* Bhutan hosts two pangolin species: Chinese pangolin (Manis pentadactyla) and Indian pangolin (Manis crassicaudata).
* The Bhutan Foundation collaborated with the Department of Forests and Park Services under MoENR for a pilot initiative.
* The project focused on understanding pangolin distribution, ecology, threats, and conservation needs in Royal Manas National Park (RMNP).
* The initiative used camera trapping, burrow surveys, genetic sample collection, acoustic monitoring, and community engagement.
* 285 camera traps were installed across a 1 x 1 km grid.
* 101 sampling sites were surveyed for burrows and habitat.
* 320 households participated in a Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) survey.
* The project recorded the presence of Chinese and Indian pangolins at four camera stations.
* 226 burrows were documented, including 55 active and 149 old burrows.
* Burrows were categorized as 106 living and 99 feeding.
* 68.1% of burrows were recorded in natural forests; 17.3% in agroforestry areas.
* Seven AudioMoth recorders detected no confirmed pangolin calls.
* Ten biological samples were collected for genetic analysis.
* 69% of KAP respondents supported pangolin conservation.
* Awareness programs reached more than 1,649 people.

A pilot initiative was conducted in Royal Manas National Park to assess the distribution, ecology, threats, and conservation needs of Chinese and Indian pangolins. The project involved collaboration between the Bhutan Foundation and the Department of Forests and Park Services under the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (MoENR). The methodology integrated camera trapping, burrow surveys, genetic sample collection, acoustic monitoring, and community engagement to build baseline data and strengthen local capacity.
The fieldwork involved installing 285 camera traps across a one by one kilometer grid and surveying 101 sampling sites for burrows and habitat, with 320 households participating in a Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) survey. Data collection revealed the presence of Chinese and Indian pangolins at four camera stations, documenting 226 burrows, including 55 active and 149 old burrows, categorized as living or feeding. The majority of these burrows were found in natural forests (68.1%), followed by agroforestry areas (17.3%). Ten biological samples were collected for genetic analysis. The KAP survey indicated that 69% of respondents supported pangolin conservation, and awareness programs reached over 1,649 people. Furthermore, the project enhanced the capacity of frontline rangers and established baseline data to inform future conservation management within the national park.

The process described demonstrates a commitment to establishing empirical baselines, which is foundational for effective conservation policy. The integrated methodology—combining physical monitoring (trapping, surveys) with biological data (genetics, acoustics) and social metrics (KAP survey)—is a robust approach to addressing complex, elusive species management. The achievement of documenting burrows across different habitat types suggests that threats are spatially heterogeneous, demanding context-specific conservation strategies rather than uniform blanket approaches.
The pattern observed is the successful institutionalization of multi-disciplinary data collection within a national park framework, which simultaneously builds ecological knowledge and social buy-in. However, the reliance on preliminary results for long-term planning requires scrutiny regarding extrapolation; the shift from pilot monitoring to integrating these findings into broader management programs presents an opportunity to test the resilience of that integration against sustained external pressures. Furthermore, while community participation and awareness were successful metrics, the connection between documented support (69% satisfaction) and actual behavioral change in response to illegal wildlife trade remains an area ripe for deeper inquiry regarding enforcement mechanisms. The underlying assumption driving this work is that data acquisition directly translates into tangible governance improvements; assessing whether institutional capacity built by this project can withstand ongoing political or economic shifts is the next critical step.
Bridge questions: How does the integration of ecological, genetic, and social data inherently mitigate the risks associated with relying on any single data stream for conservation decisions? What mechanisms must be established to ensure that community support translates into sustained anti-poaching enforcement capacity beyond the initial awareness phase? If habitat loss continues at a rate faster than conservation can implement protective measures based on this baseline, what adaptive governance structures must be in place to respond to unforeseen ecological shifts?