SPATIO-TEMPORAL PATTERNS OF COMMON LEOPARD

ATTACKS: A CASE STUDY FROM AADHIKHOLA RURAL

MUNICIPALITY, SYANGJA

DEEPIKA ADHIKARI
TU Reg. No.2-2-47-22-2015

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF FORESTRY
POKHARA CAMPUS
POKHARA

PROJECT PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN
FORESTRY

SEPTEMBER, 2020
 Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Common Leopard Attacks:
A Case Study from Aadhikhola Rural Municipality, Syangja
Deepika Adhikari
TU Reg. No.2-2-47-22-2015
[Link]. FORESTRY
Advisor:
Thakur Silwal, PhD
Associate Professor
Tribhuvan University/ Institute of Forestry, Pokhara
Email: [Link]@[Link]

Field Supervisor:
Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma
Assistant Forest Officer
Division Forest Office, Syangja
Email: sh.raaj70@[Link]

TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF FORESTRY
POKHARA CAMPUS
POKHARA

Project Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
of Bachelor of Science in Forestry
SEPTEMBER, 2020
DeepikaAdhikari
September, 2020
Email: acdeepika11@[Link]

Tribhuvan University
Institute of Forestry
Pokhara Campus
Hariyokharka, Pokhara-15, Kaski
Website: [Link]

Citation: Adhikari, D. (2020). Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Common Leopard Attacks:

A Case Study from Aadhikhola Rural Municipality, Syangja. Project Paper Submitted in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Forestry.
i
ii
 Declarations

I, Deepika Adhikari, hereby declare that the project paper entitled

entitled“Spatio-Temporal
Temporal Patterns of
Common Leopard Attacks: A Case Study from Aadhikhola Rural Municipality, Syangja” is
based on primary work and all the sources of information used are duly acknowledged. This
work has not been submitted to any other university for any academic award
award.

Deepika Adhikari
B. Sc. Forestry
Institute of Forestry
Pokhara Campus, Pokhara
Date: 2077/05/31

i
 Acknowledgement

Without the assistance and dedication of many supportive individuals, organizations, family and
friends in every step throughout process, this study would have never been accomplished. It
gives me immense delight to express my appreciation to the following personnel who have
directly or indirectly contributed to the completion of this study. I would like to express my
sincere gratitude to my Research Advisor Associate Professor Dr. Thakur Silwal and Field
Supervisor Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Assistant Forest Officer of Division Forest Office
(DFO), Syangja for their continuous guidance and shaping this work to completion. I would like
to extend my special thanks to Mr. Santosh Pokharel (Assistant Forest Officer of DFO, Syangja)
for his guidance, supervision, encouragement and invaluable suggestion from beginning to the
completion of this work and the entire staff of Division Forest Office, Syangja for their
cooperation and coordination during my study.

I would like to acknowledge Ministry of Forest and Environment; Forest Research and Training
Center, Babarmahal, Kathmandu; Tribhuvan University/ Institute of Forestry, Dean Office,
Kirtipur, Kathmandu; Institute of Forestry Pokhara Campus, Pokhara for providing me internship
opportunity and I perceive this opportunity as big milestones in my career development.

I am grateful to my friends Saru Gahatraj, Jeny Shahi for their immense support, care and
valuable suggestion and special thanks to all my batchmate (2072-2076) and whole IoF family
for this wonderful journey. Last but not least, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my
parents for being my source of inspiration and for providing me continuous support and
encouragement throughout my study.

Deepika Adhikari
Date: 2077/05/31

ii
 Abbreviations

CA : Conservation Area
CF : Community Forest
CL : Common Leopard
DFO : Division Forest Office
DNPWC : Department of National Parks and Wildlife Reserves
HWC : Human Wildlife Conflict
KDE : Kernel Density Estimation
NTNC : National Trust for Nature Conservation
PAs : Protected Areas
WWF : World Wildlife Fund

iii
 Abstract

Human population growth, sharing of limited resources by human and wildlife, habitat
degradation, fragmentation , transformation of land, increment of livestock grazing near or inside
forest area without proper guarding and the lack of understanding among community people
about the animal behavior are the major causes of human-wildlife conflict. Information on
spatio-temporal patterns of attacks in certain areas contributes in designing and implementing
effective mitigation measures. The aim of this study was to assess spatial distribution of common
leopard attacks to highlight conflict risk zone and temporal trend in Aadhikhola Rural
Municipality of Syangja districts from 2016 to 2019. Data was collected as registered cases
caused by common leopard at Division Forest Office, Syangja according to the Wildlife Damage
Relief Guideline 2069. Total cases were 187 with highest incidents (n=66) in ward no. 4
(Bangsing). The highest cases were occurred in summer (44%) followed by spring (20%), by
month in July (22%) followed by June, May in livestock sheds (84%), during day time (69%),
with goat being the major victim. Kernel Density Estimation was used for safety analysis. Kernel
density attack layer was reclassified using the geometric interval algorithm to generate five risk
zones of leopard attacks. Bangsing, Faparthum, Setidovan are very high risk zone for leopard
attacks. Predator-proof corrals/ enclosures and improved herding and guarding practices are
suggested to reduce livestock losses.

Key Words: Common leopard attacks, Kernel density, predator-proof corrals, risk zonation,
safety analysis

iv
 Nepali Abstract

मानj j ज ु का मु कfरणह मानj जनसङ् मा j[िद, मानj र j ज ु b'j}n] िसिमत ोत

सादनको योग, बास थानमा िगरfवट, िबख08g, जिमgsf] पf रण्, जनfjरको Jojxf/, बा; थfन् /
कृितको बारे मा ;d'bfosf मानी;x मा ान र समजदfरीको कमी न। कुनै पिन े को आ मणको

Spatial-temporal 9frfsf] जानकारीले भाjsfरी Go"िनकरण् र कfरGjogdf योubfg पु राउ5। यस्

अ यनको उदे ाङ्जा िज ाको आिधखोलf गfpपिलकfमा २०१६ दे खी २०१९ िबच िचतु वfको

आ मणको थािनय िबतरण् , समय, मिहनf, मौसम अनु सार िचतुवfको आ मण आकलन गनु lyof].
j ज ु ती राहत िनदlzकf, २०६९ अनु सार l8िभजन jन कायालय, ाङ्जामा िचतु वा4fरf दतf

भएका त f ह ज ा ग रएको िथयf] . कुल घटनाह १८७ िथP। सa}भ ा बl9 (६६) घटनाह वाड

न र ४, बfङ्िसªdf घटे को पfOयf]। To;}गरी धेर} (४४%) घटनाह गम मौसddf, असार - वान

मिहनfमा (२२%), गोठमा (८४%), िदgsf] समयमा (६९%) घटे को पfOयf] । यस् े df बा ा िचतु वfको

मु िसकfर eएको पfOयf]। सुर ा िब े ifणsf लािग Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) योग

ग रPsf] िथयf]। िचतु वf आ मणको जो खम े x? ;[जना गन KDE attack layer nfO{ geometric

interval algorithm योग गरे र %j6f जो खम े df jिगि त ग रएको िथयf]। बfङ्िसङ, फापरथु म,

से tLदोefन िचतु वfको आ मणको लािग w]/} जो खम े रहे कf छन। पz'धgsf] घाटf कम गन

predator-proof corrals , सुधाl/एको गोठ् , पz'पfलgdf हे चqmofO{ नगन सु झाब िदOG5।

मु श ह : िचतु वा आ मण , Kernel density, predator-proof corrals, जो खम े , सु र ा

आकलन

v
 Contents
Declarations ..................................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................................... ii
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. iii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Nepali Abstract ............................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... i
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives of the study........................................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Rationale of the study ......................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Limitations of the study ...................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2: Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 3: Material and Methods ................................................................................................. 11
3.1 Study area.......................................................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Data collection .................................................................................................................................. 12
3.3 Data analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion ................................................................................................ 14
4.1 Incidents distribution ........................................................................................................................ 14
4.2 Temporal patterns of common leopard attacks ................................................................................. 17
4.3 Safety analysis of leopard attack ....................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendation............................................................................... 20
5.1 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 20
5.2 Recommendation .................................................................................................................................. 20
Chapter 6: Internship Learning and Description ........................................................................... 21
References ..................................................................................................................................... 23
ANNEX 1: Victims Data Collection............................................................................................. 26
ANNEX 2: An Internship Agreement with the Organization ...................................................... 35
Photoplates .................................................................................................................................... 36

vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of Study Area ............................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 2: Distribution of the incidents ........................................................................................................... 14
Figure3: Types of Conflict ................................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 4: Killed species in ward ...................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 5: Attacks occurrence by location ..................................................................................................... 17
Figure 6: Temporal pattern of leopard attacks (a) Season (b) Month (C) Time ................................ 18
Figure 7: Kernel density estimation of leopard attack in study area ..................................................... 19

