Table of Content

Home , Asian openbill, Bengal florican, Bokakhat, Garampani, Kaziranga National Park, Keoladeo National Park

UNESCO- IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage Project: Monitoring and Managing for Success in Natural World Heritage Sites

Final Management Effectiveness Evaluation Report Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India November 2007

Table of Content

Project Background 1 How the Evaluation was carried out 2 The Project Workbook and Tool Kits 3

Section 1: Introduction 4-7 Section 2: Context and Planning Assessment 8-36 Tool 1: Identifying Site Values and Management Objectives 11 Tool 2: Identifying Threats 14 Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholder/Partners 28 Tool 4: Review of National Context 35 Section 3: Planning 37-48 Tool 5: Assessment of Management Planning 37 Tool 6: Design Assessment 44 Section 4: Inputs and Process Assessment 49-51 Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs 49 Section 5: Assessment of Management Process 52-64 Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes 52 Section 6: Outputs 65-69 Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation 66 Tool 10: Assessment of Work/Site Output Indicators 67 Section 7: Outcomes 70-78 Tool 11: Assessing the Outcomes of Management – Ecological Integrity 70 Tool 12: Assessing the Outcomes of Management – Achievement of Principal Objectives 75

List of Boxes Box 1: Kaziranga National Park ~ 100 Years of Success Story 5 Box 2: IUCN-WCPA framework for Management Effectiveness Evaluation 7 Box 3: Protection Strategy 17 Box 4: Conservation of Beels for Waterbirds in Kaziranga National Park, Assam 20 Box 5: Management of Invasive Species in Kaziranga National Park, Assam 24 Box 6: Declaration of Kaziranga Tiger Reserve in 2007 46 Box 7 Raptor community of Kaziranga National Park, Assam 72 Box 8: Kaziranga Centenary Celebrations (1905-2005) 77

References 79

List of Annexures Annexure-I: List of water birds recorded during 2005-2006 from Kaziranga National Park. 80-82 Annexure-II: List of raptor species recorded from the Kaziranga National Park during 2005-2006. 83-84

List of Figure Figure 1: Location Map of Kaziranga National Park, Assam 8 Figure 2: Number of Rhinos Lost Due to Poaching Since 1965 17 Figure 3: Patrolling camps in Kaziranga National Park 18 Figure 4: Beels of Kaziranga National Park (1970-2001) 20 Figure 5: GIS Locations of Mimosa patch in Kaziranga National Park, Assam 24

Project Background

Enhancing Our Heritage: Managing and Monitoring for Success in Natural World Heritage Sites is an UNESCO – IUCN project funded by the United Nations Foundation (UNF). The six year project (2002-2007) is being implemented in nine world heritage sites located in Africa, South Asia and Latin America. The three project sites in South Asia are Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Kaziranga National Park, Assam and Chitwan National Park, Nepal. The Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun has been selected as a Regional Partner Institution to provide technical backstopping for project implementation in South Asia.

The principal objectives of the project are to promote the development of monitoring and evaluation systems and to facilitate adaptive management. Based on the lessons learnt, the project aims to enhance the periodic reporting process for the World Heritage Sites.

An initial management effectiveness evaluation as per the project methodology was carried out in Kaziranga National Park in the year 2002-03 and the findings and recommendations were presented in the World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa in September, 2003. Based on the recommendations made in this report, capacity building and monitoring initiatives were taken up in the sites between 2003 and 2007. The final management effectiveness evaluation was carried out from February, 2007 to November, 2007 and the results are presented in this report.

1 How the Evaluation was carried out

A number of stakeholder consultations and smaller meetings were held during the course of evaluation between February ’07 to November ’07.

The core team comprised of the following:

Site Officers : Mr. Buragohain, Director Mr. Utpal Bora, Divisional Forest Officer Mr. Rajendra Garawad, Assistant Conservator of Forest Mr. R. Sharma , Wild Life Research Officer Mr. Boro, Range Officer Assam Forest Department : Mr. M. C. Malakar Mr. B. S. Bonal

WII Scientist and Coordinators : Dr. V.B. Mathur Mr. B.C. Choudhary Mr. N. K. Vasu Civil Society Representative : Mr. Anwaruddin Choudhari Mr. Gautam Narayan

WII UNESCO Project Leaders : Mr. P.R. Sinha

Notes on the layout of the Report

For each of the six elements of the IUCN-WCPA framework viz. Context, Planning, Inputs, Process, Outputs and Outcomes the results of the final management effectiveness evaluation are presented in separate sub-sections. Key management issues and monitoring interventions are presented in 8 Boxes.

The Project Workbook and Tool Kits

The project workbook and worksheets were appropriately modified by the EoH Project Team, based on the lessons learnt during the project implementation across nine sites. The final Management Effectiveness Evaluation is based on these documents, which are available at project website http://www.enhancingheritage.net/docs_public.asp.

3 Section 1: Introduction

Kaziranga National Park (KNP) got inscription on the World Heritage list in the 9th Session of the World Heritage Committee on 6/12/1985. Kaziranga National Park, known worldwide for its success in the conservation of one horned Indian Rhinoceros, also provides habitat for a number of threatened species and migratory birds. A symbol of dedication for the conservation of wildlife and their habitat, Kaziranga, with a National Park status represents single largest established protected area within the North-east Brahamputra Valley (9A) Biogeographical Province (Rodgers et al 2002) that supports the wide range of flora from microscopic aquatic plants to lofty moist deciduous trees and fauna ranging from the soil invertebrates to mega fauna such as the Rhino and the elephant. Examples of riverine and fluvial processes representing the ongoing ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of the riverine flood plain ecosystems results from the annual flooding of mighty Brahmaputra River. In this regard, Kaziranga in the Brahmaputra valley floodplains offers an important refuge to a rich biological heritage. The landscape formed by complex of sprawling grasslands, numerous water bodies and woodlands provide an ideal mix of habitats for a variety of flora and fauna. With adequate protection and in-situ conservation efforts that date back to almost a century, the grasslands and the mega fauna have been able to sustain in such a manner that one of the largest assemblages of these can be seen today in the wild. Prominent among them are the charismatic ‘BIG FIVE’-The Great Indian One horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) The Asiatic Wild Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) The Asiatic Elephant (Elephas maximus), The Swamp deer, (Cervus duvauvceli ranjitsinghi),The Tiger (Panthera tigris). The area also falls at the junction of the Australasia and Indo-Asian flyway thus providing an important migrating, breeding and nesting site for over 480 species of avifauna and has been recognised as an Important Bird Area (IBA). Significant diversity in herpetofauna and other lesser- known life forms thus provide considerable Conservation, Research, Education and Recreation values. LOCATION: Kaziranga National Park located is situated in the civil districts of Golaghat and Nagaon in Assam State of India. Geographic Coordinates to the nearest second are : Centre point: N 260 40.246’ ; E 930 21.605’ North-west corner: N 260 35.026’ ; E 930 08.784’ South-east corner: N 260 41.518’ ; E 930 35.251’

Box 1: Kaziranga National Park ~ 100 Years of Success Story

• 1904 : Visit of Lady Curzon, wife of the then British Viceroy,

• June 01, 1905 : Proposal for Kaziranga Reserve Forest ( 57,273.6 acre).

• January 03, 1908 : Declared Kaziranga Reserve Forest (56,544 acres).

• January 28, 1913 : An area of 13,509 acres of R.F. added.

• November 10, 1916 : Declared as a Game Sanctuary.

• 1937 : Opened for Visitors

• 1950 : Renamed as Kaziranga Game Sanctuary.

• 1966 : First census of large mammals.

• February 11, 1974 : Renamed as Kaziranga National Park

• December 06, 1985 : Inscribed on the World Heritage Site.

