Visit to Auroville ... 2nd Conservation Education meet ...

A long journey from Saiha to Auroville came to an end when eyes saw soothing green all around. I guess no discussion over email could have prepared me for this wonderful feel! It was rain-time for the place as we discovered on our first day; making us reschedule our second conservation education meet and begin it with presentations on Auroville and Pitchandikulam.

Auroville, created by a special act of parliament, houses approximately 2,100 people from 50 odd nations. Watershed consciousness was the crux of the ecological restoration efforts at Auroville! While these efforts began during the late sixties serious botanical action took shape only during the nineties. About 150 sacred groves were surveyed with a view to comprehend and later conserve indigenous species, that formed an integral element of the local ecological landscape, and then existed only within their precincts. We saw how a landmass bereft of shade and water was transformed to the green jungle thriving with porcupines and civets besides the numerous birds who vocalized their presence throughout our meet. I found this very interesting and recalled Ransinhbaba temple with its small area of shade providing trees near Agraa. We discussed remnants of other civilizations discovered in the landscape; pointing towards prominence and development of the coast and reminded me how much I revelled in history. Even Romans’ presence has been discovered around Auroville; Tamil kings were special invitees at coronations of Roman emperors!

Pitchandikulam, the group hosting us, was located within Auroville’s green-belt. Pitchandikulam, a bio-resource centre housing around 800 species, worked on environment education towards which it established centres and developed resource material besides the ongoing action with schools and much more. The team was involved with restoration of Adyar Ponga with the Tamil Nadu government. Adyar Ponga, home to one of the first fish breeding plants of India, is located on about 60 acres of prime land in Madras. I found the process very interesting, how the efforts began, their being “government contractors” from a perspective, political flavour of the action including fortnightly - monthly reporting by way of video-clips to the chief minister and Joss’ view that restoration ecology by its very definition has to involve people! All this was besides the manner in which environment education had been ingrained in the entire process and was marching on.

We then went for a walk in the campus. While I do not get much excited in identifying trees and my awareness regarding them too is pathetic; I loved the ambience. As we walked I immersed myself in it. Wood from one of trees, as was pointed out, was applied to make vessels and oil for use in temples! A wooden equipment that was lying was once used to crush groundnuts to oil with help of bulls! We saw different snails, butterflies, birds and while I could confidently identify more than a few I loved exploring my limited abilities with camera. Lots of ants too and what was great was that we were careful not to step over them. We then walked over to where the signages were being developed and found them to be stunning! Eric mentioned that one of them had to be present while the artists were at work and that while they were currently busy with the Adyar Ponga project they also took up projects for other organizations like the Cycus signage for Keystone Foundation. Paintings and carvings on rocks left us gaping; especially a civet! With due respect to tigers, elephants and rhinos, I liked seeing the smaller and lesser glamorous species represented in these efforts. Drizzling made the experience more fun and Joss remarked that while eucalyptus was anyways great it was all the more beautiful then; when it drizzled.

Next day we went for a beautiful drive on the East Coast Road. We saw the estuary and had a boat ride till the coast! I was on a beach after ages and the responded with few minutes of absolute silence. We saw crabs on the beach and I recalled the beach-crabs depicted in Shekar’s film ~ Point Calimere – Little Kingdom by the Coast. Eric pointed out that they moved only till the waterline and that I should refrain from venturing ahead. A little while later as I walked some of them jumped and disappeared in the sand leaving holes, the circumference of a pencil, as reminders. As I munched on yummy chocolate cookies I realized how much I loved being there with the waves, wind and of course the music both of them created! While some of us were discussing oysters and crabs others collected shells or added pictures to their collection.

We then went to a home for children, where we also saw an environment education centre established by Pitchandikulam. Posters were put up at the centre that focussed on coastal issues. Questions on these centres that had been pestering for some time revisited me then! How can these interpretation centres be designed such that they are as lively and interesting during an individual’s second visit as they were during the first visit! This reminded me that I was yet to read on these type of centres. An interesting breakfast consisting of idli, vada and pongal pushed my questions aside. A brief talk by the principal followed.

Another drive, shorter than the previous one and we reached a school in Nadukuppam where we saw a programme by children ~ songs, skit and puppetry focussing on environmental issues. The school, based in a village that lay between 2 reserve forests, has been adopted by Pitchandikulam. I recalled an earlier discussion on the extent to which the participants of such programmes (including teachers) grasped issues that the programme focussed on. We proceeded towards the first floor and had a long discussion. We were told that an intensive 6 month training was undertaken for the teachers before they started sharing with students. Design was to involve people from nearby areas. While the content was designed by Eric for teacher training he was not directly involved with students. As we moved on to discuss solar energy, waste segregation and recycling at the school I recalled our school at Agraa wondering if these actions could be taken up, if there was a need and to what end! We then moved on to talk of the Buckingham Canal; a human made structure aging about 200. We touched one of its ends earlier during the day; the other lay in Andhra Pradesh. We discussed how about 30,000 labourers would have suddenly moved in the vicinity from regions around towards its construction and manner in which they would have impacted natural resources; fuel for cooking, wild meat for diet, timber for shelter and more! And collectively wondered if these impacts are considered while planning “development projects”. I recalled my trip with Raju to Mani Kheda in Shivpuri near Madhav National Park; a dam construction site where wild meat was in great demand, more so on days of weekly payment to labourers.

Post lunch we had presentations. The first one talked of how varied target groups were sensitized, and efforts made to augment their knowledge levels, by undertaking actions that were suited to each of them. This with a view to address the different threats to wildlife that emanated from them. One of the actions talked of how macaques that are arboreal have been spotted coming on to the road, getting killed in the process, and how school going children were asked to put up posters, to make people aware of the issue, at crucial points. Actions like setting up of interpretation centre, involving children in monitoring birds and writing articles in local press were also discussed.

Another presentation talked of a yearly programme with 4 hour sessions held at quarterly intermissions. It shared of being initiated at the invitation of the forest department as also of working on addressing local issues like visits by large number of devotees to a temple, located within the boundaries of a protected area, on select days. Synergies were also established with experts to enthuse school going children; like visits organized to forested areas with bird watchers. One presentation depicted a project that involved setting up of an eco-park which featured walks within a grown forest on private land, non scheduled species for display as also place to indulge in sports besides other attractions.

As we woke up early to indulge in spotting our avian friends, on the final day, we were wished a “wet morning” by the weather gods! Post breakfast we moved in a vehicle to an auditorium to see a film on Auroville and after getting a succinct picture from the film we moved on to the Matri Mandir. Amidst this I was feeling uneasy with the thought that we possibly could be left with less than optimal time, post the exercise, for our deliberations on conservation education.

After visiting the Matri Mandir we all went to the Botanical Garden. It was managed by a Scot who was now enjoying his 18th year at Auroville. We walked and discussed how the garden was compartmentalized into that grown naturally and the compartment that was tempered and which of them received more avian visitors. Here once again I came face to face with my hopelessness in recalling tree names as others in the group mentioned English, Latin and vernacular identities of those standing tall! However I love being amidst trees and guess that’s it. We saw how the garden nurtured saplings such that they could also share them with other places in Auroville and beyond. Also interesting was the maze; plants cultivated such that one could walk through and for a moment feel that could get lost ! This was a part of the efforts towards making the garden a platform for environment education as was the cactus collection. Rushing back to Pitchandikulam for lunch we got on to our sessions.

One of us shared on efforts in Lakshadweep and Kerela portraying how an individual could work on conservation education issues, how partnerships can be brought about with non government organizations, as also the manner in which government bodies can be involved.

Another presentation that focussed on developments in conservation education programme since previous year’s meeting talked of fashion in which local knowledge was being documented and local practices encouraged as part of conservation education efforts. The highlight being short video clips depicting song and dance sequence, all bringing out the intensity of involvement with the programme.

On my part I went back to our discussion on skill sharing by screening Point Calimere – Little Kingdom by the Coast in the manner of our screening at Mizoram. Halting in between, using the white board, sharing field guides and sharing of how we prepared for interpretations and the reactions we received.

We then discussed the dilemmas we faced in course of our efforts, the proposed web book and future plans while our hosts shared their amazing posters.

Thanking Sunita, ATREE, Pitchandikulam and all co-participants.

Occurrence records of the Bengal slow loris Nycticebus bengalensis in northeastern India.

This post features a recent paper of ours that has been published in Asian Primates Journal 1(2), 2009 and can be accessed online at the website of the Primate Specialist Group.

Tables 1 and 2 I have not been able to fit in the post.

Thanking Nandini, Kashmira and Asian Primates Journal.

Occurrence records of the Bengal slow loris Nycticebus bengalensis in northeastern India.