List of Tables
Table 1 : Incident data of Aadhikhola Rural Municipality as per the Wildlife Damage Relief
Guidelines 2069 between 2016 and 2019 ......................................................................... 12
Table 2: Number of incidents in Adhikhola Rural Municipality by ward / villages during 2016-
2019................................................................................................................................... 15

i
 Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background
Nepal is rich in biodiversity though it has small area i.e.1, 47,[Link]. Nepal occupies only
0.01% of global area, but harbors 3.2% and 1.1% of world’s flora and fauna respectively. The
altitudinal variation from 60m to the top of the world (8848) has made Nepal rich in biodiversity.
Nepal has 6 biomes including 35 forest types, 75 vegetation types and 118 ecosystems. Chitwan
National Park was the first national park established in 1973 for the conservation of biodiversity
after declaration of National Park and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1973. Nepal’s vast resources is
conserved through various act and laws and particularly protected as in-situ conservation.
Protected area of Nepal covers 23.39% of total area of Nepal (DNPWC 2018). Nepal is home for
three species of leopard: Common Leopard (Panthera pardus), Clouded leopard (Neofelis
nebulosa), Snow leopard (Uncia uncia). Out of these three species common leopard is the most
common one which is not only restricted to forest or heavy cover but also thrive well in open
country (Prater, 1998). The common leopard inhabits in all types of habitat including dense
tropical monsoon forests and tall grassland of the terai, deciduous and coniferous forest of the
sub-tropical, thick shrub jungles and rugged mountainous area up to the snow line. Urine
spraying, scraping and tree scratching are the methods used by leopards for territory marking
identification (Jackson, 1996). The gestation period of leopard is an average of 96 days (90-112)
with up to six cubes being born (Hemmer, 1976). The male are not involved in rearing the young
and are probably kept away from cubs by the female, but have been observed bringing meat to
their cubs. Cubs take their first walk at 13 days and at 3 months are able to catch small animal
and most can fend for themselves at a year old, although they tend to stay with mother up to 2
years. The female leopards will reach sexual maturity at an average of 33 months and can live up
to 23 years in captivity (Martin &Meulenaer, 1998; Green, 1991).

Human wildlife conflict is “the interaction between people and wildlife that causes negative
impact on people, wildlife and environment, is one of the obstacles for biodiversity
conservation” (Silwal et al., 2017). Human wildlife conflict exists in all areas where human and
wildlife coexists and shares the limited resources irrespective of geographical regions or climatic
conditions (Western &Pearl, 1989). Conflicts vary according to geography, land use pattern,
human behavior, habitat and behavior of wildlife species (WWF, 2006). It is more serious in case

1
of mega species that required huge amount of food and large home range including seasonal
migration (Karanth et al., 2012). Human population growth and continued shrinkage of habitat
have brought wildlife and humans together which further generates conflicts (Madden, 2004;
Bowen-Jones, 2012). The patterns of common leopard attacks were significantly uneven and
89% of attacks occurred outside the protected area (Ruda et al., 2018). The successful
establishment of habitat in community forest of Nepal and high rate of growth of wildlife
population have geared up conflict between human and animals. In places where people and
wildlife share the same landscape for resource usage, wildlife leaves negative impacts on people
and vice versa. In addition, wildlife damage leads to resentment and people resort to retaliatory
killings, even of endangered species (Ruda et al., 2020). When the people involved are poor,
wildlife damage may significantly affect the livelihood of the local communities and if the
predators involved in conflicts are of locally protected status or are endangered the
consequences of conflict can be controversial (Thirgod et al., 2000). If damage severally affects
the livelihood of local communities, getting their active support, which is essential for
conservation, will be difficult (Mishra, 1997). The consequences can be damage to economic
loss, injury or death of a family member resulting in serious psychological trauma and adverse
effects and livestock depredation (Chardonnet, 2002). In order to decrease such damages some
effective measures must be developed and brought into practice. Without spatial mapping and
geo- spatial connections, spatial interactions between human and Common Leopard cannot be
done. A spatial statistical approach identifying high-priority conflict hotspot is also widely
adopted (Miller, 2015). HWC is a serious threat to the survival of endangered species and
human’s mankind in the world (Madden, 2004). HWC exists in all areas where human and
wildlife coexists. As per the incidents recorded in Division Forest Office, Syangja Aadhikhola
Rural Municipality experience more livestock damage from C. Leopard than by any other
predators; however the possible risk zonation associated in this site was not examined. Spatial-
temporal analysis explores movement of C. Leopard to the human landscapes and provides
locations, where the attacks are concentrated (Miller, 2015). Thus, the aim of this study was to
investigate the possible geospatial connections between the livestock depredation and its
surrounding impact zone due to C. leopard attack.

2
HWC, in general, is any interaction between human and wildlife that results in negative impact
on social, economic or cultural life on the conservation of wildlife population, or their habitat on
the environment (WWF, 2005). Reason behind is to loss, degradation and fragmentation of
wildlife habitats through human activities such as logging, animal husbandry, agriculture
expansion and development projects (Fernando et al., 2005). HWC is more serious in case of
mega species like elephant, rhino, and big cat that require huge amount of food, large home
range including seasonal migration. The problem of human wildlife conflict is not old issue and
it is becoming more and more critical and can be observed anywhere in the parks and reserves
(Shrestha, 1994). Protected areas in Nepal have positively contributed toward conservation of
biodiversity; however, negative impact in the socio- economic condition of the people has been
observed as result of the regime’s strict regulation (Budhathoki, 2004). Strict implementation of
such regulations contributed to increasing the population of wild animals, which negatively
impacted the livelihood of people living in the vicinity of conservation area (Sharma &Shaw,
1993; Nepal &Weber, 1994). As a result incident of human wildlife conflict has geared up.
Conflict between people and animal is the serious threat to the sustained survival of endangered
and many species and is also threat to local human populations. If solution to conflict is not
adequate and effective, local support for the conservation of biodiversity will also decline.
Conflict is common phenomenon from the past and has become a significant problem through
the world (Wang&Macdonald, 2006). It is characterized by a variety of conflicts for which
people take retaliatory killing against wildlife. HWC can be the result of either direct or indirect
experiences and is characterized by a variety of interaction including crop-raiding, livestock
depredation, direct threats to human health or lives, competition for prey species, and damage to
capital investment and infrastructures (Osborn & Hill, 2005).

Human casualties and livestock depredation are the most serious measures of conflict among all.
But for vulnerable household and poor people all damage by wildlife can have catastrophic
economic loss. Conflicts bring social, economic, and ecological consequences. People often
migrate from wildlife conflict areas to non-conflict areas. In some part of the world, increase in
conflict is consequences of the habitat extension due to better management and the conservation
of forest surrounding protected area (Treves&Karanath, 2003). Wildlife attacks on human are
becoming one of the major obstacles for maintaining balanced relationships with local people

3
and mobilizing them in conservation. Wildlife attack on people in and around conservation area,
outside forest in human landscapes is one of the major obstructing factors to gain public support
for the conservation in landscape where sources use by people and wildlife overlaps.

Spatial interactions between humans and wildlife cannot be understood without spatial mapping
and geospatial analyses. A spatial statistical approach identifying high-priority conflict hotspot is
also widely adopted (Miller, 2015). Spatial risk models can quantify landscapes attribute that
correlate with incident site. However, these models are mainly based on incident data, and
describe the risk that is associated with the examined landscape attributes. When applied to
wildlife-human interactions, spatial risk models reveal the locations that are associated with the
specific land use category. Wildlife attacks on human and economic losses often result in
reduced support of local communities for wildlife conservation. Information on spatial and
temporal pattern of such losses in the highly affected areas contributes in designing and
implementing effective mitigation measures. The conflict results from livestock depredation,
damage to property are serious conservation issues in Aadhikhola Rural Municipality of Syangja
district. Therefore, this research was designed to assess spatial temporal pattern of human
common leopard conflict.