• 2005 : Centenary Celebrations

Figure 1. Location Map of Kaziranga National Park, Assam

Management Effectiveness Assessment

Management effectiveness evaluation aims to help managers improve conservation and management practices. As part of the global UNESCO-IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage (EoH) project ‘Monitoring and Managing for Success in World and Managing for Success in World Natural Heritage Sites’, the Kaziranga National Park was included as one of three pilot sites in South Asia. The other two sites are Keoladeo National Park, Rajasthan and Chitwan National Park, Nepal. An Initial Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) as per the IUCN MEE Framework (see Box 2) was carried out in 2002-2003 and the findings were presented in the World Park Congress in Durban in 2003.

During the project implementation phase, the Project Workbook and Toolkit was revised and the Final Management Effectiveness is based on the revised version.

The Assessment Process

The final Management Effectiveness Evaluation in Kaziranga National Park has been conducted through a series of stakeholders’ consultations organized between February Box 2. IUCN-WCPA framework for 2007 and November 2007. The results of the evaluation are presented in the subsequent Management Effectiveness Evaluation sections.

7 Section 2: Context and Planning Assessment

The context assessment helps identify site values and threats and the context within which management occurs. This section identifies the values that make the site significant and provide a focus for management. It helps to identify linkages between the management objectives and the site values identified, and therefore, to identify gaps if any. Subsequently an assessment of current and potential threats is carried out. Planning assessment includes management planning – legal framework and tenure of site, design aspects of the PA. Design aspects include assessment of size and shape, connectivity, boundaries, inclusion of key habitats and adjacent land uses affect on ecological integrity, community well-being and site management.

Values of Kaziranga National Park

• Kaziranga National Park (859.42 km2) is situated in the flood plains of the Brahmaputra River and the entire area has been formed by silt deposition carried by the different river systems flowing through it. It is the largest undivided and representative protected area of Bramhaputra Valley flood plain grassland and forest habitats. The floristic composition of the Kaziranga National Park comprises of following forest types and biomes (Champion and Seth, 1968):

• Eastern Wet alluvial grasslands 4D / 2S2 • Assam Alluvial plains Semi-evergreen forests 2B/C1a • Tropical moist mixed deciduous forests 3C3 • Eastern Dillenia Swamp forests 4D/SS5 • Wetlands • Sandy “chaurs”

Area under different land cover types in Kaziranga Natioanl Park excluding additions and eroded area (Kushwaha, 1997)

Sl. No. Land Cover Type Area km2 % Area 1 Woodland 114.01 27.95 2 Short grass 12.30 3.01 3 Tall Grass 248.85 61.01 4 Beels 24.32 5.96 5 Jiya Daphlu 3.96 0.97 6 Mora Diphlu 2.84 0.70 7 Sand 1.62 0.40 Total 407.90 100.00

Biodiversity values:

Assemblage of rare, endangered, threatened flora and fauna :

• World’s largest population of The Great Indian One horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis),

• Significant populations of Asiatic Wild Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), Asiatic Elephant (Elephas maximus), Swamp deer, (Cervus duvauvceli ranjitsinghi), Tiger (Panthera tigris).

• Resident and migratory avifauna of over 490 species, junction of Australasia and Indo-Asian flyway, 25 globally threatened spp. including Bengal florican

9 Other natural values:

• Tropical floodplain grassland

• Functional ecological floodplain ecosystem

Cultural values:

• Unique secular worship of ‘Kakomai’-forest deity

• Unique lifestyle of Mishing, Karbi and other tribes

Economic Values:

• Employment generation for local people (Forest department and tourism related)

• Tourism revenue for Forest and Tourism Departments

Educational values:

• Education and research values about tropical biodiversity and ecological processes.

• Significant diversity in herpetofauna and other lesser-known life forms thus provide considerable Conservation, Research, Education and Recreation values.

Worksheet 1a for Tool 1: Identifying major site values

Is this a World List the major site values Information sources used for determining the values Heritage value?

Great Indian one horned rhinoceros Yes (ix) Nomination document and IUCN evaluation Management plan (2003-2013) + older mgmt plan

Yes (ix) Nomination document and IUCN evaluation Asiatic wild buffalo Management plan (2003-2013) + older mgmt plan Tiger Yes(ix) -do- Yes(ix) Biodiversity Eastern swamp deer Management plan Values Asiatic elephant Yes (ix) Management plan Bengal Florican Yes(ix) Management plan

Resident and migratory avifauna No * (includes 25 globally threatened spp.) Management plan and other publications reference Assemblage of rare, endangered, Yes(ix) threatened flora and fauna -do- Tropical floodplain grassland Yes (x) Management plan, Nomination document and IUCN evaluation Other Functional ecological floodplain Yes (x) Natural ecosystem -do- Values

11 Is this a World List the major site values Information sources used for determining the values Heritage value?

No Cultural Unique secular worship of ‘Kakomai’- Management plan and other popular publication Values forest deity

Unique lifestyle of Mishing, Karbi and No other tribes in the Zone of Influence Management plan and other documents

Employment generation for local people No Management Plan Economic Values Tourism revenue for the Forest and No Tourism Depts. Management Plan, Annual Plan of OperationsAPO

Considerable education and research No Educational values about tropical biodiversity and Management Plan Values ecological processes.

Ecodevelopment activities for the socio- No economic improvement of the villages Management Plan around the park provide tangible and Other Social non-tangible benefits Values

Recreation opportunities

Worksheet 1b for Tool 1: Documenting management objectives and their relationship to site values

The current Management Plan (2003-04 to 20012-13) has formulated management objectives for species, habitat requirements, research, recreation and resource dependence of communities.

Principal Management Objectives Major values that are related to this objective

To maintain and wherever necessary restore the demographic features relating to the populations of all endangered, endemic, vulnerable, rare species of animals and Biodiversity values plants with special focus on Rhino, Tiger and their habitat. To maintain and wherever necessary restore the physical integrity of the area Biodiversity and Other Natural values with special considerations to the flooding pattern. To enhance the quality of educational, recreational and wilderness experience Educational and recreational values given to the general public. To identify research priorities and implement such programmes to establish and create opportunities for enhancing management capabilities and knowledge of Educational values wildlife science Consistent with the above four objectives , in the zone of influence with sensitivity to cultural and economic well being of the communities and reduce the Economic and Cultural values dependence on forest based resources.

13 Worksheet for Tool 2: Identifying Threats

Current threats that Kaziranga National Park and the wildlife face include poaching, floods and infrastructure damage, disruption of connectivity to the Karbi Anglong Hills and anthropogenic pressures for resource(s). Potential threats include habitat degradation, upstream infrastructure development and pollution.

Threats to Biodiversity Values List Threats Is it a Current or Identify major sources of threat Impact of threat Management response Data source Potential Threat? Extent Severity Action Urgency of action List all Current threats are - Activities which are causing Indicate the extent of Indicate whether the Describe what Indicate as low (i.e. Record whether the important already taking place, destruction, degradation or other the value being, or threat will completely actions are planned management action assessment has been threats to the potential threats are negative impacts to the value likely to be, impacted, destroy the value or or have taken place is not urgent); made through expert value indicated known threats - Each threat has at least one, and may i.e. area, habitat type, cause only minor to manage the medium, high or very workshop or from at the top of which have not yet have several, sources. cultural value and changes and rate as threat high (i.e. immediate using the results of the table impacted the value rate as low; medium; low; medium; high or action is needed to monitoring or high or very high very high stop serious or research, etc. irreversible damage) Large High Management Plan Illegal International market. Poaching of Current (2003) and Workshop Rhinoceros Source(s) Poachers within the country or Large High Stringent anti- Very urgent region coupled with poor poaching actions are economic condition. taken (see Box 3). High mortality Current Medium Medium Artificial high Urgent Department Records and grounds have been infrastructure Source(s) High flood of River Brahmaputra built. Rescue and damage during rehabilitation works monsoon are done. Poaching of Potential Demand in illegal market Large Medium Regular anti Department Records Tiger Source(s) poaching actions are Poor livelihood conditions of taken. local communities Disruption of Current Source(s) Haphazard and extensive Entire stretch of High Action on eco- Urgent habitat settlements southern boundary sensitive Zone connectivities including designated initiated with adjoining Extensive stone quarrying, corridors with Karbi Medium forested areas illegal felling of trees, Anglong hills and along Urgent overexploitation of bamboo Bramhaputra. Sensitization of other line departments