Rajamani Nandini1, Kashmira Kakati2 and Nimesh Ved3

1 National Institute of Advanced Studies, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012

2 Research Associate, WCS-India Program.

3 Samrakshan Trust, Saiha, Mizoram 796901.

Address for correspondence: nandinirajamani@yahoo.co.in

ABSTRACT

The Bengal slow loris Nycticebus bengalensis is a cryptic nocturnal primate whose distribution within India is known only from incidental records and few targeted surveys. We record the occurrence of the slow loris in three states in northeastern India – Meghalaya, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. We report three opportunistic sightings of the species made along nocturnal walks as well as two reports of captive lorises. We also provide photographic documentation of lorises from two of the states to document differences in pelage coloration. Slow lorises are under threat due to deforestation, hunting and the pet trade, and we need more information regarding their occurrence and ecology to aid conservation efforts.

KEYWORDS: Bengal slow loris, Nycticebus bengalensis, occurrence, captive animals, northeastern India.

INTRODUCTION

The Bengal slow loris (Nycticebus bengalensis) is one of seven nocturnal strepsirrhine primates that occur in Asia (IUCN 2008). The genus Nycticebus (Family Lorisidae) is distributed from northeastern India eastward through South and Southeast Asia into the Philippine islands, and N. bengalensis is a wide-ranging species that occurs in northeastern India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Cambodia, southern China, Lao People's Democratic Republic, northern Thailand, and Vietnam (IUCN, 2008). This is the only nocturnal primate in the northeastern Indian states, and is listed in Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Little is known about the ecology of the species across its range and it is categorized as Vulnerable in the IUCN red list (IUCN, 2008). N. bengalensis is reported to occur in evergreen and semi-evergreen forests and is recorded from all seven states of Northeast India (Choudhury 2001). However, Choudhury (2001) does not state the origin of these records, and if they are based on direct sightings or accounts by local residents. Targeted surveys have been conducted only in Meghalaya, Assam (Radhakrishna et al. 2006) and some parts of Tripura (Swapna et al. 2008). Mishra et al. (2006) reported the presence of slow lorises in Arunachal Pradesh based on secondary information.

In this paper, we collate direct sighting records as well as other occurrence information of the Bengal slow loris, which were obtained during field studies for other projects. The records are from Assam, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh and are the most recent records of direct sightings of the Bengal slow loris from these locations. The Bengal slow loris is reported to vary in color across its range (Sindhu Radhakrishna, pers. comm.), and in order to aid in documentation of this variation, we include photographs from three of the records in this manuscript.

METHODS

The paper compiles reports of lorises gleaned from incidental records in the field during nocturnal walks as well as from interactions with the local community. Fieldwork was conducted in different states in Northeast India by the three authors on separate research projects aimed at small carnivores, flying squirrels and small mammals. Trails were walked by one or more investigators and two or more field assistants shortly after dusk and spotlights and flashlights (white light) were used to locate nocturnal mammals. Most effort was focused on the arboreal community and different levels of the canopy were searched for eyeshine. Once eyeshine was detected, more light and binoculars were used to identify the animal. This method has been used in various studies focusing on nocturnal, arboreal mammals (Duckworth 1998, Rajamani 2000). Lorises were detected this way in Assam, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh.

Additionally, occurrences of lorises in Assam and Meghalaya were also documented from the local forest department offices as well as resident communities. Captive lorises were seen in both Assam and Meghalaya and we report first-hand accounts of captive animals seen by the authors of this note.

RESULTS

We sighted three slow lorises in the wild in Assam, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh and observed two captive slow lorises (Table 1, 2, Figure 1). Given the paucity of information on occurrences of slow lorises from the wild in India, we think it is important to provide details about the sighting locations and to list the existing threats present at these individual sites. We also present photographs of lorises from two of the three states – Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh to enable documentation of differences in pelage coloration.

Direct sightings of the Slow loris in the wild from nocturnal walks:

Assam: On 25th May 2007, at 18:45 h, KK and her field team detected a slow loris in the Jeypore Reserve Forest (RF) (area 108 km²) at N 27.20147°, E 95.44476° (altitude ca. 150 m amsl), 900 m west of the Kothalguri Beat Office along the Jeypore-Khonsa road. KK's field assistant Lakhindra Sonowal spotted the animal by its red eye-shine behind a large fork on a free-standing Ficus tree (GBH 143.5 cm, tree not in fruit). The forest here is categorized as Assam valley tropical wet evergreen forest (category 1B/C1) (Champion and Seth 1968), also called the Upper Assam Dipterocarpus - Mesua forest. It was heavily logged in the past, but is now relatively undisturbed. However, there is moderate traffic on the Jeypore-Khonsa road, and occasional incidents of poaching for meat are reported by the local people. The Assamese name for the slow loris is Lajuki Bandor.

Meghalaya: A Bengal slow loris was sighted (by all authors) on 12th March 2007 in Baghmara RF (area 43.92 sq km) over 3 hours of walk between Panda and Ampangre on the Baghmara-Maheshkola road (GPS location of sighting - N 25.20121°, E 90.69569°, altitude ca. 150m). The authors were walking down the road at a speed of 1 km/ hour, and the animal was sighted in the forest interior approximately 20m from the edge of the road. As soon as we spotted the animal it froze, but then subsequently moved into the foliage and onto a neighboring tree. The habitat is a tropical semi-evergreen forest and at the time trees were devoid of mature leaves and new leaf flush and flowers were beginning to appear. Figure 2 is a photograph of the loris sighted here. The slow loris is known in Meghalaya as Gilwe.

Arunachal Pradesh: On 20th November 2007, at 19:57 h, a slow loris (Figure 3) was sighted by Kalyan Varma and three other naturalists in Deban, Namdapha Tiger Reserve, in the forest off the Miao-Vijaynagar Road (N 96.391207°, E 27.497210°, altitude 339m amsl). The loris was sighted on a tree that bent over the trail (approximately 2m from the road). The four naturalists searched the vegetation using flashlights (white light) and were walking through the forest as approximately 1.5 km per hour. The forest type is low elevation tropical evergreen forest. Local communities are reported to hunt wildlife and the forest along the Miao-Vijaynagar road is disturbed by regular movement as well as extraction of timber and other resources by local tribal communities (Datta 2006).

Captive lorises:

We observed two captive lorises, one in Assam and one in Meghalaya. In both cases the animals were released into nearby forest patches.

Assam: A male slow loris caught by a tea estate worker from Namtok, Dirok Forest, part of the Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary (WLS), was rescued on the 31st December 2005 and handed over to Mr. Pradipta Barua, Range Forest Officer, Margherita West Range, Digboi Forest Division, Assam. The animal was released the next day into the Dirok Forest (Beat Office location N 27.26 174°, E 95.60 981°, altitude 100 m amsl, area 30 km²). The forest here is Assam Valley Tropical Wet Evergreen forest, previously logged and now with secondary vegetation as well as extensive tall Dipterocarpus macrocarpus (Hollong) plantations. Poaching is suspected to occur at this site also.

Meghalaya: A slow loris (Figure 4) was captured from a jhum field adjoining Balpakram National Park and kept in Gongrot Aking (unit of clan land consisting of one or more hamlets) (N 90.730530°, E 25.263050°), Rongra Block, south Garo Hills district, Meghalaya, between March and April 2005. The loris was kept as a pet in a small bamboo cage for 2-3 weeks in a household within the Aking (size: approximately 50 households). The family initially fed it rice but later they switched to feeding it fruits and insects till it was released. Gongrot Aking shares a border with Balpakram National Park to its north and the loris was released into the Park at night on 17th April 2005 after persuasion from NV and colleagues. The jhum fields had at the time been recently burnt as they were being prepared for cultivation. Local people report that many wild animals come into newly burnt fields to eat the shoots that spring up, making this a good period for hunting animals. A questionnaire survey undertaken across 33 Akings of Rongra block to assess knowledge of 56 large mammals (including slow loris) revealed that 76% of the respondents claimed to have seen the slow loris, indicating that the animal is probably common in the region (Ved and Sangma 2007). The forest type in the region is tropical semi-evergreen forest that is disturbed by human activities.