1.2 Objectives of the study

General objective of this study was to assess the spatial-temporal pattern of common leopard
attacks in Aadhikhola Rural Municipality of Syangja district between the periods of 2016 and
2019. The specific objectives:
1. To prepare incident distribution and conflict risk zone map.
2. To study the temporal pattern of Common Leopard attacks.

4
1.3 Rationale of the study
Common leopard is widely distributed the country from Terai to the Himalayas. If cover and
prey supply are available then vertical distribution range of leopard extends as high (Shah et al.,
2004). The leopards are better persisting to the human interferences and kill smaller livestock.
Common leopard in Nepal has made news headlines, in the part of the country regular cases of
human-leopard conflict have left families and communities devasted, angered and anxious. The
study on pattern of fatalities and injuries by wildlife or their underlying temporal pattern can
provide essential guidance for future conservation and reduction of human wildlife conflict.
Regardless of increasing conflicting situation in Nepal there have been only limited studies on
the conflict dynamics and most of them are concentrated only in the protected areas which
creates gap in conservation outside protected areas. Human-wildlife conflict a serious threat to
the survival of endangered species and human survival in the world (Madden, 2004). HWC
exists in all areas where wildlife human population coexists and shares the limited resources
irrespective of geographical regions or climatic conditions (Western &Pearl, 1989). As per the
incidents recorded in Division Forest Office, Syangja Aadhikhola Rural Municipality experience
more livestock depredation from Common leopard than by any other predators; however the
possible risk zonation associated in the site was unexamined. Spatial-temporal analysis explores
movement of Common leopard to the human landscape and provides locations, where the attacks
are concentrated (Miller, 2015). Thus, the aim of my study was to investigate the possible
geospatial connections between the livestock depredation and its surrounding impact zone due to
common leopard attack.

The study was carried out to explore questions:

How are the incidences of human injuries and livestock depredation distributed across
years?
What are the correlates of livestock depredation in study area?

5
1.4 Limitations of the study
1. The research was conducted on the basis of incidents registered on Division Forest
Office, Syangja. So, human injury and livestock depredation were calculated on the basis
of data collected from Division Forest Office, Syangja.
2. Incidents were according to Wildlife Damage Relief Guideline 2069 out of them were not
included. So, it may not represent all cases caused by common leopard.

6
 Chapter 2: Literature Review

Conflict is universal problem and it vary according to geography, land use pattern, human
behavior and the habitat and behavior of wildlife species or individual animals with the species
(WWF, 2006). The world is facing a global biodiversity loss and many species are in the phase
of extinction from earth. In regards to the challenges of conserving existing species “Protected
areas have been the critical tool to conserve biodiversity in the face of the global crisis of species
extinction and the loss of the world’s natural capacity” (Lopoukhine, 2008). Conflict between
people and animal is one of the major challenges for the sustained survival of many species,
great danger for the species which are in the stage of extinction and is also great threat to local
human population. The successful establishment of habitat for wildlife in community forest of
Nepal has geared up the human wildlife conflict. HWC can be the result of either direct or
indirect experiences and is characterized by a variety of interaction including crop-raiding,
livestock depredation, direct threats to human health or lives, competition for prey species, and
damage to capital investment and infrastructures (Osborn &Hill, 2005). Human casualties and
livestock depredation are the serious damage from wildlife attacks. But, if victims are poor and
from vulnerable household all damage from wildlife ruin their livelihood and hence they become
more vulnerable than before. Also wildlife attacks on people are the great obstacle for getting
their support and engaging them in conservation work to conserve the biodiversity. Human
wildlife conflict arises primarily because of competition between human and wildlife for shared
limited resources. The conflict can be arguable where the resources concerned have economic
value and the animal involved is legally protected. The frequency of conflict has grown up in
recent decades, largely because of exponential increase in human population and the resultant
expansion of human activity (Ayadi, 2011).

The rapid population growth and environmental degradation are the key element to what has
gone wrong in Nepal. Thus, problem from population growth environmental degradation must be
addressed. Conflict between people and wildlife in the periphery of protected area is a major
conservation issue that occurs because of competition for resources (Limbu&Karki, 2003).
Wildlife attack may never be eliminated when the resources used by people and wildlife
overlaps, but it could be minimized to the extent that the victims would be ready to accept. For

7
this adequate and effective mitigation measures, remedial action and instant delivery of relief and
compensation to the losses caused by wildlife attacks are the top most priority. The lengthy,
complex and time consuming process of the compensation relief scheme is another discouraging
factor for the people to involve in conservation instead of retaliatory killing. With the success in
conservation of mega fauna in the country, cases of HWC are increasing day by day and the
problem is being served in the recent days. In order to support in the management of problem
animals, NTNC has established a “Human Wildlife Conflict Management Fund” in collaboration
with conservation partners (NTNC 2015). According to (Acharya et al., 2016) Asiatic Elephant
and Common Leopard are most commonly involved in attack on people in terms of attack
frequency and fatalities.

Livestock depredation is the common human-wildlife conflict at global level. It is wide spread
problem in both developed and developing countries, especially in rural areas. This conflict
involves competition for subsistence resources at different levels, which include threat to live as
well as economic losses for local people (Sillero-Zubiri&Laurenson, 2001). These conflicts are
consistently greater in areas that provide cover for the forest edges and in areas that provide
cover for the carnivore to come within reach of livestock unnoticed (Woodroffe&Ginsberg,
1998). Common Leopard is considered as top predators in its home range where it plays very
important role in continuation of biodiversity (Terborgh, 1992). Therefore leopards population
are of central concern to conservationists for safeguarding of natural ecosystems (Gittleman et
al., 2001). The large home ranges of leopards often result into competition with humans,
predominantly in areas where livestock rearing overlap with leopard home range (Karanth et al.,
1999).

Livestock rearing is an integral part of local economy in most of the developing countries
especially marginalized people graze livestock in and around protected area and forests. Leopard
attacks livestock that graze in forests and in human settlements. Sometimes excessive killing of
livestock by Common Leopard become intolerant for poor herders and local poor communities,
which results in severe economic hardship, which may resort to take revenge by retaliatory
killing by local communities. With ongoing fragmentation and degradation of the remaining
natural areas (Joshi et al., 2016), wildlife species are forced to live in close proximity to humans

8
leading to frequent human-wildlife interactions (Inskip&Zimmermann, 2009). Such interaction is
more intense in the areas where large mammals like Asian elephants, greater one-horned
rhinoceros, Bengal tigers and common leopards are in high densities (Redpath et al., 2015) in
relatively small protected areas within human dominated landscapes (Wikramanayake et al.,
2004). Attacks on humans and property damage by wildlife and subsequent persecution of
wildlife in retaliation are generally referred to as ‘Human-wildlife conflict’ (Redpath et al.,
2015). This is a frequent phenomenon especially in the fringe of protected areas and forests
(Silwal et al., 2017). Prevention or mitigation of such negative interaction is challenging when
multiple endangered species of conservation significance are involved (Acharya et al., 2016).

Human wildlife conflict, the interaction between people and wildlife that causes negative impact
on people, wildlife and environment, is one of the obstacles for biodiversity conservation (Silwal
et al., 2017). Conflict varies according to geography, land use pattern, human behavior, habitat
and behavior of wildlife species (WWF, 2006). It is more serious in case of mega species that
required huge amount of food and large home range including seasonal migration (Karanth et al.,
2012). Growth of the human population and continued shrinking of habitat have brought wildlife
and humans together which further generates conflicts. (Madden, 2004; Bowen-Jones, 2012).
The patterns of C. Leopard attacks were significantly uneven and 89% of attacks occurred
outside the protected area (Ruda et al., 2018). The consequences can be damage to economic
loss, injury or death of a family member resulting in serious psychological trauma and adverse
effects and livestock depredation (Chardonnet, 2010). In order to decrease the number of victims,
some measures must be developed. Understanding spatial interactions between humans and C.
Leopard cannot be done without spatial mapping and geospatial analyses. A spatial statistical
approach identifying high-priority conflict hotspots are also widely adopted (Miller, 2015).