Threats to Biodiversity Values

List Threats Is it a Current or Identify major sources of threat Impact of threat Management response Data source Potential Threat? Extent Severity Action Urgency of action List all Current threats are - Activities which are causing Indicate the extent of Indicate whether the Describe what Indicate as low (i.e. Record whether the important already taking place, destruction, degradation or other the value being, or threat will completely actions are planned management action assessment has been threats to the potential threats are negative impacts to the value likely to be, impacted, destroy the value or or have taken place is not urgent); made through expert value indicated known threats - Each threat has at least one, and may i.e. area, habitat type, cause only minor to manage the medium, high or very workshop or from at the top of which have not yet have several, sources. cultural value and changes and rate as threat high (i.e. immediate using the results of the table impacted the value rate as low; medium; low; medium; high or action is needed to monitoring or high or very high very high stop serious or research, etc. irreversible damage) Intermingling of Current Source(s) Cattle camps in the 6th addition Northern areas of the Medium Legal process for Very urgent Muley (2001) wild and area NP clearing of existing domestic cattle camps buffalo underway Illegal fishing Current Source(s) Fishing operations in the Confined to specific Medium Patrolling, protection Urgent adjacent areas localities and communication with concerned line agencies Habitat Current Medium Very severe Eradication and Very urgent (Kushwaha, 1997) degradation control measures (Vattakkavan et al., Exotic weeds, water hyacinth being taken (see 2002) Box 4). Biotic pressure in 6th Addition Medium Medium Legal proceedings Very urgent area are underway. Source(s) Medium Medium Removal of silt is Urgent See Box 4. undertaken on a Sedimentation of wetlands small scale (see Box 5. Livestock grazing in some fringe Restricted Medium Preventive action Urgent areas taken Overuse of short grass areas by Restricted High Detailed study Urgent wild buffalo. required Disruption of Potential Entire ecosystem Very severe Strategic Urgent annual flooding Construction of upstream mega Environment Source(s) cycles dams Assessment (SEA) is required Increased Potential Upstream effluent discharge by Entire ecosystem Medium Sensitization and Urgent The Department pollution of industrial units coordination with currently has no Source(s) Bramhaputra other scientific monitoring programme waters institutions

Threats to Biodiversity Values List Threats Is it a Current or Identify major sources of threat Impact of threat Management response Data source Potential Threat? Extent Severity Action Urgency of action List all Current threats are - Activities which are causing Indicate the extent of Indicate whether the Describe what Indicate as low (i.e. Record whether the important already taking place, destruction, degradation or other the value being, or threat will completely actions are planned management action assessment has been threats to the potential threats are negative impacts to the value likely to be, impacted, destroy the value or or have taken place is not urgent); made through expert value indicated known threats - Each threat has at least one, and may i.e. area, habitat type, cause only minor to manage the medium, high or very workshop or from at the top of which have not yet have several, sources. cultural value and changes and rate as threat high (i.e. immediate using the results of the table impacted the value rate as low; medium; low; medium; high or action is needed to monitoring or high or very high very high stop serious or research, etc. irreversible damage) In the Zone of Influence High Coordination with Urgent Census Data Changing Current Land alienation and other line agencies demographic Source(s) monetization of subsistence and economic economy profile Progressive Current In the Zone of Influence Medium Policy enabling Urgent Large scale hoteliers (no alienation of plough back of ploughing back of resources in local people certain share of Source(s) the community) from tourism profits required opportunities Lack of financial capabilities In the Zone of Influence Medium Develop micro Urgent and benefits among local villagers finance schemes Manifold Current Tourism Zone (four Severe Tourism policy Very Urgent Department Records increase in Unregulated and lopsided routes) formulation and Source(s) tourism vehicular traffic appropriate regulation of vehicles Tourism Zone (four Steps for Very urgent Lack of interpretation facility routes) interpretation services initiated

Box 3: Protection Strategy Poaching of rhinos is a significant threat to Kaziranga National Park. To address this issue the park has set up an intensive protection mechanism by way of extensive intelligence network, inter departmental coordination and establishment of a large number of antipoaching camps manned by highly dedicated frontline staff, which has helped to significantly curtail the poaching incidents (Figure 2). Kaziranga National Park has 125 anti poaching camps scattered throughout the park at strategic locations (Figure 3). Field camps are the mainstay of the protection activity in the park. The location of these camps is determined by considering the vulnerability of rhinoceros in the area. During last five years, the conditions of these camps have been improved and many have been reconstructed using support from various schemes of Govt. of India, Rhino60 and Elephant Conservation Projects from US Fish and Wildlife Service, Oil India etc.

48 44 45 44 40 40 37 35 33 30

Numbers 27 24 26 25 24 23 20 18

14 13 12 12 11 10 10 8 8 8 8 7 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 33 3 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Figure 2. Number of Rhinos Lost Due to Poaching Since 1965 (Source: KNP records)

The anti-poaching activities in Kaziranga National Park can be divided into three phases: Pre-entry: The main activity in this phase is proactive action that includes intelligence gathering on the activities of poachers in the vicinity of the park. The intelligence providers are usually local villagers or poachers turned informers. Efforts are also made by the park authorities to involve the local people in furnishing information on the movements of poachers through implementation Figure 3. Patrolling camps in Kaziranga National Park of ecodevelopment activities as well as through education and awareness drives in the fringe villages of the National Park. Post entry: This calls for reactive action, which denotes the activities undertaken by the staff to track down and apprehend the poachers inside the park, once such information has been received or evidences thereof have been found by the park authorities. Post exit: This is the investigative and prosecutive phase after the poachers escape from the park, after committing an offence inside the park. This phase mainly consists of co-ordination with other law-enforcing agencies like Police to keep track of the poachers and to nab them.

The Wireless Communication Network in the park has been recently upgraded through building partnerships with Aaranayak, a local NGO with support from David Shephard Wildlife Foundation, UK. All Fixed Stations and mobile handsets have been replaced by new Motorala equipment. New transport vehicles to increase mobility of the protection staff have been provided through schemes of the Government of India, four Maruty Gypsy vehicles by US Fish and Wildlife Service. As part of the UNESCO EoH Project a study on ‘Improving Protection and Capacity building requirements of staff’ was undertaken in the park. This study ((http://www.enhancingheritage.net/docs_public.asp) has recommended: (i) While the park’s legal boundaries have been well defined by various notifications (including the 6 additions to the park), a detailed survey and demarcation and fixing of boundary pillars is needed. (ii) A new range needs to be established with its full complement of staff to manage the park affairs in the sixth addition area (Brahmaputra river and chapories etc). An interactive session with the park staff resulted in their identification of the skills that they wished to acquire: These are (i) Handling firearms; (ii) Social interaction skills; (iii) Driving, swimming; (iv) Wireless system management; (v) Wildlife management; (vi) Language; (vii) First aid and (viii) Intelligence gathering. A focussed group discussion during the SWOT workshop on the staff’s expectations regarding welfare and amenities revealed the following: (i) Provide more facilities (uniform, housing, school etc) to staff; (ii) Improve roads in the park; (iii) Provide modern equipments including weapons and vehicles to staff for patrolling; (iv) Improve communication facilities; (v) Recruit more staff; (vi) Create good camps on boundary and (vii) Improve infrastructure like temporary roads, bridges etc. Under the new sponsored UNF-UNESCO ‘World Heritage Biodiversity Programme for India (WHBPI) (2007-11) measures to strengthen park infrastructure and to provide staff welfare amenities would be undertaken.

