFCC Kanchanpur
268 Devendra Gautam Shuklaphanta National Park Student
269 Naresh Shah Shuklaphanta National Park Student
270 Bhim Bahadur Bist Shuklaphanta National Park Chure Network
271 Krishnanandan Mahato Shuklaphanta National Park DFO Dadeldhura
272 Deepak Kumar Chaudhari Shuklaphanta National Park DFO Dadeldhura
273 Maan Bahadur Khadayat Shuklaphanta National Park DFO Kanchanpur

274 Bibas Kalauni Shuklaphanta National Park Dadeldhura
275 Arjun Singh Thapa Shuklaphanta National Park DFO Kanchanpur
276 Thaman Badwal Shuklaphanta National Park CBAPU Dodhara
277 Ajay Basyal Shuklaphanta National Park IOF, Hetauda
278 Santosh Bajgai Shuklaphanta National Park IOF, Hetauda
279 Shiv Shah Shuklaphanta National Park IOF,Hetauda
280 Manoj Parajuli Shuklaphanta National Park IOF,Hetauda
281 Datendra Kumar Gole Shuklaphanta National Park IOF,Hetauda
282 Bikram Singh Shuklaphanta National Park IOF,Hetauda
283 Ashish Neupane Shuklaphanta National Park IOF,Hetauda
284 Chiranjivi Khanal Shuklaphanta National Park IOF,Hetauda
285 Kapil K.C Shuklaphanta National Park KAFCOL
286 Shubhash Sharma Shuklaphanta National Park KAFCOL
287 Arjun Sharma Shuklaphanta National Park KAFCOL
288 Parbin Goli Shuklaphanta National Park KAFCOL
289 Maan Bahadur Bohara Shuklaphanta National Park KAFCOL
290 Bibek Baiju Shuklaphanta National Park KAFCOL
291 Maan Bahadur Chaudhari Shuklaphanta National Park KAFCOL
292 Bibek Baiju Shuklaphanta National Park KAFCOL
293 Tribishal Sunar Shuklaphanta National Park KAFCOL
294 Bikash Rana Shuklaphanta National Park Mahakali
295 Deep Prashad Chaudhari Shuklaphanta National Park NTNC BCC
296 Ramesh Darai Shuklaphanta National Park NTNC BCC
297 Binod Darai Shuklaphanta National Park NTNC BCC
298 Om Prakash Chaudhari Shuklaphanta National Park NTNC BCC
299 Devraj Joshi Shuklaphanta National Park NTNC SCP
300 Suman Malla Shuklaphanta National Park NTNC SCP
301 Amar Singh Thakur Shuklaphanta National Park NTNC SCP
302 Ganesh Rana Shuklaphanta National Park NTNC SCP
303 Shreeram Tharu Shuklaphanta National Park NTNC SCP
304 Sankarlal Tharu Shuklaphanta National Park NTNC SCP
Siddhanath Science
305 Krishna Bahadur Bhaat Shuklaphanta National Park
Campus
Siddhanath Science
306 Manoj Sah Shuklaphanta National Park
Campus
Siddhanath Science
307 Bhagawan Kalauni Shuklaphanta National Park
Campus
308 Gajendra Singh Dangaura Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
309 Manpuran Sunaha Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
310 Taula Rana Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
311 Prem Rana Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
312 Mukesh Rana Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
313 Umesh Sunaha Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
314 Anand Sunaha Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
315 Chotelal Rana Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
316 Thaggu Rana Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP

317 Raj Kumar Sunaha Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
318 Bijaya Sunaha Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
319 Binod Chaudhari Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
320 Gyanendra Bahadur Shah Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
321 Madan Raj Bhatta Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
322 Meen Bahadur Luhar Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
323 Aanand Sunaha Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
324 Ganesh Bahadur Bist Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
325 Bikram Chaudhari Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
326 Sant Bahadur Magar Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
327 Yaam Bahadur Rawat Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
328 Puran Dev Mishra Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
329 Aasare Rana Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
330 Bijay Sunaha Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
331 Bikram Chaudhari Shuklaphanta National Park ShNP
Annex- 11: Identified tigers from National Tiger Survey 2018.
TIGERS OF PARSA NATIONAL PARK

AND ADJOINING FORESTS
PNP-FT01-RIGHT PNP-FT01-LEFT
PNP-MT01-RIGHT PNP-MT01-LEFT
TIGERS OF CHITWAN NATIONAL PARK

CNP-FT01- RIGHT CNP-FT01- LEFT










CNP-FT41- LEFT


CNP-MT01- RIGHT CNP-MT01- LEFT








CNP-UT01- RIGHT CNP-UT01- LEFT
CNP-UT02- LEFT
CNP-UT04- LEFT
CNP-UT05 LEFT
CNP-UT06- RIGHT CNP-UT06- LEFT
TIGERS OF BANKE NATIONAL PARK