DISCUSSION

The Bengal slow loris, like the other lorises of the genus Nycticebus, is a cryptic nocturnal mammal whose distribution is known only from occasional accounts and research studies across its range (Nekaris et al. 2008). The occurrence of the slow loris is not well documented across northeastern India, and this study reports occurrence of this species in specific forest patches in three states across the region. Nekaris et al. (2008) report that few studies documented slow loris densities or abundances, and emphasize that this is necessary for effective management. We do not present encounter rates based on hours spent walking or distance as these sightings were opportunistic and not part of a study aimed at estimation of density or abundance of lorises. Systematic studies with repeated transect walks are required to estimate abundance or densities accurately (Buckland et al. 1993, Duckworth 1998). Any encounter rates calculated from this report might not be true representations of the abundance of the loris at these sites. If calculated, our encounter rates (0.28-1 lorises/km) would be higher than other reported studies of the same species (0.22 lorises/km: Swapna et al. 2008, 0.03-0.33 lorises/km: Radhakrishna et al. 2006, 0.10-0.13/km Nekaris and Nijman 2007) as well as other species of the genus (range 0.05-0.74:Nekaris and Nijman 2007). Given that there are no replicates for any of our walks, these rates would be inflated figures.

The distribution and population densities of the Bengal slow loris in Northeast India are known to be affected by a number of factors including habitat destruction, subsistence hunting, and trade (Radhakrishna et al. 2006). However, the lack of information on area of occurrence and its ecology is a major hurdle to monitoring impacts of these factors on slow loris populations throughout its range. A number of other factors – most of them unique to this region, further complicate the matter. Anthropogenic activities are known to have resulted in widespread fragmentation of the forest cover of the northeastern states, and protected areas as well as most of their animal populations are not contiguous (Choudhury 2001). While long-term studies on the Sunda slow loris show that it does not necessarily depend on undisturbed primary forest (Wiens, 1995), the reaction of the Bengal slow loris to such habitat disturbance remains to be examined. Compounding the problem is the fact that several slow loris habitats are outside protected areas. Insurgencies affect many of the states, and the consequent security issues associated with conducting field research at night are a deterrent for researchers to take up detailed studies of nocturnal species like the loris.

In northeast India the Bengal slow loris Nycticebus bengalensis is affected by trade as well as subsistence hunting (Radhakrishna et al. 2006). Local knowledge of lorises is often high due to such activities, as indicated by Ved and Sangma's (2007) survey. Reports of slow lorises being kept as pets in captivity are numerous throughout the range of these animals, including northeastern India. While slow lorises are captured to be kept as pets locally in many tribal communities (Duckworth et al., 1999), they are also captured for trade markets (Nekaris and Nijman 2007). After an assessment of the high volume of unsustainable trade in slow lorises, the genus was moved from Appendix II to Appendix I of CITES (CITES 2008), awarding it the highest level of protection and banning all international trade. Efforts need to be made to document the intensity of trade and capture of the slow loris in northeastern India in order to determine the effect of such activities on local loris populations.

The slow loris is known to vary extensively across its range, and the recent division into five species is based on genetics, morphological differences and pelage characteristics (Nekaris et al. 2008). The importance of documentation of pelage characteristics in Nycticebus was brought to light by Nekaris and Jaffe (2007), who used pelage characteristics to identify source locations of slow lorises recovered from the pet trade circuit. Recent research has shown facial markings to play a role in social communication (Bearder 1999), and isolated populations of nocturnal mammals might have evolved different facial patterns. Given that the slow loris is a commonly traded species, it is important to document pelage variation in both color and facial markings through the range of the species to aid identification of the source of recovered animals/ skins. We provide photographs of the species from two of the states, and while we do not have many replicates from each population to document individual variation, these pictures might prove useful in building photo libraries of animals from different sites. With the advent of powerful digital cameras, it is easier to photograph nocturnal mammals today than it was even a few years ago, and we advocate photographic documentation of populations of lorises. This resource would especially benefit scientists and conservation biologists if these were made available in the public domain.

Conservation efforts for the slow loris must be directed towards identifying the most important habitats, and not only preserving these, but also connecting them with forest corridors. The efforts of conservation-oriented organizations are vital in raising awareness in tribal communities about biodiversity and consumption of natural resources (including subsistence hunting).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We acknowledge A. Christy Williams, Samrakshan Trust, and T. Karthik for helping with logistics and assistance in Meghalaya; and Pradipta Barua, Range Forest Officer, Jeypore for providing details of the rescued slow loris at Dirok. Kalyan Varma and Divya Mudappa were extremely generous in sharing the details of the sighting in Deban. We thank A. Christy Williams, M.D. Madhusudhan and Kalyan Varma for the photographs of the loris and Sindhu Radhakrishna for her encouragement to publish these sightings. Sindhu Radhakrishna and Robin Vijayan commented on earlier drafts, and reviewers Anna Nekaris, Ulrike Streicher and Christian Roos gave us comments that greatly improved the draft.

REFERENCES

Bearder, S.K. 1999. Physical and Social Diversity Among Nocturnal Primates: A New View Based on Long Term Research. Primates 40(1): 267-282

Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., and Laake, J.L. (1993). Distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. London: Chapman and Hall.

CITES 2008. CITES Online resource. Available at http://cites.org.

Choudhury, A.U. 2001. Primates in northeast India: An overview of their distribution and conservation status. In: Wildlife and Protected Areas, Non-Human Primates of India, A.K. Gupta (ed.), pp. 92-101. ENVIS Bulletin Vol. 1, India.

Datta, A. 2006. Threatened forests, forgotten people. In: Making conservation work: securing biodiversity in this new century, G. Shahabuddin and M. Rangarajan (Eds.), pp.165-209. Permanent Black, Uttaranchal.

Duckworth, J.W. 1998. The difficulty of estimating population densities of nocturnal forest mammals from line transect counts. Journal of Zoology London 246: 466–468.

Duckworth, J.W., Salter, R.E., and Khounboline, K. (eds.) 1999. Wildlife in Lao P.D.R.: 1999 status report. Vientiane: IUCN, WCS and CPAWM.

Champion, H.G. and Seth, S.K. 1968. A revised survey of the forest types of India. The Manager of Publications, Delhi-6.

IUCN 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. . Downloaded on 03 July 2008.

Mishra, C., Madhusudan, M.D., and Datta, A. 2006. Mammals of the high altitudes of western Arunachal Pradesh, eastern Himalaya: an assessment of threats and conservation needs. Oryx 40(1): 29-35.

Nekaris, K.A.I. and Jaffe, S. 2007. Unexpected diversity of slow lorises (Nycticebus spp.) within the Javan pet trade: implications for slow loris taxonomy. Contributions to Zoology 76 (3): 187-196.

Nekaris, K.A.I. and Nijman, V. 2007. CITES proposal highlights rarity of Asian nocturnal primates (Lorisidae: Nycticebus). Folia Primatologica 78: 211-214.

Nekaris, K.A.I., Blackham, G.V., and Nijman, V. 2008 Conservation implications of low encounter rates of five nocturnal primate species (Nycticebus spp.) in Asia. Biodiversity Conservation 17:733–747.

Radhakrishna, S., Goswami, A.B., and Sinha, A. 2006. Distribution and Conservation of Nycticebus bengalensis in Northeastern India. International Journal of Primatology 27(4): 971-982.

Rajamani, N. 2000. Ecology and behaviour of the large brown flying squirrel Petaurista philippensis in a rain forest fragment, southern Western Ghats. Masters Thesis. Pondicherry University.

Swapna, N., Gupta, A., and Radhakrishna, S. 2008. Distribution survey of Bengal slow loris Nycticebus bengalensis in Tripura, northeastern India. Asian Primates Journal 1(1): 37-40.

Ved, N. and Sangma, B. 2007. Wildlife Distribution, Hunting and Conflict: A Preliminary Survey. Samrakshan Trust, Meghalaya Field Office, Baghmara.

Wiens, F. 1995. Verhaltensbeobachtungen am Plumplori Nycticebus coucang (Primates: Lorisidae) im Freiland. Diploma Thesis at the Faculty of Biology of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University. Frankfurt a. M., Germany.


Figures

Figure 1: Map of India with focus on the Northeast. Sightings of the Bengal slow loris are plotted on the map.

Figure 2: Bengal slow loris sighted at Balpakram Reserve Forest, Meghalaya. Photo credit: A. Christy Williams.

Figure 3: Bengal slow loris sighted at Deban, Namdapha Tiger Reserve. Photo credit: Kalyan Varma.

Figure 4: Bengal slow loris kept in captivity in Gongrot Aking, Meghalaya in April 2005. Photo Credit: M.D. Madhusudhan.

Weekend at Saiha ...

Sun finally overcame its struggle with clouds and presented a pleasant Mizoram winter this weekend. Craving for more we took off on our bike to soak in its pleasure ...

Before we took off on the bike I reached office to open windows and saw a stunning moth. It appeared a little lost, allowed us to take macro images from pretty close and later on scraped through the window.  It was the Atlas Moth (Attacus atlas). Wikipedia says its ‘considered to be the largest moth in the world”.