Box 4: Conservation of Beels for Waterbirds in Kaziranga National Park, Assam Waterbodies, locally called ‘beels’ in the Kaziranga National Park (KNP) are the most important refuges for water birds both resident and migratory. During 2005-2006, monitoring of various ‘beels’ in all the four ranges of KNP was initiated under UNESCO-IUCN Project ‘Enhancing Our Heritage’. The objective was to document water bird species richness, relative abundance and threats associated to these beels. In all, 34 beels were surveyed; 10 in Kohora Range (Central) i.e. Kathphora, Mihibeel, Navbhangi, Borbeel, Laodubi, Daphlang, Ajgor, Monabeel, Karasing and Sukhani were surveyed, 11 in Agratoli Range (Eastern) i.e. Sohola, Mohamari, Tinibeel, Bhalukmari, Rongamatia, Koladuar, Kilakili, Kapurkhosa, Borbeel, Amora, and Notun, 8 in Bagori Range (Western) 8 i.e. Donga, Raumari, Diphlumori, Moorphuloni, Ghorakati, Sapekati, Gendamari, and Bimoli, and 5 in Burapahar Range (further Western) i.e. Kotahi, Borguph, Tunikati, Baghbeel, and Jhaubeel. A total of 49 species of water birds were identified from all 34 beels with the most dominant species being Common Teal Anas crecca (1613), followed by Northern Pintail Anas acuta (1566), Bar- headed Goose Anser indicus (1000), Greylag Goose Anser anser (900), Gadwall Anas strepera (655) and Lesser Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna javanica (645) (See Annexure 1). Of these, 9 species are globally threatened; 2 Vulnerable i.e. Lesser Adjutant Stork Leptoptilos javanicus and Swamp Francolin Francolinus gularis and 7 Near-threatened i.e. Falcated Teal Anas falcata, Ferruginous Pochard Aythya Figure 4. Beels of Kaziranga National Park (1970-2001) nyroca, Black-necked Stork Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus, Oriental White Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus, Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis and Darter Anhinga melanogaster which took shelter in many of these beels.

The highest number of water bird species especially migratory was recorded from Agratoli (44 spp.) followed by Bagori (32 spp.), Burapahar (28 spp.) and Kohora (25 spp.) Ranges. From Agratoli Range, a maximum of 7862 water birds were recorded of which 5687 were counted from Sohola beel belonging to 31 species and 1158 from Bhalukmari beel of 15 species. From Kohora Range, a maximum of 2486 birds were recorded of which 512 from Navbhangi beel (13 spp.) and 410 from Mihibeel (8 spp.). From Bagori Range, about 2101 birds were recorded of which 678 from Gendamari (12 spp.) and 321 from Moorpholoni (24 spp.) beels. The Burapahar Range showed a maximum of 1497 water birds of which 978 were recorded at Tunikati (22 spp.) and 408 at Kotahi beels (6 spp.). Maximum number of water birds species were recorded from Sohola beel of Agratoli Range i.e. 31 followed by Moorpholoni and Donga beels of Bagori Range i.e. 24 and 22 respectively and 22 species from Tunikati beel from Burapahar Range. Of the 8 globally threatened water bird species recorded in the KNP, Bimoli beel of Bagori Range, and Sohola beel of Agratoli Range provide shelter to many of these IUCN Red listed species (Table 1). A pair of Falcated Teal, globally threatened species could only be observed at Baghbeel of Burapahar Range. A large rookery of Spot-billed Pelican (150 individuals, 60 nests) was located during December 2005 along Koladuar beel largely on Semul trees Bombax ceiba (Plate 1). Plate 1. Agratoli Range of Kaziranga National Park is an important Rookery of globally threatened Spot-billed Pelicans

Regular flooding in the KNP is important to make these beels free of water-hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes which otherwise choke the large extent of waterbodies and thereby adversely affecting activities of many water birds especially ducks (Plate 2). About 40% of beels surveyed were found infested with this weed. Another threat facing the beels is that they are becoming shallow and shallow year after year due to heavy load of silts and their size is decreasing and some are even disappearing (Plate 3).

Plate 2. Water hyacinth choking beel, a serious concern for Plate 3. Due to siltation and water hyacinth infestation many water migratory water birds birds are losing their habitats

S.No Name of Area Maximum Total Threatened S.No Name of Area Maximum Total Threatened Beel (approx) count species spp. Beel (approx) count species spp. km2 km2 1 Kathphora 0.15 78 15 3 18 Bimoli 0.3 98 17 6 2 Mihibeel 0.3 410 8 2 19 Sohola 7.5 5687 31 5 3 Navbhangi 1 512 13 4 20 Mohamari 0.375 53 12 1 4 Borbeel 10 248 8 2 21 Tinibeel 0.032 70 15 4 5 Laodubi 8 156 16 3 22 Bhalukmari 0.75 1158 15 3 6 Daphlang 0.3 52 9 2 23 Rongamatia 0.75 103 11 2 7 Ajgor 6 65 11 4 24 Koladuar 0.5 10 3 1 8 Monabeel 6 150 16 3 25 Kilakili 1 305 9 2 9 Karasing 0.6 251 18 3 26 Kapurkhosa 0.45 101 14 2 10 Sukhani 6 564 17 4 27 Borbeel 0.5 306 16 3 11 Donga 1 254 22 4 28 Amora 1 30 10 1 12 Raumari 3 191 15 2 29 Notun 3.75 39 13 1 13 Diphlumori 0.8 199 14 1 30 Kotahi 0.75 408 6 0 14 Moorphuloni 1 321 24 4 31 Borguph 1.5 4 3 0 15 Ghorakati 0.075 104 8 2 32 Tunikati 1.8 978 22 3 16 Sapekati 4 256 12 3 33 Baghbeel 0.4 97 13 2 17 Gendamari 0.25 678 12 3 34 Jhaubeel 0.04 10 6 2

Table1. Characteristics of various beels monitored during 2005-2006 in Kaziranga National Park for waterbirds.

Box 5: Management of Invasive Species in Kaziranga National Park, Assam The grasslands of Kaziranga are threatened by a number of plant invasive species, prominent among them are: Mimosa invisia (thorny) and Mimosa invisia inermis (thornless). A native of Brazil, this plant was introduced into tea gardens in the late 1960s for fixing atmospheric nitrogen and was first detected at KNP in 1987. It is an erect, climbing shrub, biennial or perennial depending on the climate, often forming dense thickets, strong root systems and often becoming woody at the base, stem and branches with many recurved spines or thorns. The negative impacts of Mimosa proliferation are: (a) Grasslands are being invaded by Mimosa out-competing existing plants, causing substantial loss of the prime short grassland habitats. (b) Mimosa hampers free movement of the wild animals especially smaller herbivores like barking and hog deer. (c) Indications are that Mimosin, a non-protein amino acid in Mimosa is hazardous to animals and hence could harm rhinos and other herbivores when ingested. The Wildlife Institute of India provided technical support in spatial mapping of the outcomes of a survey that was conducted by Wildlife Trust of India in 2003 in collaboration with the Assam Forest Department and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) to study various aspects of

Mimosa distribution and extent of area infested Figure 5. GIS Locations of Mimosa patch in (http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/html/reports/reports.htm). Mimosa was Kaziranga National Park, Assam observed to be distributed more along the boundaries of Kaziranga National Park. The survey determined that due to the prompt action of the park authorities, assisted by WTI and IFAW, the extent of Mimosa in the park was limited to about 0.5 per cent (2.13 km2) within the tall grassland areas while the weed had not yet taken root in the short grassland areas (which is one of the main food sources for megaherbivores of the park). Of the four Ranges of the park, the study observed that Baguri Range was the most infested (58 per cent of the total infested area), followed by Kohora (39 per cent) and Agratoli (3 per cent) and priority action (effort, time and funds) for control measures was needed in the Baguri Range. The seedling germination density was the highest in Baguri with 55 seedlings/m2, Kohora with 20 seedlings/m2 and Agratoli with 12 seedlings/m2.