BaNP-MT86-RIGHT BaNP-MT86-LEFT
BaNP-FT87-RIGHT BaNP-FT87-LEFT
BaNP-UT120-RIGHT BaNP-UT120-LEFT
TIGERS OF BARDIA NATIONAL PARK

BNP-MT01-RIGHT BNP-MT01-LEFT
BNP-FT03-RIGHT BNP-FT03-LEFT
BNP-UT54-RIGHT BNP-UT54-LEFT
BNP-UT57-LEFT
BNP-MT67-LEFT
TIGERS OF SHUKLAPHANTA NATIONAL PARK

ShNP-FT02-RIGHT ShNP-FT02-LEFT
ShNP-MT01-RIGHT ShNP-MT01-LEFT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Government of Nepal acknowledges and appreciates the financial and technical support received
from the following organizations to carry out the Status of Tigers and Prey in Nepal, 2018:
STATUS OF TIGERS
AND PREY IN NEPAL
2018
S TAT U S O F T I G E R S A N D P R E Y I N N E PA L 2 0 1 8
GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL

Ministry of Forests and Environment Ministry of Forests and Environment
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
and and
Department of Forests and Soil Conservation Department of Forests and Soil Conservation
Kathmandu, Nepal Kathmandu, Nepal
2018 2018

Tiger - Prey Report 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tiger - Prey Report 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tiger - Prey Report 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATUS OF TIGERS

AND PREY IN NEPAL

GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL GOVERNMENT OF NEPAL

Ram Prasad Lamsal, PhD Man Bahadur Khadka

© Samir Jung Thapa/WWF Nepal

© DNPWC/WWF Nepal © DNPWC/WWF Nepal

1. TO ESTIMATE THE PERCENTAGE OF HABITAT OCCUPIED BY TIGERS AT

2. TO ESTIMATE TIGER POPULATION ABUNDANCE AND DENSITY

3. TO ESTIMATE PREY DENSITY IN PROTECTED AREAS AND

Table 1. Tiger bearing protected areas in Nepal

IUCN Core Area Year of

4 . MATERIALS AND METHODS

Figure 2. Camera trap layout for Bardia National Park

Figure 3. Distribution of line transects in Parsa National Park

Figure 4. Tiger occupancy in TAL-Nepal, 2018.

Table 4. Estimated site tiger population estimates in Nepal, 2018.

Site Mean SD 95% CI

Table 8. Comparison of Population Estimates using SECR-ML and SECR-B

Site SECR-ML SECR-B

Figure 6. Trend in tiger population (2009-2018) based on Mt+1

8 . MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS AND THE

Protected Area CAPTURE Program MARK Program

95%_UPPER_HPD_ GEWEKE DIAGNOSTIC

Psi 0.229 0.022 0.185 0.272

National Tiger Survey 2018 National Tiger Survey 2013

SECR- Bayesian SECR- ML

Protected Effort Spatial No. of Density % of GoF-

Figure 6.Movement of tigers in adjoining forests of Parsa National Park.

Figure 7. Movement of tigers in adjoining forests of Chitwan National Park.

Figure 8. Movement of tigers in adjoining forests of Banke National Park.

Figure 9. Movement of tigers in adjoining forests of Bardia National Park.

Figure 10. Movement of tigers in adjoining forests of Shuklaphanta National Park.

Annex- 10. Ground personnel involved in National Tiger Survey.

SN Name of participant Protected Area Institution

SN Name of participant Protected Area Institution

SN Name of participant Protected Area Institution

SN Name of participant Protected Area Institution

SN Name of participant Protected Area Institution

SN Name of participant Protected Area Institution

SN Name of participant Protected Area Institution

SN Name of participant Protected Area Institution

Annex- 11: Identified tigers from National Tiger Survey 2018.

TIGERS OF PARSA NATIONAL PARK

TIGERS OF CHITWAN NATIONAL PARK

CNP-FT01- RIGHT CNP-FT01- LEFT

CNP-FT02- RIGHT CNP-FT02- LEFT

CNP-FT03- RIGHT CNP-FT03- LEFT

CNP-FT04- RIGHT CNP-FT04- LEFT

CNP-FT05- RIGHT CNP-FT05- LEFT

CNP-FT06- RIGHT CNP-FT06- LEFT

CNP-FT07- RIGHT CNP-FT07- LEFT

CNP-FT08- RIGHT CNP-FT08- LEFT

CNP-FT09- RIGHT CNP-FT09- LEFT

CNP-FT10- RIGHT CNP-FT10- LEFT

CNP-FT11- RIGHT CNP-FT11- LEFT

CNP-FT12- RIGHT CNP-FT12- LEFT

CNP-FT13- RIGHT CNP-FT13- LEFT

CNP-FT14- RIGHT CNP-FT14- LEFT