Saw this Oriental Garden Lizard or Changeable Lizard (Calotes versicolor) about 10 kms ahead of Saiha on the road to Blue Mountain National Park. This was at a time when the sun was tiring out for the day, sending out its robust last rays. We were sitting on a stone placed on the valley side of the road and could hear them jump on the not so dry leaves (and other vegetation) about 4 – 6 feet from the hill on the other side about 15 feet further from us; beautifully camouflaged!

Wikipedia says of this ‘Unlike other lizards, they do not drop their tails, and their tails can be very long, stiff and pointy. Like other reptiles, they shed their skins and like chameleons can move each of their eyes in different directions.

Giant wood spider (Genus : Nephila)

It was almost at the centre of its web when we noticed it; adjacent to an unused building at Tlangkawn. The web was big enough to rival the size of our office table had it been circular and was dotted with prey in no small numbers. As we attempted to take its pics and count the prey we realized it was slowly descending and not wanting to further disturb it on a Sunday afternoon moved ahead.

Acknowledgements are due to Firoz Ahmed, Dharmendra Khandal, Ashwin Baindur and of course Kishen Das.

Life at Saiha ...

Recently we had been invited to 2 functions at Saiha that we attended, loved and felt very much a part of ...

Don Bosco School organized a function to celebrate Parents and Children's Day together at its hall and we were invited to share the cheerful occassion! Donbosco has been close to me since we began organising programmes with select classes and I have been ever glad to visit them!

The programme which began at 10 had group and solo songs, dances, fancy dress competition and more taking me on short intermittent journeys to my schools days! It was fun to see the sheer energy and confidence in participants, be a part of the frolick with students in audience and also see pride in parents's eyes on seeing their children perform. The bi-lingual announcements too helped.

The Evangelical Church of Maraland - New Saiha celebrated its Golden Jubilee; 3 day festivities that began with a scintillating display of fire works. We were fortunate to attend the culmination gathering with bible reading, choir, hyms,candle light ceremony and more.While we were received and welcomed with affection by some members we had a chance to meet many others in course of the tea post the ceremony!

Warmth of those around me ever keeps on touching me; teaching me of humanity ...

Sincere thanks are due to Donbosco School, Evangelical Church of Maraland and friends in Saiha who have enabled us to enjoy these moments.

Learning from action ~ Conservation Education with schools at Saiha.

This post shares my contribution to the Wildlife Week edition of the CEE website GREEN TEACHER.

The things we have to learn before we do them, we learn by doing them.

- Aristotle

Samrakshan’s Mizoram field base works for conservation education at Saiha, a remote location that houses some of the best remaining rainforests in these parts of our country. Forests, that people share with wild species, across the landscape. We organize regular programmes with school going children as also members of youth associations, village councils (governing bodies) and forest department personnel. We seek and work on opportunities that help us dovetail conservation education to regular education and social action in the landscape thus mainstreaming it. Stress is laid to stimulate a programme sensitive to cultural values and mores; both in content and tone. These are documented to allow us to further immerse in the process, get energised for further actions as also to seek feedback.

I take this space to share some of our experiences, moments that have taken us and programme forward.

Interactions with students have led to my realizing that when putting across a novel idea, concept or even a name of wild species comparisons and examples are of immense utility. While talking of serow (Naemorhedus sumatraensis), the state animal, we discussed how its ears resembled that of a domestic donkey while its body was larger than that of a domestic goat.

While discussing Mizoram’s wildlife where we talked of National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Important Bird Areas, State Bird & State Animal; to put across the concept of state bird and state animal as being species that were relatively more charismatic than other species, we discussed how select political leaders were more charismatic than their counterparts! And when the focus shifted to National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, to share with the participants that these were not necessarily “large areas of forests away from towns and full of wild animals” we gave examples with photographs; making attempts to restrict the examples to this part of our county so as to enable the participants to relate better. We talked of the Nokrek National Park (West Garo Hills, Meghalaya) that has primarily been created to preserve the citrus species occurring in wild in the landscape and the Pitcher Plant Sanctuary (South Garo Hills, Meghalaya) that is less than 1 sq km in area and has been created (primarily) to protect primarily one plant species – the pitcher plant (Nepenthis khasiana).

Another issue has been pace. We have realized that pace of our “implementing” planned action with students needs to vary depending on factors ranging from the location of school (a school located in an small and remote village was different from the Don Bosco School at district headquarters) to the familiarity of the topic to the students (Palak lake of the myths and folklores was different from the Palak lake that was an Important Bird Area). At Kaisih (near Phura) during interactions on “Wildlife in Saiha” during the initial 15 minutes I discovered new levels of lack of interest with one 1 student out of 14 coming up with any kind of responses! We took an unplanned “water break”. As the students returned (afresh after a playful encounter with water) we began to discuss issues on their village that they possessed proficiency on and got them talking and involved and then got them one by one to read the slides that we had prepared. They enjoyed a break, the pace slowed down and programme got a boost! On similar lines, during a session focusing on “Hoolock Gibbons” at Donbosco School Saiha I figured that on account of our familiarity with the topic we were rushing away without forging the desired level of connect with the students (read failing in our efforts). Changing gears we slowed down the pace by talking, one after another, in Mizo (local language) and English in lieu of only one language and also got on to lengthier interactions on local names of wild species by asking students to come and write the respective names on the board.

Degree by which I have been and continue to be baffled by simplicity (in communications) far exceeds the concern it generates for the programme! Listening to some views on our programme made me realize that we need to work on becoming simple with respect to our communications else we were simply not communicating or worse in some cases espousing miscommunication!

I recall using "herpetofauna" in the slides meant for middle school children! The connect that the earlier slides had helped establish and interest that the pictures had generated took very little time to vanish. Ponder over it later the very day I wondered why we had not thought of using "frogs - snakes - lizards" earlier. I and my colleagues have perhaps found this task ‘of making this simple’ to be the most invigorating and difficult task; “wildlife values” is now “wild animals and birds” and so is “fauna and avian fauna” while “memorandum of understanding” has changed to “partnership”!

Inculcating feed back within our ongoing conservation education and awareness programme is an action the need for which we have ever agreed upon but seldom moved beyond! Seeking feedback by way of feedback forms towards end of sessions is an idea that has never appealed to me, however, select communications in course of our efforts; have led me to understand that the programme is moving ahead on desired lines. A student from Donbosco school met me recently in the market and asked if we would during the coming academic year organize programmes for the class he has just moved to? The smile and affirmative nod on my face had him immediately suggest that unlike the previous year where we only ‘talked’ of usage of binoculars we should arrange for him and other participants to feel and use them! I loved the excitement in his eyes! The other day I got a call from a teacher at Donbosco who has been closely associated with our programmes saying he had just returned from a visit to a friend where he had seen a pet ~ a baby monkey from the wild. He thought it was the Hoolock gibbon (Hoolock hoolock) that we had discussed (with help of pictures) in course of our sessions but was unsure on account of the baby being very young. He asked if I could come with him, take pictures and explore possibilities of the ape getting to its ‘actual’ home.

I look forward to many such moments. They add spark not just to programme but to life as well and make me look towards an equally exciting tomorrow!

Thanking Sanskriti Menon and CEE.

Mizoram Report ~ Mizo ~ Kum 2008 -2009 chhunga hnathawhte

Very pleased & satisfied personally to meet (albeit somewhat late) the moral obligation of producing a detailed report of our efforts in Mizo. Requesting friends to come forth with their feedback that helps us to further improve. . . Thanks . . .

Kan chanchin.

Samrakshan Mizoram field base chhuan kan ram chhung kilber ramsa leh ramngaw tha tak tak a la awm na hmun Saiha ah hia humhalhna kawnga hnathawh in bul a lo tan ta ani. Hun tha leh hun remchante denchhanin sikul naupang te, thalaipawlte, khawtlan hruaitu village council members te leh forest department a thawktu te nen tan tualin humhalh hna hi thawh tan a ni. Humhalh hna kan thawk na a h hian hlawhtlina leh rah tha tak achhuah theihna turin mipuite hnam hlutsak chungin humhalhna programme hi buatsaih thin a ni.

Saiha district hi Mizoram chhim lama awm 1965.81 sq kms area a ni a, headquarters pawh hi altitude 1226 meters (Anonymous 2005) a ni. Tun hnai lawka wildlife survey atanga kan hmuh chhuah danin Kiasitlah ah hian ramsa 42 (Datta-Roy et al. 2007).