The following measures have been suggested for aiding in the eradication of Mimosa from KNP: (a) The Mimosa control measures should be carried on annually for at least three years continuously to ensure complete eradication from the park. (b) The plant should be completely uprooted and not cut at the base and this has to be followed by burning to achieve the best results. (c) Eradication should be done twice a year: once in October - November and early December before the seeds are mature and once in May-June, when young regenerated plants carpet the ground. (d) An integrated management plan involving biological control, herbicide application, mechanical removal, controlled burning and pasture management should be put in place to ensure that further infestation does not occur from the tea gardens and that complete eradication is achieved in the Park. (e) A targeted awareness campaign should be conducted among tea- related organizations and other planter's bodies to educate Plate 4. Mimosa control measures them about the menace of Mimosa. (f) Interruptions in the control program to be avoided, since this allows Mimosa to recover from the past treatment.

25 Worksheet 3a for Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholders/Partners

The major stakeholders identified and issues pertaining to each of these are listed below

Department of Environment and Forest • Conservation of biodiversity through protection and other management practices • Effective management interventions leading to enhanced biodiversity values • Positive image enhancement, showcasing replicable conservation management capabilities • Generation of skilled and motivated staff

Local people • Emotional attachment to conservation success of Kaziranga. • Resource dependency (fishing) leading to disturbance • Denial of traditional access to resources • Less poaching through information to the management helps enhancement of biodiversity values • Employment opportunities and added income for fringe area communities • Enhanced awareness about wildlife

Other government agencies • Policy formulation and liaison with forest dept. and direct/indirect involvement in various conservation measures • Linear infrastructure development (potential threat), Road widening (potential impact) • Information sharing, antipoaching, • Flood monitoring and control thereby aiding conservation.

Educational Institutions • Education and research opportunities and study tours from universities, colleges and schools • Generation of data about biodiversity values • Positive social influence

UNESCO & other International Agencies • Help enhance management capabilities • Maintaining site integrity for protecting outstanding universal values • Augmentation of infrastructure and training • Capacity building for management

NGOs • Conservation of biodiversity through research, help to management to fill the gaps etc. • Community awareness initiatives • Advocacy on larger environmental issues • Assistance in improvement of infrastructure and training of personnel • Formal and informal, issue specific participation

Tourist and wildlife lovers • Wildlife conservation awareness, Increased conservation awareness and public support for the site • Provision of recreational and educational opportunities.

27 Worksheet 3a for Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholder/Partners

Major Values: Biodiversity

Department of Other Educational UNESCO & NGOs Tourist and Environment Local people government Institutions other wildlife Name of Stakeholder and Forest agencies International lovers Agencies. Conservation of Emotional Policy Education Maintaining site Conservation of Wildlife biodiversity attachment to formulation and integrity for biodiversity through viewing through conservation and Liason research protecting research, help to opportunities protection and success of the with forest opportunities outstanding management to fill and visitor other biodiversity. dept. and (study tours universal values. the gaps etc. experience Main issues management direct/indirect and Capacity Community associated with this practices involvement in academic building for awareness initiatives. stakeholder various curriculum management Advocacy on larger conservation activities in environmental issues measures universities, colleges and schools) Considerable. Negligible - - Ecotourism initiatives Wildlife Economic Substantial except for being developed by photography, dependency tourism dept. select NGOs. videography and nature guides

Understanding Stakeholders Resource Linear None None NGOs with vested Littering, None dependency infrastructure interests cause irresponsible List negative impacts (fishing, development conflicts through behaviour of stakeholders on site poaching) (potential misinformation leading to threat), campaigns disturbance and degradation

Department of Other Educational UNESCO & NGOs Tourist and Environment Local people government Institutions other wildlife Name of Stakeholder and Forest agencies International lovers Agencies. List negative impacts None Denial of None None None None None of site management traditional on stakeholders access to resources Less poaching Information Generation augmentation of Assistance in Increased Effective through sharing, of data infrastructure improvement of conservation management information to antipoaching, about and training infrastructure and awareness interventions the flood control biodiversity training of personnel and public List positive impacts of leading to management thereby aiding values. support for stakeholders on site enhanced helps conservation. the site biodiversity enhancement of values biodiversity values. Positive image Employment Building Provision of Supporting Supporting of NGO Provision of enhancement. opportunities partnership for suitable UNESCO’s initiatives for recreational Showcasing and added management. education initiatives for WH conservation through and List positive impacts of replicable income for and conservation involvement in educational site management on conservation fringe area research through management opportunities. stakeholders management communities. opportunities reporting and interventions Wildlife capabilities. Enhanced other conservation Generation of awareness requirement awareness skilled and about wildlife motivated staff. Very much Willing Considerabl Willing and Willing and capable Willing Willingness/capacity Obligate and willing e capacity capable (directly in specific aspects of stakeholders to dedicated exists. and through engage with site advisory bodies) management

29 Department of Other Educational UNESCO & NGOs Tourist and Environment Local people government Institutions other wildlife Name of Stakeholder and Forest agencies International lovers Agencies. Willingness/capacity Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes of site management to engage with stakeholders Not applicable Varying Not applicable Positive Not applicable Issue specific Favourable according to social Favourable and Political/Social specific influence considerable influence situation

Well organised Not organised Organised Organised Well organised Organised Not organised Organisation of

stakeholders

All aspects of site Informal and Formal and Formal in Formal for Formal and informal, Informal to a management are formally in specific: Anti- varying enhanced issue specific large extent What opportunities do contributed to by varying degrees poaching, degree management participation stakeholders have to the stakeholder. for anti- flood relevant data capacity. contribute to Formal and poaching, flood management, and management? comprehensive management, tourism information tourism generation. Moderate Moderate Low Moderate High Negligible What is the level of Assessment of Assessment engagement of the Very high stakeholder? Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholder Engagement Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Poor Describe the overall

adequacy of Very Good stakeholder

engagement

Summary

Department of Other Educational UNESCO & NGOs Tourist and Environment Local people government Institutions other wildlife Name of Stakeholder and Forest agencies International lovers Agencies. Very Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Poor Rate the overall adequacy of stakeholder engagement, as Rating either very good; good; fair or poor

Major Values: Other Natural Values Department of Local people Other Educational UNESCO & NGOs Tourist and Environment government Institute other wildlife Name of Stakeholder and Forest agencies International lovers Agencies. Main issues Protection Not specific Not specific Education Help to Research, help to associated with this and management to management to fill stakeholder Research fill the gaps etc. the gaps etc. Considerable. None None None None Medium Economic dependency Substantial

None Road None None None Resource List negative impacts None widening Degradation of stakeholders on site (potential

impact) List negative impacts None Some people None None None None None of site management on are residing in th

Understanding Stakeholders stakeholders 6 Addition areas.

31 Department of Local people Other Educational UNESCO & NGOs Tourist and Environment government Institute other wildlife Name of Stakeholder and Forest agencies International lovers Agencies. Less poaching Information Generation of Enhancement of Enhancement of Enhancing the High level of through sharing, data about management management profile of the protection. information to antipoaching, biodiversity capability. capability. park List positive impacts the flood control values of stakeholders on site management thereby aiding conservation. Good model of Enhanced Information Good site for Good model for Good model for park- High visitor List positive impacts park awareness sharing research and WHS public partnership satisfaction of site management on management about wildlife. particularly education management stakeholders with law enforcement agencies Willingness/capacity of Very much Capable Considerable Sufficient Sufficient Yes stakeholders to Obligate willing capacity engage with site exists. management Willingness/capacity of Obligate Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes site management to engage with stakeholders Considerable Considerable Considerable Political/Social influence -

Not organised Organised Well Well organised Well organised Reasonably Organisation of Well organised (scope for organised organised stakeholders coordination)

Department of Local people Other Educational UNESCO & NGOs Tourist and Environment government Institute other wildlife Name of Stakeholder and Forest agencies International lovers Agencies. Anti-poaching, Information Management Enhance Enhance - What opportunities do flood sharing, Anti- relevant data management management stakeholders have to - management, poaching, and capacity. capacity. Awareness contribute to tourism flood information generation. management? management generation. High Moderate High High High Moderate What is the level of Stakeholder Engagement engagement of the Very high Assessment of Assessment stakeholder?

Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Describe the overall adequacy of Adequate stakeholder engagement Summary

Very Good Good Fair Fair Good Good Fair Rate the overall adequacy of stakeholder engagement, as Rating either very good; good; fair or poor

33 Worksheet 3b for Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholders/Partners - Summary Table

Department Local people Other Educational UNESCO & NGOs Tourist and Overall Stakeholder of government Institute other wildlife Major Values Engagement for Environment agencies International lovers major values and Forest Agencies. Department of Local people Other Educational UNESCO & NGOs Tourist and Name of Environment Government Institute other wildlife stakeholder and Forest Agencies International lovers Agencies. Biodiversity Very Good Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Other Natural Very Good Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Values Overall Engagement Very Good Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good of the Stakeholder

Worksheet for Tool 4: Review of National Context

India has enacted several legislations to deal with the conservation of biodiversity and management of wildlife and protected areas. The Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act was enacted in 1972 and has been amended by the Indian Parliament from time to time in response to the changing scenario of conservation at the field and country level. India has also enacted the Biodiversity Act in 2002 and has also formulated the National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016). India now has four categories of Protected Areas viz., National Park, Wildlife Sanctuary, Conservation Reserve and Community Reserve. The process of gazettment of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries has been clearly outlined in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

India now has a network of Protected Areas comprising 96 National Parks and 510 Wildlife Sanctuaries covering 4.77% of the geographical area of the country. India has also developed a “Biogeographical Classification of India” which provides the framework for establishment of Protected Areas on a biogeographically representative basis. At the apex level, there is a National Board of Wildlife (NBWL) which is chaired by the Prime Minister of India and has adequate representation from Government Agencies and Civil Society representatives. Similarly, at the State level there are State Wildlife Advisory Boards chaired by the Chief Ministers, which provide the necessary policy guidance on wildlife matters.

The Government of India as well as the State Governments are committed to conserve the rich biological heritage of the country. A countrywide effort is now on to involve stakeholders particularly local communities in the conservation and management of wildlife and protected areas in the country. Several non governmental and civil society institutions and individuals are now working together with the PA management and are also operating their own programmes for conservation of biodiversity.

Criteria Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations/Comments World Heritage Site Wildlife (Protection) Act together other forest The Act is robust, no Punishment terms may be made and protected area and environment acts of India provide a very significant weaknesses are more stringent legislation strong base for conservation of overall wildlife mentionable. values. [Adequate, useful, Yes]

Conservation within There is a separate department at State level Some policies of local self Suitable amendments required to broader government and separate ministry at national level. government(LSG) contradict LSG policy/practices policy Attempts to integrate conservation within the conservation broader government policy policy/practices

35 Criteria Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations/Comments International Government of India is a signatory to almost None Increased awareness on CITES, conservation all international conventions like CITES, CBD WH convention conventions and etc. Awareness of the WH status among all treaties stakeholders is a matter of prestige Government support Government support is substantial but scope Inconsistency in support Comprehensive support on a for the World for enhancing support for effective Delay in release of funds at sustained basis needs to be Heritage site management of the site exists the State level. maintained National Protected Engagement is satisfactory. Centrally Site visits by Central Streamlining of Central and State Area Agency and the Sponsored Schemes provide adequate agencies infrequent Govt resource provision. World Heritage site support.

Section 3: Planning

Worksheet 5a for Tool 5: Management Planning Information Sheet

Year of Level of Year preparation, approval of specified likely Name of plan the plan for next Comments completion or (L,G,A, review of most recent S/A,D)* plan review Kaziranga National Park G 2002 2009 Serious attempts to consider conservation concerns in the Management Plan (2003- larger development strategies need to be made 2013)

L= plan has force of law (usually has been approved by G= plan has been approved at the government level but A= plan has been approved at Head of Agency level the Parliament or legal instrument) is not a legal instrument S/A= plan has been approved at a senior level within D= plan is a draft and has not been formally approved. the Agency

37 Worksheet 5b for Tool 5: Adequacy of Primary Planning Document

The current management plan clearly articulates the need for managing wildlife species populations and habitat through its objectives and theme plans and prescriptions that together give the desired future conditions of the populations and their habitat. A mid term review of the Plan is expected to be undertaken in 2009 that will enable stock taking and opportunities for course corrections. Though wider consultations with the stakeholders was not made during plan preparation, the needs and requirements of local communities have been kept into consideration throughout. The plan being the first one prepared on the basis of the Management Plan preparation guidelines provides a clear basis for developing work programmes and budgets within the various theme plans that have been put forth.

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps Decision making framework 1. Does the plan establish a Desired future is explicitly articulated as a VG Will be considered at the clear understanding of the decision making reference point time of review. desired future for the site? (i.e. Desired future is reasonably articulated G describes the desired Desired future is not clearly articulated but is F outcomes of management in implied or can be inferred from plan objectives terms that provides a guide to Plan focuses more on present issues and P management and decision actions and doesn’t indicate a desired future for making by site managers) the site 2. Does the plan express the Desired future is expressed in a way that VG De-sedimentation of Will be considered at the desired future for the site so provides clear guidance for addressing new wetlands, plan for time of review that it can assist management issues and opportunities addition areas, of new issues and Desired future is expressed in a way that gives G ecodevelopment plan, opportunities that arise during some guidance for addressing new issues and tourism plan etc provide the life of the plan? opportunities guidance about future Desired future is not clearly articulated and F implied from the provides only limited guidance for addressing objectives. new threats and opportunities The plan focuses more on present issues and P actions and doesn’t indicate any desired future for the site

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps 3. Does the plan provide for a Plan provides a clear, explicit and appropriate VG - Will be considered at the process of monitoring, review process for monitoring, review and adjustment time of review and adjustment during the life Provisions for monitoring, review and G of the plan? adjustment of the plan are present but are incomplete, unclear or inappropriate in some minor respects

Need for monitoring, review and adjustment is F recognised but is not dealt with in sufficient detail

Plan does not address the need for monitoring, P review and adjustment

Planning context 4. Does the plan provide an Policy requirements for the site are identified VG Policy requirement Will be considered at the adequate and appropriate and adequate and appropriate policies are about total integration of time of review. policy environment for established with clear linkages to the desired the additional areas are management of the World future for the site not adequate. Heritage site? Policy requirements for the site are identified G and policies are largely adequate and appropriate although there are gaps

Policies in the plan are inadequate or F incomplete in many respects

Plan either doesn’t establish policies for the P area or the policies are inadequate or inappropriate in major respects

39 Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps 5. Is the plan integrated/linked Relevant national, regional and sectoral plans VG Industrialization in the to other significant that affect the site are identified and specific vicinity of the site, national/regional/sectoral mechanisms are included to provide for development of roads & plans that influence integration or linkage now and in the future agriculture etc. are management of the World Relevant national, regional and sectoral plans G important issues that need Heritage site? that affect the site are identified, their influence harmonization and on the site is taken into account but there is little integration with PA attempt at integration management Some relevant national, regional and sectoral F plans are identified but there is no attempt at integration No account is taken of other plans affecting the P site Plan Content 6. Is the plan based on an The information base for the plan is up to date VG Data on effect of flood, Improvement of adequate and relevant and adequate in scope and depth and is erosion, controlled information base is a information base? matched to the major decisions, policies and burning, sedimentation, priority with site issues addressed in the plan etc are largely management and this The information base is adequate in scope and G experience based and issue is being attended. depth but maybe a little out dated and/or lack strong scientific contain irrelevant information (i.e. a broad backing. compilation of data rather than matching information to the decisions, policies and issues addressed in the plan) The information base is out of date and/or has F inadequacies in scope or depth so that some issues, decisions or policies cannot be placed into context Very little information relevant to plan decisions P is presented