Risk probability extrapolation was used during mapping landscapes of fear of free-ranging
domestic goats (Davie et al., 2014). It is clear that correlation modeling, spatial association, and
spatial interpolation belong to the three most frequently used methods. Correlation modeling is
very popular in the wildlife biology for examining animal resource use. Spatial association is
used for examining the clustering incident sites and for identifying significant hotspots. These
techniques assign significant values to neighborhood units and provide clustering across the

9
study area. Spatial interpolation provides a spatial layer of continuous data for a given variable,
but it does not examine the correlations between multiple variables and their associations. This is
why it is suitable for descriptive examination, and additionally, interpolation is a very data
sensitive method (Miller, 2015). Because many incident sites have point geometry, Kernel
Density Estimation (KDE) is also a possibility for hotspot mapping (Hart &Zandbergern, 2014).
The growing availability of KDE in GIS (Geographic Information System) applications, the
perceived accuracy of its hotspot identification, and the aesthetically pleasing and easily
understandable output make KDE very popular (Hart &Zandbergen, 2014).

The aim of this study was to investigate the possible geospatial connections between attacks of
Common leopard on humans and livestock in the study area between 2016 and 2019 for
designing and implementing effective mitigation measures in highly affected area.

10
 Chapter 3: Material and Methods

3.1 Study area

Syangja district is part of Gandaki Province, is one of the seventy-seven districts of Nepal
(Figure 1). The district, with Syangja bazaar as its district headquarters, covers an area of 1,164
[Link] and had a population of 289,148 (2011 Census). Many different ethinicity of people live in
the district. The major groups consisting of Brahmin, Kshetri, Gurung, Magar and others. It lies
in the hilly region at an attitude ranging from about 300 meters along the banks of Kaligandaki
river up to a couple of thousands meters above sea level. It lies at latitude 28°4'60 North and
longitude 83°52'0 East. Some places of historical interest in this district are Satahun Chandi,
Manakamana, Bhirkot Durbar, Alamdevi, Gahraukalika, Nuwakot Durbar, Chhangchhangdi and
Ridi Ruru Kshetra in the banks of Kalligandaki River. According to one popular folk legend,
Aandhikhola River is believed to be originated from the tears of Shravan of the Ramayana.
Syangja district is naturally beauty and there are places to hike including Chandithaan and
Hunikot a best viewpoint to view putalibazar. The Kaligandaki A Hydroelectric Power Station
built on the Kali Gandaki river is the largest hydroelectric project in Nepal, with an installed
capacity of 144 MW.

Figure 1: Map of Study Area

11
3.2 Data collection
This study involved both fieldworks associated with the collection of primary data and
subsequent geospatial analysis. Before conducting field work, incidents registered in Division
Forest Office, Syangja according to the Wildlife Damage Relief Guideline 2069 were collected
associated with the collection of secondary data (Table 1).
Table 1 : Incident data of Aadhikhola Rural Municipality as per the Wildlife Damage Relief
Guidelines 2069 between 2016 and 2019
.S.N. Common Leopard Attacks
Year Human Cow/Buffalo Goat Total
1. 2016 0 1 14 15
2. 2017 0 10 85 95
3. 2018 0 9 49 58
4. 2019 0 3 16 19

The Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates for each incident site were recorded with the
help of the victim or the victim’s representatives/or eye witnesses. Details of data are in Annex 1.
Dataset of Landcover 2010 prepared by ICIMOD was used for the land use types analysis of the
study area.

12
3.3 Data analysis
Based on incident data, descriptive temporal data analysis was conducted, followed by
examining spatial patterns of attacks and dependencies between incidents and landscape
characteristics in order to predict zones with different levels of attack risk.

This study relies on analyzing point data in terms of spatial statistics and spatial analysis for risk
assessment of their spatial patterns using geostatistical techniques. KDE was used for hotspot
mapping and safety analysis. The growing availability of KDE in GIS (Geographic Information
System) applications, the perceived accuracy of its hotspot identification, and the aesthetically
pleasing and easily understandable output make KDE very popular (Hart &Zandbergen, 2014).
Arc-GIS10.4 was used to prepare incident distribution and conflict risk zone map, Ms- Excel was
used to analyze incident data and interpreted using simple statistical tools (pie-chart, bar graph).
Google earth was used to check and quantify GPS data.

Available land use categories were grouped into following environment based on hypothetical
postulate that leopard attacks are mostly located differently in present environment.
Environment Land Use Categories
Forest land
Shrub land
Grass land
Agriculture area

13
 Chapter 4: Results and Discussion

4.1 Incidents distribution

Altogether 187 leopard attacks were occurred in Aadhikhola Rural Municipality, Syanga during
2016-2019. Figure 2 and Table 1 shows that the attacks distributions were high in ward no.4 (i.e.
Bangsing area) and followed by ward no. 2 (Chilaunebas) and ward no.3 (BichariChautara).

Figure 2: Distribution of the incidents

14
The highest (n=95) and the lowest (n=15) number of attacks occurred in 2017 and 2016
respectively (Table 2). The number of attacks by common leopard in Aadhikhola Rural
Municipality varied and fluctuated but there was a steady increase in number of attacks in year
2017. The potential causes of those attacks and riskiest zone include the proximity of forest near
human settlements and increment of trees in abandoned land.

Table 2: Number of incidents in Adhikhola Rural Municipality by ward / villages during 2016-
2019.
Ward No./Name 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
1.(Panchamul) 0 1 7 2 10
2.(Chilaunebas) 0 22 13 7 42
3.(BichariChautara) 5 13 6 1 25
4.(Bangsing) 4 35 20 5 64
5.(Setidovan) 1 12 9 2 24
6.(Faparthum) 5 12 3 2 22
Total 15 95 58 19 187

15
Of the total incidents, 164 goats, 23 cow/Buffalo were killed by common leopard and no human
injuries had been recorded between 2016 and 2019 in Aadhikhola Rural Municipality (Figure 3).
According to (Patterson et al., 2004) selection of prey species depends mainly on the body size
and availability of prey species. The result showed Ward no. 4 as a riskiest zone with highly
depredated species goat followed by cow/buffalo in small proportion compared to goat (Figure
4) because of resemblance of goat with deer; a natural prey species of common leopard and
easier availability of goat due to poor shedding, grazing near forest patches and unmanaged
herding and guarding practices.

164
No. of Incidents

23
0

Goat Killed Cow/Buffalo Killed Human Injured

Casualties
Figure 3: Types of Conflict

Goat Cow/Buffalo
[Link] killed species

59
37
22 18 19
9 7 5 4
1 3 3

1 2 3 4 5 6

Ward no.

Figure 4: Killed species in ward

16
 This study depends on cases registered in DFO, Syangja for compensation only so, result
showed majority of the attacks occurred in cowshed/House i.e. (84%) and 16% in khet/Bari
(Figure 5). The proximity of forest near human settlements of Aadhikhola Rural
Municipality and poor shedding practices has geared up the rates of attacks by common
leopard. Livestock are easy preys and their sheds are often poorly protected against leopard
attacks and people may get
et attacked when leopards, particularly starving, resort to livestock
depredation.

Khet/Bari/Kha
rbari
16%

Cowshed/House
84%

Figure 5:: Attacks occurrence by location

4.2 Temporal patterns of common leopard attacks

The attacks recorded were unsteadily patterned across seasons and months. The highest numbers
of attacks occurred in summer (44%) and lowest attacks took place in autumn season (17%)
(Figure 6 a). This findings coincide with (Park et al., 2012) where the highest depredation was
recorded in summer season that gradually decreased toward autumn due to availability of natural
prey species. Attacks byy wildlife differed significantly across the months (Acharya et al.,
al. 2016).
Most of the attacks occurred in Jul
July (22%) followed by June, May (Figure 6 b).

17
More than two-third of attacks i.e. (69%) occurred during day time, followed by 31% of attacks
occurred in night time (Figure 6 c). People mostly involve in outdoor activities during day time
leaving livestock in unmanaged and poor corrals. The mid-hill mountain forests are generally not
part of the PA system, and most forest patches are close to human settlement. Studies have
shown that leopards can live in human-modified landscapes and the extent of human-leopard
conflicts is associated with the depletion of nature prey populations, the scarcity of water and
livestock herding and guarding practices (Acharya et al., 2016). The chief reason behind losses
and attacks in livestock and human from common leopard include lack of knowledge and
understanding on the behavior of common leopard, its nature and habitat among the people of
this region and most importantly practice of poor shedding, carelessness in livestock rearing and
management .