Pala Tipo tih hi Mara tawng a ni a, Palak Lake til hi hman lar ber a ni. Palak dil vel hi ram ngaw tha tak a la neih a, le ta hian farte, le cane – brakes te pawh hmu tur tam tak a la awm a ni. Tin 9 amphibian leh 21 reptiles pawh survey na a tangin hmuh chhuah a ni (Pawar and Birand 2001). Palak dil hi Sava chenna pawimawh tak a ni bawk a ni ~ Important Bird Area (IBA)

Zirna humhalh

Kawng hrang hrang zirna a tan hma lakna hi nungchate humhalhna kawngah hmanraw tangkai tak a ni. Zirna ti hlu tu atan leh ti ngaihnawm a ti tangkai turin thuawihnate tanrualna te hi leh pawimawh tak a ni. (Trivedi et at. 2006) He thil kan humhalhna kawnga a zirtirna te avang hian a hnuai a Sessions-ah te hian Programme buatsaiha a lo ni tawh a ni.

# Naupang School kal lai mekte tan ( a hmasa ber in Class 5, 6. and 7 )
# Tual chhung zirna In leh Members te ( Tualchhunga Associations, Village Council members)

Khawvel pumpuia Environment Education chuan hriatna/fina leh thiamna tihzau leh hriattir hi he mi kawnga humhalhna pawimawh ber leh tangkai ber niin a sawi a, zirchian leh thlir nawn na-ah pawh hmasawn ber niin a lo pawm hial a ni (M L Ampofo–Anti) Chuvang chuan a chunga kan han tarlan te hi a hlawhtling takzet a ni. kan thil tihna a tel ve tawhte biakna ah chuan He tiang kawnga humhalna kawngah pawh a ti hlawhtling tu ber an nizel a ni.

Samrakshan chuan Saiha bialah hian zirna kawng a nungchate humhalhna hi hmanraw pawimawh tak a ni tih hriain, Sikul hrang hrang te nen an thawk ho a, chu chu hemi kawnga hman raw pawimawh tak a ni. ( Poster leh Book) Pathian thilsiam humhalhna bultantu leh Film chhuah ‘ Point Calimere - Little kingdom by the Coast” By Sekhar Dattari.

Mizorama nungchate hlutna chu a humhalhna hmun Protected Area (PA) leh Sava awmna hmun pawimah Important Bird Area (IBA) te sawi hovin introduction ( inhmelhriattirna ) chu tan a lo ni ta a ni. Ti chuan Data hmangin Protected Areas (PA) leh Important Birds Areas (IBA) te chu Data a a tihlan danin Wildlife Institute of India leh Bombay Natural History Society atangin State Bird leh State Animal chu sawi hona neih a ni ta a ni.

Samrakshan saiha bial chuan Saiha bial a ramsa leh nungchate hlutna chu zawngin a chhut a, “ Nagarahole- tales from an Indian Jungle: Film chhuahin bul a tan ta a ni.

Zawng chung chang sawi hona :- Zoo enkawltute pawl ( Zoo Outreach Organization) te siam chhuah, Zawng lem rawng hnawih tur leh a lem book te atanga tanpuina.

Hauhuk ( Hoolock gibbon ) Survey chhunga mi : A zawn chhuahna a thiltih, Hei hi a hlutna zawn chhuahna atana hman a ni a, chu chu zawhna ( Question 10 leh chhanna a lem nen a ni) Sikul naupangte zawh/ tihtir a ni.

Heng Sessions atan hian hmanraw chi hrang hrang hman a ni a, chungte chu :

# Film chhuah ( Film screening )
# A lem rawng hnawih (Colouring and sketching )
# Ngaihdan sawi hona ( Interactive discussion sessions)
# Thil tih te entirna ( Power point presentation )

Heng te bakah hian hun remchanna apiangah nungcha te humhalh na kawnga sawihona leh inbiakna kan neive thin a ni. Chungte chu:
# Annual functions of youth associations.Mara thyutliapy (MTP) te.
# Motivation campaigns of students. Mara Student Organisation (MSO)
# Teachers Trainning Organised by District institute Of Education & Trainning (DIET) te.
# Science exhibition Organised by State Council of Educational Research and Trainnning ( SCERT ) an ni.

Nungchate humhalhna kawng a inbiakna chuan nungchate chenchilh a inbiakna hi Class Room ah leh in pindana inbiakna aiin awmzia anei zawk hle a ni. Hemi in a huamte chu sava te leh ransa te hi an hming ziak ai chuan a enkawlna leh an chanchin te tui tak leh fimkhur takin sawi ho ila, a tha a hle a ni. Tichuan, kan humhalhna kawnga a zirna chuan, dik taka suangtuah thiamna te,kan thil tih nen a a in zawm avangin, Saiha pawh hun thar lo la awm tur te ina Pathian thilsiam atanga inla hrang lovin khawpui mite nen pawh an in tluk tlang vek tur a ni.

Nungchate chhinchhiah a dah

‘ Sava saw en teh’ ? Ka pa chuan a ti a
‘ Saw saw Spencer’s Warbler a ni ( A hming tak tak a hre lo tih ka hria e.)
Italy tawngin a tha e a ti a, saw saw Chutto Lapittida a ni. Portugal tawngin,
saw saw Bonda Peida a ni. China tawngin, saw saw, Chung - Iong - tah a ni.
Tin, Japan tawngin, saw saw, Katano takeda tih a ni ve thung.

Heng sava hming hi khawvel tawng chi hrang hrangin i hre thei mai thei e. Mahse, i tawp hun chuan eng sava pawh an chanchin i hre tawh hauh lovang. hmun hrang hranga mihring cheng te chauh hi i hre tawh anga, Ti chuan sava an sawi leh koh chauh i hre tawh ang. Chuvang chuan sava te hian engnge an tih en la, chu thil chu kan zir tur leh chhiar tur a ni zawk dawn a ni. Rechard Feynman, a leh a pa in- a sava an zirchianna/ an en-na chanchin a ziak a ni.

Keini pawh Ramsa leh sava kan hmuh apiang, record in kan chhinchhiah reng a, Tin, Phengphehlep leh tun hnai lawk a kan rul hmuh te pawh kan chhinchhiah thlap a ni. Hemi chhung hian thildang kan hmuh te pawh la chhinchhiah zel kan tum a ni. Tin, Nungcha chi hrang hrang kan hmuh tawh leh kan tawn tawh lehkha khawl chhut thlapin kan chhinchhiah tan tawh a ni. hei hi nitin an chanchin chhinchhiahna bu kan tih a chanchin sawi na a ni. Kan zinga mipa khat phei chu kut ngeia ziak hian a lo hmangaih theih zawk a ni a tia. A hnuaia kan tarlan hi ama ziak chhuah ngei chu a ni.

Thingpui in zawh a khuma kala mutzal lai chuan, ka thil tih tui ber zinga len chhuah chu ka tum ta a, Aug, 14th 2008 Tuipang a ka awmlai ani nghe nghe, ni khua lah chu achhe em em a, ruahsur nasa bawk nen. Circuit house (22. 31028, 93. 02599 ) atanga tuikhur ka va thlen chuan kal kawng pahnih alo awm a, a khawi zawk hi nge ka zawh ang tiin ka in ngaihtuah a, pa pakhat thaw mhnaw su mek chuan, “ Ka pu; khawiah nge kal i tum,” tiin min zawt a tichuan ka raw n leng deuh mai mai, sava te ka hmuh chuan thla te lak ka tum a, ni hnih thum vel chu ka la cham ang tiin ka chhanga. Tichuan kawng hnuai zawk chu ka zawh ta a, hemi kawng hi thla hmasa a ka thianpa Manuna nena kan lo kal tawhna hmun, lo atana an halna hmun vel kha ani bawk a, ka hrechiang hle bawk nen ka va kal zel a tah chuan tahchuan lo hlui chhung ah hian sava enge maw zat an lo awm a, an thlawh ran deuh avangin ka en chiang hman ta lova, ka thiamna in a tlin lo bawk nen, engtik ah emaw chuan thiamna hun kim chang ka la nei ang tiin ka inngaihtuah ta a ni.

Tuikhur a ka lo let leh chuan kawng dang ka zawh leh ta a, tin rei vaklo ka kal lai chuan sava pahnih hi ka veilam thei huan ah chuan ka zuk hmu ta a, thing kung leh a sava hre chiang turin ka Camera leh, Binocular ( Enlenna ) chu ka phawrh chhuak a, minute hnih vel ka thlir hnu chuan Fantails an ni tih ka hre ta a. Tichuan ka thawhpui Wildlife Biologist ni bawk Anirban nen a kum 2007 December thla a Agra a (Madhya Pradesh) a kan lenlai te kha ka hrechuak ta a. ( Vawiin chu eng Fantails nge a nih tih ka ngaihtuah chuanglo)

Tichuan thingzar vela a thlawk lai ka hmuh chuan ka field guide ka zawng chhuak nghal a. Tin, vawi lehkhat ah pakhat hi kawngah a rawn thlawk chhuak a thingbuk feet 12-15 vel a sangah chuan a fu ta a. Kei nen chuan lei atanga ft 2-4 vel chauh a inhlat kan ni.Tichuan ka entlangna (binocular) chuan ka en chiang nghal a. Chu sava chu White-browed Fantail Flycatcher (Rhipidura auresia) a lo ni reng mai a. A mithmul var te pawh a lang chiang khawp mai. Salim Ali’s Book of Indian birds in an awmna a sawi dan chuan,” India ram pum ah leh chhim lam Myanmar, Pakistan, Bangladesh leh Srilanka ah te a ti a ni.”