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps 7. Have the values for the site The site values have been clearly identified and VG been identified in the plan and linked to well defined management objectives linked to the management and desired outcomes for the site. objectives and desired The site values have been reasonably identified G outcomes for the site? and linked to management objectives and desired outcomes for the site. The site values have not been clearly identified F or linked to management objectives and desired outcomes for the site. The site values have not been identified. P 8. Does the plan address the Plan identifies primary issues for the site and VG Conservation of eastern Periodic monitoring primary issues facing deals with them within the context of the desired Swamp deer, Bengal protocols and plans are management of the World future for the site (i.e. plan is outcome rather florican etc have not incorporated. Heritage Area within the than issues driven) been adequately context of the desired future of Plan identifies primary issues for the site but G addressed. the site? tends to deal with them in isolation or out of context of the desired future for the site Some significant issues for the site are not F addressed in the plan or the issues are not adequately addressed Many significant issues are not addressed or P are inadequately dealt with in the plan 9. Are the objectives and Objectives and actions are adequate and VG actions specified in the plan appropriate for all issues represented as adequate and Objectives and actions are adequate and G appropriate response to the appropriate for most issues issues? Objectives and actions are frequently F inadequate or inappropriate Objectives and actions in the plan do not P represent an adequate or appropriate response to the primary issues

41 Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps 10. “Were local and Local and indigenous communities living in or VG Will be considered at the indigenous communities living around the WHS were meaningfully and fully time of review in or around the WHS involved involved in developing the management plan in developing the management and setting direction for the WHS plan and setting direction for Local and indigenous communities living in or G the management of the WHS? around the WHS were fairly meaningfully and partly involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the WHS Local and indigenous communities living in or F around the WHS were only minimally involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the WHS Local and indigenous communities living in or P around the WHS were not involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the WHS 11. Does the plan take Plan identifies the needs and interests of local VG Many of the needs Will be considered at the account of the needs and and indigenous communities and has taken (forest related) of local time of review. interests of local and these into account in decision making people are not indigenous communities living Plan identifies the needs and interests of local G compatible with in or around the World and indigenous communities but it is not prevalent laws. Heritage site? apparent that these have been into account in decision making There is limited attention given to the needs and F interests of local and indigenous communities and little account taken of these in decision making No apparent attention has been given to the P needs and interests of local and indigenous communities

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps 12. Does the plan take Plan identifies the needs and interests of other VG Though the needs are Will be considered at the account of the needs and stakeholders and has taken these into account not clearly identified, time of review. interests of other stakeholders in decision making park management involved in the World Heritage always gives site? considerable attention to Plan identifies the needs and interests of other G the needs of stake stakeholders but it is not apparent that these holders. Needs of have been into account in decision making visitors and local people There is limited attention given to the needs and F etc are clearly interests of other stakeholders and little account mentioned in Tourism taken of these in decision making and eco development No apparent attention has been given to the P sub-plan needs and interests of other stakeholders 13. Does the plan provide Management actions specified in the plan can VG adequate direction on be clearly understood and provide a useful management actions that basis for developing operational plans such as should be undertaken in the work programmes and budgets World Heritage site? Management actions specified in the plan can G generally be clearly understood and provide an adequate basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets Management actions are sometimes unclear or F lacking in specificity making it difficult to use the plan as a basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

Management actions are unclear or lacking in P specificity making it very difficult to use the plan as a basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

14. Does the plan identify the Clear priorities are indicated within the plan in a VG priorities amongst strategies way that supports work programming and and actions in a way that allocation of resources

43 Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps facilitates work programming Priorities are generally indicated making their G and allocation of resources? use for work programming and resource allocation adequate most of the time Priorities are not clearly indicated but may be F inferred for work programming and resource allocation There is no indication of priorities in the plan so P that the plan cannot be used for work programming and resource allocation

Worksheet for Tool 6: Design Assessment

Kaziranga provides an entire range of habitat from the floodplains to grassland to hill evergreen forest communities and is the largest patch within the Brahmaputra floodplains. The site is intact enough to provide long term security to all range dependent species that cannot survive outside the protected area. Also the species populations especially in the case of focal species are fairly large with functional food webs and micro habitat availability. However, the annual flooding pattern, animal movement to higher areas towards the Karbi- Anglong hills to south and provision of safe corridors have been an area of concern. The presence of the Highway (NH 37) along the southern boundary, villages and tea gardens to the south and east impact the ecological integrity of the park adversely. These influences are being addressed through several measures such as additions to park areas along the Highway to enable connectivity with the Karbi Anglong Hills, ecodevelopment and awareness generation and special emphasis on anti-poaching camps and patrolling. The Sixth addition area to the north along the Brahmaputra has added a considerable area to the park compensating for the reduction caused by bank erosion.

Ecological integrity

Biodiversity and Other Natural Values:

• Great Indian one horned rhinoceros • Tiger • Eastern swamp deer • Asiatic elephant • Bengal Florican • Resident and migratory avifauna • Assemblage of rare, endangered, threatened flora and fauna • Ongoing ecological process relating to dynamic floodplain activity

Design Strengths of World Heritage site Weaknesses of World Heritage site design in relation to Comments and management aspect design in relation to this aspect this aspect action to be taken if required Very functional tropical flood plain which Adjacent high grounds which provide key alternate habitat Key habitats make complex with deciduous-semi for some important wildlife are out side the site jurisdiction.

evergreen hill forest make the site as very

good habitat for diverse flora and fauna. Size Kaziranga National Park with its addition Few very important adjacent high grounds are outside the areas is sufficiently large. (859.42 km2) site jurisdiction.

Adjacent high ground are sparsely Fringe area of the site is densely populated and most of the Regular livestock immunization populated and under forest. Karbi areas are under cultivation with considerable livestock programmes are taken by the site Anglong WLS population. Moreover, several tea gardens situated in the management. Judicial intervention External vicinity of the site pose potential threat of pesticide effects. is required to vacate the interactions Existing Chapories in 6th addition are good habitat but have occupation in 6th addition areas.

been affected by domestic cattle KNP has recently been included in the Tiger Reserve Network (see Box 6). There are few corridors exists which are High human population around the corridor is major stress Regular awareness programmes Connectivity well marked. for management. are organized by the management.

Box 6: Declaration of Kaziranga Tiger Reserve in 2007

The Government of Assam declared the Kaziranga National Park along with Laokhowa Wildlife Sanctuary, Burachapori Wildlife Sanctuary, the six additions to Kaziranga National Park and adjoining Kukurakata, Bagser and Panbari Reserved Forests as a single conservation unit. After ‘in principle’ agreement to the proposal by the National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India due notification in the Assam Gazette dated 3rd August 2007, Kaziranga Tiger Reserve became the 29th Tiger Reserve of the country. Kaziranga is also a part of the Kaziranga - Meghalaya TCU (16) forms the integral part of a contiguous habitat of 18984 km2 (Wicramanayake et al 1998).

• Satellite imageries show contiguous forest patch from Kaziranga to Karbi- Anglong District to Golaghat Division [Garampani Wildlife Sanctuary & Nambar Wildlife Sanctuary]

• Corridors at Panbari, Kukarata and Haldibari to enter Karbi Anglong.

• Rhino distributed in a constricted grassland habitat vis a vis tiger which has greater home range and adaptability.