44
(a)
20
Attacks%

19 17

Winter Spring Summer Autumn

season

22
(b)
14
10 9
7 7 8
6 6
Attacks%

5
2 3

Month
69
(C)
30
Attacks%

Day Light Time Night

Figure 6: Temporal pattern of leopard attacks (a) Season (b) Month (C) Time

18
4.3 Safety analysis of leopard attack
Kernel density was used to calculate a magnitude per unit area from attacks; using a kernel
density functions to fit a smoothly tapered surface to each point, because suitable reclassification
can generate significant zones showing a higher probability of wildlife attacks (Figure 7). The
kernel density attack raster layer was reclassified using the geometric interval algorithm, the
frequency distribution was exponential, and therefore geometric intervals were most appropriate
into five categories: very low risk, low risk, medium risk, high risk and very high risk.
Household within highly wooded areas, especially those close to or within forest areas of
Aadhikhola Rural Municipality, Syangja are most at risk. In total area of 69.75 sq. km 4% of the
study area is very high risk area (Bangsing, Faparthum, Setidovan), followed by 8% of the total
area is high risk area (BichariChautara ) and 12% medium risk area (Chilaunebas) 14% low risk
area and 42% very low risk area.

Figure 7: Kernel density estimation of leopard attack in study area

19
 Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendation

5.1 Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study, in Aadhikhola Rural Municipality the depredation of
livestock by common leopard strongly varies with season, month and time. The highest losses to
common leopard were suffered in summer, with goat being the major victim. Moreover, most of
the livestock depredation occurred in late morning and evening, likely because the leopard is
crepuscular. The number of attacks fluctuated over the year but there was increasing trend from
2016 to 2017, compared to 2016 no. of attacks was almost five times more in 2017. The
correlates of livestock depredation are poor constructed livestock shedding, increment of trees in
abandon land and nearby farmlands (khet/bari). Household within highly wooded areas,
especially those close to or within forest areas are most at risk. Bangsing, Faparthum, Setidovan
area is very high risk area from common leopard attacks.

5.2 Recommendation
Very high conflict risk zone should be prioritized in designing and implementing effective
mitigation measures like predator proof corals/ livestock shedding to reduce leopard attacks.
Educating local communities about behavior of common- leopard, its habitat and nature and
timely management of problem animal will contribute to reduce the conflict. Predator-proof
corrals, guarding of livestock without negligence will reduce livestock depredation. Effective
mitigation measures should include conservation of common leopard natural prey species in
community forest and measures like safe livestock enclosures and herding of livestock outside of
forests should be adopted. Wildlife conflict can never be ruled out but implementation of
effective mitigation measures prioritizing high conflict areas helps in risk reduction and local
support in biodiversity conservation without retaliatory killing.

20
 Chapter 6: Internship Learning and Description

An Internship is a period of work experience offered by an organization for a limited period of

time. Internship help students with opportunities to engage and integrate their theoretical
knowledge in a real-life-professional setting at host institution. Internship provides a nice
learning curve for students with little experience of the professional world. Internship at host
organization differs in objective with theme of the objective. Along with collaboration of
Ministry of Forest and Environment, Forest Research and Training Center (FRTC) have started
funding for internship for BSC. Forestry final year student by employing them in different
working areas to enhance both academic and field knowledge as well to perform research for the
partial fulfillment of the requirements for BSc. Forestry degree. The host institution in which I
had been selected for Internship is Division Forest Office, Syangja with the theme Human
Wildlife Conflict and Management for duration of five months. The internship with theme
entitled “Human Wildlife Conflict and Management” help students with opportunities to harness
their skills, theoretical knowledge about human wild conflict, issues and mitigation measures
they learnt in university. Aadhikhola Rural Municipality of Syangja district experience more
livestock depredation from Common leopard than by any other predators as per the incidents
recorded in Division Forest Office, Syangja; however the possible risk zonation associated in the
site was unexamined. Spatial-temporal analysis explores movement of Common leopard to the
human landscape and provides locations, where the attacks are concentrated (Miller, 2015).
Thus, the aim of my study was to investigate the possible geospatial connections between the
livestock depredation and its surrounding impact zone due to common leopard attack.
Reasons for Internship
To apply theoretical knowledge practically in field
To develop critical work skills
To develop communication skills
To experience professional field

Learning objective:
To know Human-Wildlife Conflict status and management practices.

21
Description of activities
 Organizational policies, structures and functions and records of incidents by common
leopard in different part of Syangja district were reviewed. Review of incidents records
showed Aadhikhola Rural Municipality experience more livestock depredation from
common leopard.
 Official process and documents that the victim has to follow for the compensation relief
scheme was closely observed and participated in the process.
 Consultation and discussion with field supervisor and the staff of host organization DFO,
Syangja.
 Field Visit: An Incident sites from common leopard attacks were visited to verify the
place, number of attacks and to prepare document for the partial fulfillment of the
requirement for compensation scheme from wildlife damage for victim according to
Wildlife Damage Relief Guideline, 2069. Also the incident site was visited to record GPS
coordinates to assess spatial distribution of attacks to highlight conflict risk zone and to
assess temporal trend of attacks.
 But due to pandemic assigned task was not completed in the field.

22
 References

Acharya, K.P., Paudel, P.K., Neupane, P. R. and Köhl, M., 2016. Human-wildlife conflicts in
Nepal: patterns of human fatalities and injuries caused by large mammals. PLoS one, 11(9).
Ayadi, D.P., 2011. Human-Wildlife Conflict in Buffer Zone Area: A Study of Banke National
Park, Nepal (Doctoral dissertation, Master Thesis, Environment Science of Tribhuvan
University, College of Applied Sciences, Nepal).
Budhathoki, P., 2004. Linking communities with conservation in developing countries: buffer zone
management initiatives in Nepal. Oryx, 38(3), pp.334-341
Chardonnet, P., Clers, B.D., Fischer, J., Gerhold, R., Jori, F. and Lamarque, F., 2002. The value
of wildlife. Revue scientifiqueet technique-Office international des épizooties, 21(1), pp.15-52.
Doyle, S., Groo, M., Sampson, C., Songer, M., Jones, M., & Leimgruber, P. (2010). Human-
Elephant Conflict — What Can We Learn from the News ? Gajah, 32, 14–20.
[Link]
Gittleman, J. L., Funk, S. M., Macdonald, D. W. and Wayne, R. K. 2001. Why ‘carnivore
conservation’? In Carnivore conservation: 1–8. Gittleman, J. L., Funk, S. M., Macdonald, D. and
Wayne, R. K. (Eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karanth, K.K., Gopalaswamy, A.M., Prasad, P.K. and Dasgupta, S., 2013. Patterns of
human–wildlife conflicts and compensation: Insights from Western Ghats protected
areas. Biological Conservation, 166, pp.175-185
Karanth, K. U., Sunquist, M. E. and Chinnappa, K. M. 1999. Long-term monitoring of tigers:
lessons from Nagarahole. In Riding the tiger: tiger conservation in human-dominated landscapes:
114–122. Seidensticker, J., Christie, S. and Jackson, P. (Eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Karki JB, Pandav B, Jnawali SR, Shrestha R, PradhanNMB, Lamichane BR, et al. Estimating
the abundance of Nepal's largest population of tigers Pantheratigris. Oryx.2015; 49:150–
[Link]: 10.1017/S0030605313000471 [Google Scholar]
Limbu, K.P. and Karki, T.B., 2003. Park–people Conflict in KoshiTappu Wildlife Reserve. Our
nature, 1(1), pp.15-18.
Lopoukhine, N.N., [Link]—For LIFe’SSAKe 1. Protected Areas in Today’s
World: Their Values and Benefits for the Welfare of the Planet, p.1.