Ka tan chuan Saiha bial a ka sava hmuh hi min zahna hmasa ber ani awm e. Heng lai velah hian avang emaw vanglo emaw, min tih lawmna ber pakhat chu kan school ka kal lai a alem kan ziak te pawh kha a lo awm nual mai. Tin, thing buk vela reilo te lo hram a thlawk leh mai thin te pawh ka hmu nual bawk. Sava en leh an chanchin zir hi ka tuina ber ala ni zel.(Ka thiamna nen chuan a inmil vak rihlo)

Hmanlai a thil awm atanga hriattirna

George Santayana chuan “ tupawh hmanlai thil awm tawh atanga hriatna aneih vawng thiamlo chu thi nawn mawlh rawhse.”

Hmanlai a thil awm tawh hriattirna atangin nungcha te leh ramngaw chanchinte pawh kan dawng reng a ni, lehkhabu hrang hrang in min kawhhmuh ang zelin hmun hran hran a mi a theih ang angin type chuah ani thin a, hemi atang hian Saiha biala nungchate humhalh na kawng tan kan hma lakna leh kan in fuihna te pawh nasa takin tunah chuan hma kan sawn chho zel a ni. Tin, hriatna tamtak kan dawng bawk a hei hian kan hma lam a nungchate humhalhna kawng ah hma min sawntir thei dawn bawk a ni.Lehkhabu kan chiar thenkhat phei chu British officer leh ziakmi ropui tak tak te an ni hlawm a ni.Heng ho hian ziak dan tha tak tak te min kawhhmuh a. Hmalak dan tur tha zawk min kawhhmuh bawk a ni.

Hlawhtlinna thiamna leh hlawhchhamna

Hun te a inthlak zel angin zirlai ten lei an rochun a khawvel nei thei khawpin mithiam ten mawi takin thiamna in an inthuam a. - Al Rodgers.

Nungchate humhalhna kawnga thiamna leh finna kawngah Saiha ah pawh hma kan sawnin kan thang chho zel a, tin programme kan neihna ah te pawh kan hlawhtling hle zel a ni. Tin, hetih lai hian nungchate humhalhna kaw nga kan in zirtirna a hmanraw pawimawh leh awmchhun chu thingtlang naupang te leh puitling te ti ila kan sawisual lovang. Kan programme ah pawh heng mite hi kan thawhpui pawimawh tak awmchhunte an ni. Chuvangin kan harsatna tihreh ai chuan kan thiamna/hriatna tihpun hi heng mite zahawmna hi a ni.

# Nature ( hriat leh hriattirna )
# In biakpawhna ( Communication )

Nungchate humhalhna kawnga zirtirna hna kan thawhna ah hian kan thiamna leh finna te kan hmang ho tur a ni a tin nungchate humhalhna hna kan thawhna ah hian hmanraw chihrang hrang hmangin audience te hnenah kan hriattir nawn zel tur a ni. Tin kan in biakdan tur te pawh a hma in lo inpuahchah hmasak lawk tur a ni. Tin, ngaihtuahna tha tak tak neiin kan inbiakna te hnenah pawh an duh zawng leh an tui zawng te tanchhan in hriatna leh zirtirna kan pek ngun hi a pawimawh hle.

Kan thil thlir leh hmuh te pawh kan chhinchhiah nghal zel tur a ni a, hei hian kan thil hmuh leh tawn te pawh a tizangkhai thei a ni. Tichuan, thil awmdan zir chiangin, lo inher danglam thei a nih avangin atha zawng a thil kan kalpui a tul takzet a ni. Kan zirchianna thenkhat te chu a hnuaiah hian tarlan a ni. An dinhmun leh an in hlat zawng thuhmun a kaltir.

Sikul naupang te nena kan inbiak emaw kan inzirtir emaw ai chuan nungchate chanchin sawi a kan tehkhin fo thin te hi a tangkai zawk a ni. Saza ( Serow Naemorhedus Sumatraensis ) Chanchin kan sawi hian State Animal ani a, a beng te pawh sabengtung nen a inang a, mahse a taksa pianphung erawh chu kel ( Goat ) aiin a lian zawk a ni tih hriattir theih nise.

Phura ah chuan thalai pawl te nen ‘ Mizoram a ramsa chanchin te kan sawi ho fo thin a National park te, Wildlife sanctuaries te, Important bird areas te, state bird leh state animal te pawh kan sawiho thin a heng hian hriatzauna asiam bak ah heng nungcha te hi ramsa dang aiin an pawimawh zawk a ni tih hriatna lam ah hma an sawn phah hle a ni. Political hruaitu te midang aia an pawimawh zawk ang hian heng ramsa te pawh hi ramsa dang aiin an pawimawh zawk a ni.

Tin, entawn tur kan tarlan fo thin te pawh hi atangkai hle a, Thalai pawl te nen a kan inbiakna te, National Park leh Wildlife Sanctuary te leh ram zau tak tak ramsa awmna in atan emaw khua atan a kan han sawi tak te hi pawimawh em em lo mahse tangkaina chen anei ani tih hria in, thlalak hmangin unau pasarih te entawn tur atan kan pe a, tin heng bakah hian programme kan neihna a lo tel ho te tan kan pe bawk a entawn tur tha tak a ni. Tunhnai lawka ramsa awm an humhalh na hmun Nokrek National Park ( West Garo Hills - Meghalaya te leh Pitcher Plant Sanctuary (South Garo Hills Meghalaya ) Km 1 Sq. aia telo alo awmchhan te pawh sawiho a tarlan a ni ( Pitcher Plant ).

Hmasawnna kawnga ke pen dan

Thla hmasa lawk khan kan thil tih hrang hrang leh kan hmanraw hman chi hrang hrang te chu sikul naupangte nen kan en chhhin a, kan hlawkpui hle a ni. Tin, hetih lai hian thingtlang khua hla taka awm sikul naupang te leh District Headquarters Don Bosco School naupangte ho nen chuan an in ang lo hle a ni. chu chu Palak Dil sava awmna hmun leh Folklores te in ang lo ang hian a ni. Phura bul Kaisih a naupang hote nen kan sawi hona ah pawh “ Saiha Ramsa chanchin minute 15 vel kan sawi ho lai chuan, Naupang 14 zinga pakhat 1 chuan a thil hriat loh leh tui loh zawng anih avangin a tui lo hle tih kan hriatin, chumi anih avang chuan chawlh kan nei ta tir a ni. Sikul naupan haw hnu pawh chuan an khaw chhunga mi thenkhat hnenah chuan hengte hi engtia hriatna nei nge an nih enfiah nan kan thil tum chu pakhat theuhin kan sawipui ta hlawm a.

Hetiang ang deuh hian Saiha Don Bosco Sikul ah chuan Programme kan neih pui a, Hauhuk ( Hoolock Gibbon ) chan chin te leh kan hriatdan te kan sawi ho a, Tin heng bakah hian Ramsa chihrang hrang hming an hriat ang angte Black board ah ziakin, Mizo leh English te in ziah tir an ni.

Nuam leh tuina zawng

Kan thil tihna kawng engkim ah theihtawp kan chhuah chuan a nawmna leh tuina zawng zawng kan hre thei thin a ni. Kan programme a lo telve sikul naupang ho nuam tih zawng leh tuina zawng chu kan tihpui ta thin a ni, kan thawhpui te pawh an nih ka ring. Film te entirin lehkhabu te pawh kan entira, heng te hian an inpumkhat ani tih kan hriatin, hetianga hmalak hi chhunzawm nise tha kan ti hle a ni. Tin, heng te hian kan hnathawhna ah hlawhtlinna a thlentir mai bakah beiseina min siam tu anih kan ring tlat a ni.