23
Madden, F., 2004. Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local
efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Human dimensions of wildlife, 9(4), pp.247-
257.
Miller JB. Mapping attack hotspots to mitigate human—carnivore conflict: Approaches and
applications of spatial predation risk modeling. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2015.
[Link]
Nepal, W.W.F., 2007. A Case Study on Human-Wildlife Conflict in Nepal. World Wildlife
Fund.
Osborn, F.V. and Hill, C.M., 2005. Techniques to reduce crop loss: human and technical
dimensions in Africa. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY SERIES-CAMBRIDGE-, 9, p.72
Park, N., Jammu, A., Qamar, Q. Z., Dar, N. I., Ali, U., Minhas, R. A., & Ayub, J. (2012). Human-
Leopard Conflict : An Emerging Issue of Common Leopard Conservation in Machiara National
Park , Azad Jammu and Kashmir , Pakistan. 1(September), 50–56.
Redpath, S. M., Bhatia, S. and Young, J. (2015). Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human–wildlife
conflict. Oryx.2015; 49: 222–[Link]: 10.1017/S0030605314000799 [Google Scholar]
Ruda, A., Kolejka, J., & Silwal, T. (2020). Spatial concentrations of wildlife attacks on humans in
chitwan national park, Nepal. Animals, 10(1), 1–17. [Link]
Ruda, A., Kolejka, J., Silwal, T., (2018). GIS-Assisted Prediction and Risk Zonation of Wildlife
Attacks in the Chitwan National Park in Nepal.

Shrestha, T.K., 1994. Encounter with the Himalayan wildlife. Steven Simpson Books
Sillero-Zubiri, C. and Laurenson, M.K., 2001. Interactions between carnivores and local
communities: Conflict or co-existence?. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY SERIES-
CAMBRIDGE-, pp.282-312.
Silwal, T., Kolejka, J., Bhatta, B.P., Rayamajhi, S., Sharma, R.P. and Poudel, B.S.
[Link],where and whom: assessing wildlife attacks on people in ChitwanNationalPark,
Nepal. Oryx, 51(2), pp.370-377.
Subedi N, Jnawali SR, Dhakal M, Pradhan NM, Lamichhane BR, Malla S, et al. Population
status, structure and distribution of the greater one-horned rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis in
Nepal. Oryx.2013; 47: 352–360.
Terborgh, J. 1992. Maintenance of diversity in tropical [Link], 24: 283–292.

24
Treves, A. and Karanth, K.U., 2003. Human‐carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore
management worldwide. Conservation biology, 17(6), pp.1491-1499.
Wang, S.W. and Macdonald, D.W., 2006. Livestock predation by carnivores in
JigmeSingyeWangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Biological Conservation, 129(4), pp.558-
565.
Western, D. and Pearl, M.C., 1989. Conservation for the twenty first century
Wikramanayake ED, McKnight M, Dinerstein E, Joshi A, Gurung B, Smith JLD. Designing a
conservation landscape for tigers in human-dominated [Link].2004;
18: 839–[Link] Scholar
Woodroffe, R., 2000, May. Predators and people: using human densities to interpret declines of large
carnivores. In Animal Conservation Forum (Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 165-173).Cambridge University
Press.
WWF (2006): “Species fact sheet : Human-animal conflict “ World Wildlife Fund, World Wildlife
Fund International, Switzerland.

25
ANNEX 1: Victims Data Collection
Date of Type of
S.N. Name of Victims Address Incidents Incidents X_cood y_Cood
Aadhikhola- Goat
1 LalBahadur Kami 1 12/4/2017 Killed 770921 3115600
Aadhikhola- Cow
2 Anita Sunar 1 3/15/2018 killed 771502 3115140
Aadhikhola- Goat
3 Tulsi Devi Paudel 1 2/14/2019 killed 772471 3115260
Aadhikhola- Goat
4 Yam Maya Tiwari 1 7/3/2018 Killed 771796 3115720
Shyam Narayan Aadhikhola- Goat
5 Adhikari 1 7/8/2018 Killed 772053 3114890
Aadhikhola- Goat
6 Im Prasad Paudel 1 7/8/2018 Killed 774262 3114830
Aadhikhola- Goat
7 SurendraPaudel 1 7/9/2018 Killed 772015 3113560
Aadhikhola- Goat
8 HiramaniDhakal 1 12/3/2018 Killed 770289 3116180
Aadhikhola- Goat
9 Rima Dhakal 1 1/7/2019 killed 773488 3115400
Aadhikhola- Goat
10 ShivrajDhakal 1 12/16/2018 Killed 771901 3115320
Aadhikhola- Goat
11 Bhim Prasad Sharma 2 9/10/2018 Killed 772918 3114490
Aadhikhola- Goat
12 SumkalaPoudel 2 3/16/2017 Killed 772253 3118340
Aadhikhola- Goat
13 Diya Nepali 2 5/2/2017 Killed 772189 3118050
Aadhikhola- Goat
14 Sarsawati Sharma 2 5/20/2017 Killed 772642 3117950
Aadhikhola- Goat
15 Tara bahadurB.K. 2 6/2/2017 Killed 772632 3118370
Aadhikhola- Goat
16 Yam bahadurGharti 2 6/9/2017 Killed 773094 3117910
Khyam Prasad Aadhikhola- Goat
17 Poudel 2 12/18/2017 Killed 772723 3117570
Aadhikhola- Goat
18 TekKumariSharki 2 7/5/2017 Killed 772320 3117560
Aadhikhola- Goat
19 KhautaPaudel 2 6/22/2017 Killed 773428 3116900
Aadhikhola- Goat
20 LaxmanB.K. 2 7/12/2017 Killed 773707 3117120
Aadhikhola- Goat
21 Hem Sharma 2 7/12/2017 Killed 773718 3116670

26
 Date of Type of
S.N. Name of Victims Address Incidents Incidents X_cood y_Cood
Aadhikhola- Goat
22 Ram Prasad Padhya 2 6/27/2017 Killed 773446 3117130
Aadhikhola- Goat
23 LalBahadurGharti 2 7/24/2017 Killed 773999 3116840
Aadhikhola- Goat
24 BuddhiBahadur Kami 2 11/10/2017 Killed 774299 3117160
Aadhikhola- Goat
25 KhujuriPadhya 2 7/27/2017 Killed 775719 3117330
Krishna Prasad Aadhikhola- Goat
26 Paudel 2 4/13/2074 Killed 775525 3116550
Aadhikhola- Cow
27 DilSubaDamai 2 7/28/2017 Killed 776065 3116770
Aadhikhola- Goat
28 SumkalaPoudel 2 8/26/2017 Killed 774038 3118120
Bishnu Prasad Aadhikhola- Goat
29 Sapkota 2 8/13/2017 Killed 774842 3118240
Aadhikhola- Goat
30 Devi Sapkota 2 8/23/2017 Killed 774288 3118560
Aadhikhola- Goat
31 Mina Nepali Paudel 2 10/24/2017 Killed 774639 3115910
Aadhikhola- Cow
32 KalpanaDamai 2 12/8/2017 Killed 775215 3115640
Aadhikhola- Goat
33 RajuBahadurChhetri 2 12/8/2017 Killed 772448 3117870
Aadhikhola- Goat
34 NimKumariKhadka 2 5/6/2018 Killed 772416 3118110
Aadhikhola- Goat
35 ChabbilalPadhya 2 2/18/2018 Killed 772866 3117850
Aadhikhola- Goat
36 KirthBahadurB.K. 2 3/10/2018 Killed 772534 3117640
Aadhikhola- Goat
37 RudraBahadurSunar 2 7/17/2018 Killed 774239 3118280
Aadhikhola- Goat
38 SumkalaPoudel 2 8/28/2018 Killed 774396 3118380
Narayan Prasad Aadhikhola- Goat
39 Paudel 2 9/22/2018 Killed 774645 3118210
Aadhikhola- Goat
40 HaribhaktaPaudel 2 10/16/2018 Killed 773626 3116840
ReshamKumariBishw Aadhikhola- Cow
41 akarma 2 1/24/2019 killed 773522 3117010
Aadhikhola- Goat
42 Yasoda Devi Thapa 2 11/7/2018 Killed 773722 3116960
Aadhikhola- Goat
43 ChabilalPadhya 2 1/9/2019 Killed 773998 3117050

27
 Date of Type of
S.N. Name of Victims Address Incidents Incidents X_cood y_Cood
Aadhikhola- Goat
44 GiridhariPaudel 2 12/10/2018 Killed 774133 3116980
Aadhikhola- Goat
45 JunadeviPaudel 2 11/18/2018 Killed 775878 3117090
Aadhikhola- Goat
46 PremBahadurDarji 2 12/19/2018 Killed 775705 3116860
Aadhikhola- Goat
47 GeetaShahi 2 2/26/2019 Killed 775881 3116710
Aadhikhola- Goat
48 PurshottamPaudel 2 3/2/2019 Killed 775714 3117020
Aadhikhola- Goat
49 Jay BahadurChhetri 2 3/28/2019 Killed 775642 3117250
Aadhikhola- Goat
50 KalpanaPaudel 2 7/8/2018 Killed 775539 3116860
Chandra Aadhikhola- Goat
51 bahadurchhetri 3 7/6/2016 Killed 771671 3121180
Aadhikhola- Cow
52 Nar bahadurChhetri 3 7/16/2016 killed 771732 3121100
KhyambahadurChhet Aadhikhola- 8/17/2016 Goat
53 ri 3 killed 772011 3121080
Aadhikhola- Goat
54 Durgadatta Sharma 3 9/11/2016 Killed 771965 3121320
Aadhikhola- Goat
55 BishnubahadurKhatri 3 9/19/2016 Killed 772681 3121010
Aadhikhola- Goat
56 KulprasadUpadhya 3 2/27/2017 Killed 772193 3120940
Aadhikhola- Goat
57 AmbikaKarki 3 8/15/2017 Killed 772312 3121230
Aadhikhola- Goat
58 Surya bahadurChhetri 3 5/18/2017 Killed 772486 3121940
Aadhikhola- Cow
59 Bimalachhetri 3 7/7/2017 Killed 773154 3121720
Aadhikhola- Goat
60 Jas BahadurSharki 3 7/7/2017 Killed 773256 3121310
KhyambahadurChhet Aadhikhola- Goat
61 ri 3 7/30/2017 Killed 773132 3120710
Aadhikhola- Goat
62 Nar bahadurChhetri 3 7/29/2017 Killed 772975 3121190
Aadhikhola- Goat
63 RishiramSubedi 3 8/22/2017 Killed 772598 3121440
Krishna Prasad Aadhikhola- Goat
64 Paudel 3 8/19/2017 Killed 772376 3120490
Aadhikhola- Goat
65 PremKumariSubedi 3 9/16/2017 Killed 771865 3119740

28
 Date of Type of
S.N. Name of Victims Address Incidents Incidents X_cood y_Cood
Aadhikhola- Goat
66 RukmaniPaudel 3 8/7/2017 Killed 772086 3119630
Aadhikhola- Buffalo
67 Shiridhari 3 8/7/2017 Killed 772546 3119520
Aadhikhola- Goat
68 PhullmayaKhatri 3 12/27/2017 Killed 772817 3119540
Aadhikhola- Goat
69 BinaPaudel 3 3/19/2018 Killed 772338 3119910
DurgaBahadurGurun Aadhikhola- Goat
70 g 3 9/8/2018 Killed 772410 3119670
Aadhikhola- Goat
71 Surya bahadurChhetri 3 9/10/2018 Killed 773013 3119920
Aadhikhola- Goat
72 Durgadatta Sharma 3 9/8/2018 Killed 772703 3119860
Aadhikhola- Goat
73 PremKumariSubedi 3 7/8/2018 Killed 773073 3119640
Aadhikhola- Goat
74 Ganesh Paudel 3 6/26/2018 Killed 772675 3120180
ThangiKumari Aadhikhola- Goat
75 Sharma 3 10/18/2018 Killed 772993 3120440
Aadhikhola- Goat
76 ShiridariPoudel 4 5/8/2017 Killed 774101 3121800
KadakBahadurGurun Aadhikhola- Goat
77 g 4 7/28/2017 Killed 774096 3121580
Aadhikhola- Goat
78 Yam bahadurG.T. 4 6/14/2016 Killed 774065 3121120
Aadhikhola- Goat
79 AnjuPoudel 4 7/10/2016 Killed 774219 3120870
Aadhikhola- Goat
80 Man BahadurGharti 4 3/5/2017 Killed 774233 3121170
Aadhikhola- Cow
81 Rita Ranabhat 4 3/20/2017 killed 774341 3121520
Aadhikhola- Goat
82 KeshariRanabhat 4 3/20/2016 Killed 774243 3122080
Aadhikhola- Goat
83 BishnumayaPariyar 4 9/10/2016 Killed 774221 3121680
Aadhikhola- Goat
84 ChunamaniPadhya 4 6/5/2017 Killed 774081 3121310
Hum Aadhikhola- Goat
85 bahadurRanabhat 4 5/28/2017 Killed 774611 3121340
Aadhikhola- Goat
86 TulsiPaudel 4 6/9/2017 Killed 774434 3121640
Aadhikhola- Goat
87 ChandrakalaDharji 4 6/15/2017 Killed 774323 3121840

29
 Date of Type of
S.N. Name of Victims Address Incidents Incidents X_cood y_Cood
Aadhikhola- 6/21/2017 Goat
88 JamunaPaudel 4 Killed 774926 3122290
Aadhikhola- Goat
89 HumnathPaudel 4 6/21/2017 Killed 774709 3121640
DhanbahadurRanabh Aadhikhola- Goat
90 at 4 6/30/2017 Killed 774572 3122060
Aadhikhola- Goat
91 Rita Ranabhat 4 5/21/2017 Killed 774928 3121800
Ishwori Prasad Aadhikhola- Goat
92 Uphadya 4 7/1/2017 Killed 774813 3122140
Daman Prasad Aadhikhola- Goat
93 Sharma 4 7/4/2017 Killed 775323 3122070
Moti Prasad Aadhikhola- Goat
94 Lamichhane 4 7/4/2017 Killed 775213 3121390
Aanand Prasad Aadhikhola- Goat
95 Uphadya 4 6/28/2017 Killed 774675 3120880
Aadhikhola- Goat
96 ManjuChhetri 4 6/21/2017 Killed 774957 3121050
Aadhikhola- Goat
97 PremKumariPaudel 4 6/28/2017 Killed 775559 3121560
Aadhikhola- Goat
98 BalkrishnaUpadhya 4 7/7/2017 Killed 775319 3121830
Aadhikhola- Cow
99 ReshamLalPaudel 4 6/29/2017 Killed 775178 3122390
Hum Aadhikhola- Goat
100 BahadurRanabhat 4 7/5/2017 Killed 775501 3122170
Aadhikhola- Cow
101 DhakaramPaudel 4 7/5/2017 Killed 775669 3121790
Aadhikhola- Goat
102 JamunaPaudel 4 7/18/2017 Killed 775543 3120910
Aadhikhola- Goat
103 Dinesh Paudel 4 7/5/2017 Killed 775461 3121230
Aadhikhola- Goat
104 BalBahadurRanabhat 4 7/13/2017 Killed 775153 3120830
Aadhikhola- Cow
105 Yam Maya B.K. 4 7/29/2017 killed 775124 3119430
Narayan Prasad Aadhikhola- Goat
106 Upadhya 4 8/19/2017 Killed 775458 3119210
Krishna Prasad Aadhikhola- Goat
107 Chhetri 4 8/22/2017 Killed 775602 3119380
Aadhikhola- Goat
108 PhulmayaRanabhat 4 9/11/2017 Killed 774497 3119490
Aadhikhola- Goat
109 NilkantaRanabhat 4 10/1/2017 Killed 774011 3119880