Phura kan kal apiangin Palak Dil kan tlawh ziah thin a, chutiang bawkin Tuipang kan kal chuan an lo te kan tlawh thin a ni. Hetianga kan chhuah hian ramsa leh sava kan hmuh reng reng chu lehkhabu hmangin hriat chian kan tum a, kan chhinchhiah ta thin a ni, chutiangin Tuipang a kan hmuh, kan hriatchian theihloh chu, Phura kan kal lehin chiang zawkin kan chhinchhiah leh thlap a ni. Phura ah chuan Hoary ballied Himalayan Sguirrel (Callosciurus pygerythrus) ten pangpara tui an tlan lai te pawh kan hmu bawk a ni. Hengte hi kan tan thilthar vek a ni a, hmuh an nuam hle.

Inbiakpawhna

Kan inbiakpawhna a, kan thil ti vel te chu kan la chhawng reng a, heng thil te hi kan tumdan pawh a ni. Film kan chhuahsak a, ‘Rul’ awmna film a ni, naupang te chuan an en renga, he tihlai hian an tui leh tuilo te pawh kan chik reng a, kan hrethei ta thin a ni. Chumi hnu chuan engvangin nge Chung - u ( Frog ) rul (Snake) leh laiking (Lizards) angte hi kanlo hmanchhuah loh tiin kan in ngaihtuah ta a, Heng avang hian kan thiltihna leh kan inbiakpawhna ah hlawhtlinna kan hriat theih phah a ni.

Kan report pek te pawh chu Nungchate hlutna (Wild life values) te ramsa leh sava te chu thian nihna ah min thlenthlak ta a ni. Tin, kan inbiakna reng rengah hian zawldawh leh zaidam takin inbiakna hi kan zah tur a ni tih hriat tur a ni.

Kan hnathawhna sawihona leh sem darh zauna.

Hemi hun chhungah hian pawl leh sorkar te nen tum bik nei a inzawmkhawm kan ni a, Kan hmalamah, nungchate humhalhna tura zirtirna kawnga tan kan laka hma kan sawn zawk theihna tur leh Mizorama kan thil tihte, kan thil tawn te leh kan hnathawhte fel fai taka chhinchhiah a report pek thin a ni. He thil hi kan thawpui pawl leh sawrkar te pawhin min tawiawm tha hle bawk a. Sawrkar Officer pakhat Aizawla insawn tawh pawhin kan inbiakna leh Kalyan Varma - in film a siam kan en kha tun thlenga a theihnghilh theih loh thu min la hrilh reng thin a ni.

Tin, Nungchate humhalhna hna kan thawhna kawngah hian tawiawmtu leh tanpuitu Mizoram chhung atang chauh pawh ni lovin, Mizoram pawn lam atangte pawhin Website leh Blogs hmang te pawhin kan in be pawp reng bawk a ni. Nungchate humhalhna kawngah hian hriattirna tha zawk leh zau zawk hmang turin duhsakna leh fuihna kan dawng nasa hle a ni.

Tunah hian Anetwork of Conservation Educators by Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) te nen kan thawk ho bawk a, ram pum huapa con servation Educators ten meeting an buatsaih ah te hian kan tel ve thin a ni. Tin kan hnathawhna tinrengah anni nen hian theihtawp chhuah kan tum bawk.

Saiha mipuite hnena kan hnathawh dan chungchang leh kan thil tawn leh hriatte leh kan ngaihdan kan puanchhuahna kawngah Evangelical Church Of Maraland (ECM) te nena kan thawk ho thei hi lawmawm kan ti tak zet a, hetianga kan tihna chhan pawh hi Nungcha humhalhna kawnga mipuite fuih leh zirtir an ngaih avangte, inzirtirna an tlakchham em a vang te pawh a ni. Tin, Epatha chanchinbu hmangin kan thil tum leh hnathawh te puandarh ani bawk. Epatha hi kartin chanchinbu (News Letter ) New saiha ECM Local Church KTP ten an buatsaih a ni.

A hnuaiah hian kan hun neih tawhna leh chanchin puanzarna kan neih tawhte tarlan ani :-

# 6th April 09, Ramngaw humhalh
# 4th May 08, Luia sangha man lo tura hriattirna.
# 15th June 08, Green Mizoram day
# 29th June 08, Humhalhna kawnga hmalakna.
# 6th July 08, Environment News.

Partners.

Countless people (many of whom we are shameful enough to forget names of) who have welcomed us and shared their houses for our visits (including announced night halts), vast knowledge of landscape, loving cups of tea with fresh puris and warmth that has enabled us to perform as we have.

Our primary partners in efforts here have been friends at forest department of Mara Autonomous District Council. Without their cooperation working as we are would have been unthinkable. Special thanks are due to Pu Thaly.

Principals, teachers and students of schools that we have had programmes at we are indebted for their faith and trust in us for what was a first activity dedicated towards conservation education in most schools. Kashmira Kakati, Aparajita Datta, Will Duckworth, Kishen Das, Janaki Lenin, Nandini Rajamani and Firoz Ahmed have made life easier at Saiha by helping with identification of pictures of alive, freshly dead and museum specimens as also sharing of documents at short notice. This despite their frequent requests for our clicking better pictures! Pranav Trivedi, Seema Bhatt and Sujatha Padmanabham we are thankful for interactions that helped us tune our efforts. We thank ATREE and Sunita Rao for enabling us to be a part of the Conservation Education network. Meeta Goswami and WWF India we thank for posters on wildlife. Sally Walker and Marimuthu Rengaswamy at Zoo Outreach Organization have been consistently with us handholding and encouraging since inception of our field base. Kalyan Varma is acknowledged for sharing his film.

Arpan Sharma, Pankaj Sekhsaria, Yash Shethia and Chinmay Oza we thank for inputs in editing our thoughts (structured, unstructured, nascent and developed), texts and photographs over short emails, phone calls at uncanny hours and short bursts on google chat.

We are obliged to Khrizypa Thytlia Py (KTP), Evangelical Church of Maraland (ECM), Mara Thyultia Py (MTP), Mara Students Organization (MSO) and District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) for allowing us space to express our thoughts.

During the period under purview the unit has been supported by funds from Rufford Small Grants. We are grateful to them for their financial support and to our referees who stood by us at inception of this novel programme Anawaruddin Choudhury, Meenaxi Nagendran and Asad Rahmani.

References.

Anonymous (2005) Statistical Handbook, Saiha District. Department of Economics and Statistics, Saiha, Mizoram.

BirdLife International 2008 BirdLife's online World Bird Database: the site for bird conservation. Version 2.1. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. Available: http://www.birdlife.org/ (accessed 4th September 2008).

Datta-Roy, A., Sharma, A. & Azyu, T. T. 2007. Kaiseitlah Conservation Area: survey for wildlife values. Final Report. Samrakshan Trust and E & F Dept, MADC. Available http://www.samrakshan.org/ (accessed 26 July 2008).


N. L. AMPOFO-ANTI (2007) Highlighting the gap between Critical Outcomes requirements and built Environment Education in South Africa.

Pawar, S. and Birand, A. (2001) A survey of amphibians, reptiles, and birds in Northeast
Trivedi, P., Bhatnagar, Y.V., and Mishra, C. 2006. Living with snow leopards: a conservation
education strategy for the Himalayan high altitudes. CERC Technical Report No. 12.

Contact Details.

John Teikhaw (also thanking him for translation.......)
Samrakshan Trust
House 153,
New Saiha West, Saiha
Mizoram 796901
Phone: 94363 92486.

Looking afresh at Conservation Education.

Background and beginning.

We had organized a workshop at Baghmara (South Garo Hills, Meghalaya) during August 2009 to build up on our Conservation Education efforts. Participants hailed from Samrakshan’s Meghalaya and Mizoram field bases, colleagues from villages collating vital information in our elephant monitoring programme and members of non government organizations partnering us towards conserving wildlife in South Garo Hills. Most of them elemental to Meghalaya field base’s Conservation Education programme. Idea was to rekindle minds on conservation education. Towards this we

• Shared of learnings at Mizoram field base and endeavours by other organizations.
• Engaged in actions that could be put to use.
• Looked at our actions and put forth questions on our action and approach that would help team design a programme they would espouse.

Venue
We began with who we were and what we liked. This was pertinent since not only did the entire group not congregate frequently by also both of us from Mizoram, John and I, would benefit from knowing of our Meghalaya counterparts. Each of us shared his (all of us males!!) name and what he adored in his organizational role. Basabjit talked of his liking to “handle animals” while Rollingstone stated his being pleased to put efforts towards creation of Community Conserved Reserves.
We moved on to discuss the workshop schedule including lunch and breaks. When menu was described the discussion veered on to Values that we had agreed to. We focussed on Equity (All humans and animals have an inherent right to live with dignity). Opinions were sought on interpretation of this particular value from participants and I was a trifle surprised by a couple of them! We also put up documents depicting values, vision and mission statement at the workshop venue (Baghmara Circuit House).
Each of us then shared of an event he had been a part of since April 2009, training or a workshop; that was when some of us had last shared common physical space. Participants enthusiastically talked of their ventures. Bensen shared of his having attended training on Conservation Leadership at Rajasthan co-organized by Prakritik Society and Tiger Watch while Yaranjit mentioned his attending a workshop on Community Conserved Areas co-organized by Kalpavriksh and Winrock. Other participants too joined the fray and experiences of recent action undertaken for Conservation Education also merited space. Conservation education, as was brought out, was integral to the wide range of programmes we undertook towards wildlife conservation. Participants were asked to contemplate if

• Sharing of experiences, within office and beyond, would tantamount to conservation education and whether would it make sense?
• We needed to simplify our communications and share them in a piecemeal fashion?