30
 Date of Type of
S.N. Name of Victims Address Incidents Incidents X_cood y_Cood
Aadhikhola- Goat
110 SundarPaudel 4 10/26/2017 Killed 774319 3120260
Aadhikhola- Goat
111 KalawatiGharti 4 10/28/2017 Killed 775271 3119920
Aadhikhola- Goat
112 Devi Prasad Upadhya 4 12/17/2017 Killed 774602 3119970
SheshKumariRanabh Aadhikhola- Cow
113 at 4 2/17/2018 Killed 775018 3120290
Aadhikhola- Buffalo
114 Man BahadurGharti 4 2/22/2018 Killed 774676 3120420
Aadhikhola- Goat
115 KamalkantaAdhikari 4 6/7/2018 Killed 775602 3120220
Aadhikhola- Goat
116 YuvnanPaudel 4 6/12/2018 Killed 775250 3120330
Aadhikhola- Goat
117 PusparajPaudel 4 6/12/2018 Killed 775574 3122630
Krishna Prasad Aadhikhola- Goat
118 Paudel 4 7/2/2018 Killed 775195 3122970
Aadhikhola- Cow
119 Lok Raj Paudel 4 7/1/2018 killed 775535 3123810
Aadhikhola- Goat
120 Dil Maya Sharma 4 7/7/2018 Killed 775864 3122920
Aadhikhola- Goat
121 RadhikaB.K. 4 6/17/2018 Killed 776220 3123080
Aadhikhola- Goat
122 NandakalliRanabhat 4 6/22/2018 Killed 775419 3123330
Aadhikhola- Goat
123 DharmarajPaudel 4 7/28/2018 Killed 776016 3123610
Aadhikhola- Goat
124 MuktaBahadurGharti 4 7/31/2018 Killed 776012 3124200
Aadhikhola- Goat
125 ManmayaSarki 4 6/29/2018 Killed 774987 3123260
Aadhikhola- Goat
126 Ganga Lamichhane 4 7/24/2018 Killed 774511 3122350
Aadhikhola- Goat
127 TulkiLamichhane 4 7/29/2018 Killed 775825 3122340
PurshottamLamichha Aadhikhola- Goat
128 ne 4 8/29/2018 Killed 776144 3122750
Aadhikhola- Goat
129 CholakanthaPaudel 4 9/22/2018 Killed 776303 3123600
GhanashyamLamichh Aadhikhola- Goat
130 ane 4 12/4/2018 Killed 775578 3124210
Bhim Prasad Aadhikhola- Goat
131 Lamichhane 4 11/27/2018 Killed 775891 3124390

31
 Date of Type of
S.N. Name of Victims Address Incidents Incidents X_cood y_Cood
Aadhikhola- Goat
132 HiraKhatri 4 11/26/2018 Killed 774695 3122620
Aadhikhola- Goat
133 Man BahadurSarki 4 3/11/2019 Killed 773984 3120530
Aadhikhola- Goat
134 Laxmi Prasad Paudel 4 2/22/2019 Killed 774484 3120900
Aadhikhola- Goat
135 ChetmayaUpadhya 4 3/13/2019 Killed 774956 3121490
Aadhikhola- Goat
136 TaharParsadPaudel 4 2/9/2019 Killed 775133 3121620
Aadhikhola- Goat
137 NidikalaLamichhane 4 2/7/2019 Killed 775089 3122140
Aadhikhola- Goat
138 RishisamPokhrel 4 5/17/2017 Killed 774789 3119710
Aadhikhola- Goat
139 Ganga Ranabhat 4 6/29/2017 Killed 775046 3119990
Aadhikhola- Goat
140 Dil Maya Sarki 4 4/9/2018 Killed 774724 3120190
Aadhikhola- Goat
141 TekBahadurGurung 4 12/17/2018 Killed 774868 3120370
Aadhikhola- Goat
142 TulkiLamichhane 5 5/28/2017 Killed 776427 3118420
Aadhikhola- Goat
143 Tara kumariChhetri 5 9/3/2016 Killed 776963 3118810
Aadhikhola- Goat
144 ShiridariDamai 5 2/4/2017 Killed 777838 3118950
Aadhikhola- Goat
145 NandalalDhakal 5 4/142017 Killed 776747 3117950
Aadhikhola- Goat
146 Bharat kumarPoudel 5 5/14/2017 Killed 777144 3118250
Aadhikhola- Goat
147 KopilaLamichhane 5 6/30/2017 Killed 777808 3118240
Aadhikhola- Buffalo
148 PadambahadurDamai 5 6/19/2017 Killed 778543 3118280
Aadhikhola- Goat
149 Maya Devi Sharma 5 7/1/2017 Killed 777322 3117750
Aadhikhola- Goat
150 Cholakantha Sharma 5 10/12/2017 Killed 777973 3117320
Aadhikhola- Goat
151 ParbatiK.C. 5 10/10/2017 Killed 778439 3117660
Aadhikhola- Goat
152 Man BahadurPaudel 5 11/11/2017 Killed 779107 3117540
Aadhikhola- Goat
153 JamunaPaudel 5 11/6/2017 Killed 778530 3116880

32
 Date of Type of
S.N. Name of Victims Address Incidents Incidents X_cood y_Cood
Aadhikhola- Goat
154 BhimBahadurChhetri 5 12/12/2017 Killed 779040 3116400
Aadhikhola- Goat
155 KhemBahadurThapa 5 3/19/2018 Killed 779455 3116900
Narendra Prasad Aadhikhola- Goat
156 Sharma 5 2/25/2018 Killed 777588 3118490
Aadhikhola- Buffalo
157 Dilli Prasad Sharma 5 5/9/2018 Killed 776806 3118450
Aadhikhola- Goat
158 ChunamaniUpadhya 5 3/3/2018 Killed 777413 3118870
LalKumariLamichha Aadhikhola- Goat
159 ne 5 6/12/2018 Killed 776427 3118420
Aadhikhola- Buffalo
160 ParbatiK.C. 5 5/28/2018 Killed 776439 3117970
Aadhikhola- Cow
161 Pradip Kumar Paudel 5 9/29/2018 killed 777840 3117910
Aadhikhola- Buffalo
162 MatikalaSarki 5 11/3/2018 Killed 778034 3118720
Humnath Sharma Aadhikhola- Goat
163 Paudel 5 2/7/2019 Killed 777614 3117450
Aadhikhola- Goat
164 MadanChhetri 5 10/27/2018 Killed 777430 3118160
Aadhikhola- Buffalo
165 Tara KumariDhakal 6 9/3/2016 Killed 777254 3116660
Aadhikhola- Goat
166 Devi Laxmishrestha 6 6/1/2016 Killed 777224 3115950
Aadhikhola- Goat
167 SitaBasnet 6 7/5/2016 Killed 776889 3116080
Aadhikhola- Goat
168 Kamala deviDhakal 6 7/30/2016 Killed 777356 3116380
Aadhikhola- Cow
169 shiridari Sharma 6 12/24/2016 killed 777613 3115580
Aadhikhola- Goat
170 TilKumariAdhikari 6 1/16/2017 Killed 777482 3116070
Aadhikhola- Buffalo
171 DharmideviAdhikari 6 6/24/2016 killed 776784 3115510
Aadhikhola- Cow
172 Maya KumariGharti 6 1/27/2017 killed 777354 3115480
Aadhikhola- Cow
173 ShivlalDhakal 6 1/14/2017 Killed 776612 3115770
Aadhikhola- Goat
174 Tanka Prasad Dhakal 6 2/14/2017 Killed 777087 3115730
Aadhikhola- Goat
175 IshworiPadhyani 6 5/16/2017 Killed 777893 3115770

33
 Date of Type of
S.N. Name of Victims Address Incidents Incidents X_cood y_Cood
Aadhikhola- Goat
176 Tara Dhakal 6 3/20/2017 Killed 777046 3114520
Aadhikhola- Goat
177 DhasikumariBhujel 6 5/23/2017 Killed 778110 3114660
Aadhikhola- Goat
178 LaxmiDhakalGharti 6 7/17/2017 Killed 778318 3114910
Aadhikhola- Goat
179 GangadarDhakal 6 7/22/2017 Killed 779052 3114950
Aadhikhola- Goat
180 KhemnarayanDhakal 6 10/12/2017 Killed 778123 3114140
Natrndra Prasad Aadhikhola- Goat
181 Dhakal 6 10/21/2017 Killed 777591 3114530
Aadhikhola- Goat
182 DiliramBaral 6 12/19/2017 Killed 778897 3114490
Aadhikhola- Goat
183 SunitaG.T. 6 3/8/2018 Killed 778471 3114480
Aadhikhola- Goat
184 JasmayaDarji 6 2/12/2018 Killed 778599 3115030
Aadhikhola- Goat
185 Bishnu Maya Sharma 6 5/2/2018 Killed 777576 3114180
Aadhikhola- Goat
186 HomBahadurRana 6 2/26/2019 Killed 778466 3115620
Aadhikhola- Goat
187 DhanKumariGurung 6 2/24/2019 Killed 778946 3115420

34
ANNEX 2: An Internship Agreement with the Organization

35
Photoplates

Figure: GPS coordinate at Incident sites

Figure: Livestock shedding practice

36