Participants in action
After this when participants stated their expectations Gole talked of people people shouting at him in villages during his visits for wild species rescue (from captivity) and how he could avoid such situations, Kendish said he wanted to know how better he could talk (on wildlife protection issues) with brethren in villages while Ginseng said that though he was conscious of his efforts spawning limited success he was unable to identify the gaps; he wanted to identify and work on them.

Actions.

We began with a film screening. We saw Sekhar Dattatri’s Point Calimere – Little Kingdom by the coast. At Mizoram we had had few screenings in office and with partners; it was however fresh for Meghalaya colleagues. In course of the screening we built in halts at strategic points and put to appropriate use the field guides. Species like Jackal (Canis aureus) and Black Buck (Antilope cervicapra) were discussed (their local names and presence in Saiha and Garo Hills landscapes) while the carnivores plant was compared to Pitcher plant (Nepenthes khasiana) by virtue of both being carnivorous plants. We discussed analogies use in the film like “match-box size” for the beach crab (and their impact) as also terms like RAMSAR, Important Bird Areas and Wildlife Sanctuary mentioned in the film for describing the location.
When we had an open session to discuss the screening and all of us were vocal here. Ginseng said it was interesting to learn of different approaches to same programme while Yaranjit talked of intensity in action. Participants were asked to ponder on whether

• Augmenting awareness, on these and alike aspects, both for self and partners would be of help?
• Road kill depicted in the film could be taken as a point to deliberate on the problem in Garo Hills and whether mining (a threat to wildlife in Garo Hills) could be discussed bolstered by salt production, threat to Point Calimere!
• It made more sense to have limited number of screenings but in a fashion separate from what they had recently done. We applied ourselves on a couple of fun activities.

Forming a circle we stood outside the Circuit House and each of us imitated sound of a wild species that he was familiar to and rest of participants had to identify the same. Initially the participants were slow but as one by one we started making sounds we all had more than few laughs. The list Fernando collated was invigorating! 14 species we had around and the list included Hill Myna (Gragula religiosa), Flying Squirrel (Petaurista petaurista), Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus) and Hoolock Gibbon (Hoolock hoolock). We discussed how lucky we were to be in such a location and that we had to discontinue cutting trees and hunting wildlife to be able to hear these around us.

We then saw a presentation on birds, having bird pictures accompanied by their calls. The slides advanced and so did interest levels of participants. When the slides started repeating we shut the volume off and heard the participants! They talked of Garo names of birds, where in and around Baghmara they occurred and whether they were kept as pets! We discussed how different birds stayed in different kinds of habitats (in forests, around human beings, near water bodies) and how some of them were seen more as individuals and others in larger groups (like some of us!) and that some of them were not resident but migratory i.e. they did not stay with us across the year but came during specific periods.
During this participants were handed over field guides and Bensen shared points they could keep in mind while putting them to appropriate use.
Conservation education at Meghalaya field base has adults as partners specially when discussing potential threats to wildlife rich Garo Hills. We had 2 activities for this; debate and discussion. Topics we chose were such that would help clarify participants’ views on other activities under conservation education domain.
Debate was on whether Posters are useful in conservation education and after participants had taken 3 separate stands initially; yes – no – don’t know; they clarified their understanding of the topic and reason behind adopting the stance. Participants then attempted convincing those in other sub-groups to agree to their points of view and move over to their sub-group! It was interesting to see participants, otherwise silent, animatedly put across their point of views! They talked of

• Posters being ineffective in isolation.
• Posters being effective when focus was on a specific issue.
• Posters requiring lot of planning.
• It being difficult to understand if posters made a difference.

We saw stands being changed and participants arguing aggressively in this activity that rather than just put across a message helps elucidate dissimilar points of view. Participants are taken to be aware of the issue and the idea is to make them think and explore possibilities. This had a time limit to it and we discussed the process at the end as also issues that we could deliberate on with partners. Since interest and energy levels were high, Kamal began another round of debate. This time focus was on mining in Garo Hills.


Debate
When we discussed the action it was invigorating to see how a debate had been generated between those contending that large topics were suitable for the activity and others. While Kamal was of the view that debates would have to be on larger topics for partners would find them simpler to converse on while Vikash mentioned that since we talked of sensitive issues we should have topics that bring out the larger or core issues from their end i.e. partners themselves. To enrich the session to clarify this we put together 3 possible points for debate on a single issue.

• Should we have wild species as pets?
• Do wild species kept as pets survive for long?
• Do wild species kept as pets get adequate nutrition?

Most of us agreed however that debate would hinge on comprehending level of our partners and interest level of the facilitator and that it need not necessarily be in isolation, it could even be organized on a topic like hunting arising from a film.
Discussion was on whether we should organize events like environment day and wildlife week. Participants expressed their views in the language they were familiar with, made comments on views of co participants, sequencing was absent so was a stipulation on contributing more than once. One of the participants, Basabjit made and shared a synopsis at the end. It went thus

• Events help us work with partners other than those with whom we work on a regular basis.
• Events have little impact.
• Events are essential in order to involve people other than those at Samrakshan.
• Events are more of a celebration and not a regular programme, meaning they should be looked as such.
• During events participants listen but do not understand.
• Events are not good for common people.

It was also agreed to by most that discussions need to be designed thoroughly and can help us get a sense on a particular issue.
This session underscored a crucial issue pertinent to planning and implementation of these efforts. Our approach in conservation education with partners. Are we discussing issues, giving partner’s space to voice their opinions while sharing our position thus enabling an environment for them to comprehend a position separate from theirs and accept it? Or are we simply putting across our points of views and asking them to accept them?


The debate had majority of us believing in posters and we got on to working in sub-groups on posters. Two sub-groups each worked on land use planning and wild species in captivity, two issues work in Meghalaya field base focussed on and came up with compelling posters. After these were presented we considered issues we had to bear in mind for posters
Posters

• For whom?
• From what distance will they be seen?
• What language will they be in?
• What will be the size?
• What material will be used to make them?
• Where will these be put up?
• Will we use pictures or maps or diagrams?
• How will we decide the content?
• Who will be our collaborators?

Sharing.
We had a session where we shared of our learnings at Mizoram field base. We talked of how the programme at Mizoram had progressed i.e. the manner in which we have reached the current stage in Mizoram. We also shared a power point presentation focussing on “Mizoram Wildlife”, drawing parallels with Meghalaya, and described the experience of putting it across with groups, specially personnel from non government organisations and forest department.


Activities undertaken by other organizations like NCF and ATREE, that I had got aware to during the meeting on Conservation Education previous year were also shared. We deliberated on our sharing information collected by way of surveys and also trips to forested patches in form of nature walks and nature camps. During the discussion Bensen said we could share species sightings list with colleagues while Basabjit said we could use power point presentations effectively with select groups.


An essential point that emerged from the conversation was usage of words and participants were asked to consider if

• Language made a difference!
• Would it help if we used “activity” in lieu of “tools” and “partner” instead of “target audience”? Would we perceive the very issues in a different fashion if we were sensitive to these communication issues?

We screened the BVIEER film that depicted their efforts under the ICEF (Indo Canadian Environment Facility) project at 3 sites in northern part of our country. Post the screening we got into 3 sub groups and each of us was to talk on separate aspects of the film.

• What was depicted in the film?
• Which species were seen in the film?
• What we learnt from film in context of our efforts?

Open discussion on the film had participants talking of involving more segments of society as partners and also more involvement with other local non government organizations in organizing conservation education programmes. Participants saw the manner in which organizations other than Samrakshan too undertook conservation education programmes in separate parts of our country with varying partners. Participants suggested generating synergies with GSU (Garo Students Union) for the purpose and they were asked if it would help to have them involved from the planning stage itself.
As the workshop approached culmination Kamal and I looked at the Baghmara Reserve Forest in silence and wondered if we were doing enough ....we then brought it to an end asking participants if we could take some time out in our day to day lives for see, feel and love nature around us .....