Landscape level conservation is possible as per TCU delineation, if restoration of contiguous habitat is done. This will facilitate interaction with tiger populations of Golaghat and Nameri - Pakke Tiger Reserve.

While the management of Kaziranga has been ‘rhino centric’ due emphasis will be given to tigers as they occur in relatively high density (16.8 tigers / 100 km2) (Karanth and Nichols 1998). With the inclusion of Kaziranga and adjoining forested areas as a Tiger Reserve, management of the entire assemblage of herbivores will receive a boost. Addressing the issues outside the Kaziranga National Park as part of the Tiger Reserve will help in maintaining the long term integrity of this World Heritage Site. The need for adopting landscape level conservation approach for maintaining the world heritage values of Kaziranga has also been highlighted in the UNESCO-EoH Project Team Paper “Opportunities and Challenges for Kaziranga National Park, Assam over the next Fifty Years” (http://www.enhancingheritage.net/docs_public.asp).

Community well-being

Cultural, economic, educational and other social values and other community/site issues relating to the wellbeing of the community are:

• Unique ‘Kakomai puja’ • Unique lifestyle of Karbi and Mishing tribes • Education, research and recreation opportunities • Reservoir of food and medicinal plant and breeding ground of fishes.

Strengths of World Heritage site Weaknesses of World Heritage site Comments and management Design aspect design in relation to this aspect design in relation to this aspect action to be taken if required During flood local wetlands outside the Illegal fishing and collection of food and Regular deterrent actions and Key area site are replenished with fishes which medicinal plant in some area by the awareness campaign are acts a major sources of protein. local people. organized. Massive ecodevelopment drive is necessary.

Size The site is compact with no human Nil habitation inside the park

Tourism provides inflow of new ideas Yet to be apparent Impacts of foreign visitors may be External and opportunities for local communities. assessed through a interactions comprehensive socio-economic

survey Legal status Wildlife (protection) Act provides a Lack of clarity and disobedience to wild and tenure strong basis. life laws is a problem.

47 Management factors

Issues related to legal status, access, and boundary issues with neighbours:

• Protection of biodiversity • Habitat preservation and improvement • Livestock grazing control • Weed eradication • Grassland management • Animal health • Man animal conflict

Access points Very few access point. Interior areas Existing legal waterways close to the 6th Separate administrative unit is are connected for management addition areas may provide entry points required for complete control over operations. into the park the area. Neighbours Northern and Western side is marked Southern boundary is common with by natural features. villages in major part without any buffer area in between

Section 4: Inputs and Process Assessment

Worksheet 7a for Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs for Staff

While six personnel have finished formal training in terms of the PG Diploma and Certificate courses in Wildlife Management offered by the Wildlife Institute of India, the rest of the staff have been trained on the job with extensive field experience available to the management. The training requirements for staff includes census techniques, wildlife offence and forensics, GIS and ecodevelopment (See Box 3),

Level of Training Required Current No. of Type of training Comments/ Staff category Location no. of no. of trained Poor Fair Good Very required Responses staff staff staff good Director Bokakhat 1 1 1 - Good Divisional Bokakhat 1 1 1 - Good Forest Officer Supporting Bokakhat 4 4 3 - Good officer at Division Head Quarter

Field Officer Field HQ 7 7 1 Wildlife Good (Range) management

Supporting Field staff

Post Sanctioned Available Total Vacancy Post Sanctioned Available Total Vacancy DCF/ FVO/ WLRO/ ACF 5 5 -- DR/ O.Peon 7 6 1 F. Ranger 7 6 1 Chdr./ G.M. 11 6 5 Dy. Ranger 7 7 -- Paniwalla 1 1 - Game Keeper 3 2 1 Khansama 2 -- 2 Forester-I 45 37 8 Hd. Asstt. 1 -- 1 Forester-II 19 6 13 Accountant 1 - 1 Hd. G/Watcher 3 2 1 RCIA 1 - 1 Fgd/G.W. 270 217 53 U.D.Asstt. 3 -- 3 Boatman 63 58 5 LDA/R.Asstt. 7 7 --- Hd. Mahout 1 - 1 St. Asstt. 1 1 - Mahout 34 29 5 R.Keeper 1 1 - Grass Cutter 34 13 21 Sweeper 3 -- 3 Tractor Driver 2 2 - Mali 3 2 1 Driver 15 10 5 Vety. F.Asstt. 1 - 1 MLD 6 3 3 Handiman 1 - 1 RT/Electrician 2 2 - Total 562 421 141

Worksheet 7b for Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs for Budget (2006-07)

The worksheet presents budgetary requirements for the heads of action given by the Management Plan (2003-2013).

Expenditure category Budget required (Rs.) Actual budget available (Rs.) Funding source(s) Comments

Control of Poaching 16780000 1710000 Centre and State Government Measures during Flood 4510000 300000 --do-- Habitat Interventions 280000 409800 --do-- Infrastructure Development 19950000 900000 --do-- Boundary Demarcation 100000 0 --do-- Departmental Elephants 3000000 300000 --do-- MIS 1000000 0 --do-- Research 2800000 0 --do-- Livestock Immunisation 500000 145000 --do-- Man Animal Conflict 3150000 60000 --do-- Tourism 3100000 50000 --do-- Staff Amenities 10100000 0 --do-- Ecodevelopment 6200000 240000 --do-- Training 700000 0 --do-- Education and Awareness 500000 0 --do--

51 Section 5: Assessment of Management Process

The management processes adopted for the site flow from the Management Plan (2003-2013) that follows the prescriptions and design form the Management Plan Manual (Sawarkar 2004). The plan objectives are devised keeping in mind the focal species, key habitat elements, research and recreation and the anthropogenic influences from the fringe village populations. The process of management activity is undertaken on the basis of the Annual Plan of Operation (APO) that provides details of the budgetary heads and activities identified and the quantum of work and resources requisitioned from the Federal and State Governments under several funding schemes. The plan has been approved by due process and is being implemented. Due to problems of funds shortfall some of the activities are partially undertaken as also some contingencies do require immediate measures that may decrease the funds available for plan activities. There are eleven theme plans that detail out activities relating to poaching, flood season measures, grazing and other biotic disturbances control, weed control, ranging patterns of wild animals, wetland management, grassland management, erosion, animal health surveillance, man-animal coexistence and infrastructure and communication.

Worksheet 8a for Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Management Structures and Systems 1. World Heritage The World Heritage site has agreed and documented values Very good values and the management objectives fully reflect them The World Heritage site has agreed and documented values, Good Have values been but these are only partially reflected in the management identified and are objectives these linked to The World Heritage site has agreed and documented values, Fair management but these are not reflected in the management objectives objectives? No values have been agreed for the World Heritage site Poor

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps 2. Management An approved management plan exists and is being fully Very good Kaziranga NP planning implemented management plan An approved management plan exists but it is only being Good (2003-04 to 20012-13) Is there a plan and is partially implemented because of funding constraints or other is a Government it being implemented? problems approved document and A plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not Fair being implemented. But being implemented due to fund problems some of the activities There is no plan for managing the World Heritage site Poor are partially taken.

3. Planning systems Planning and decision making processes are excellent Very good Considerable opportunities for Are the planning adjacent landholders There are some planning and decision making processes in Good systems appropriate and stakeholders to place but they could be better, either in terms of improved i.e. participation, influence management processes or actions completed consultation, review planning; and details of and updating? There are some planning and decision making processes in Fair the schedule and place but they are either inadequate or they are not carried process for periodic out review and updating of Planning and decision making processes are deficient in Poor the management plan most aspects exists.

4. Regular work plans Regular work plans exist, actions are monitored against Very good Every year Annual Plan planned targets and most or all prescribed activities are of Operation (APO) is Are there annual work completed prepared with the help plans or other Regular work plans exist and actions are monitored against Good of Management plan. planning tools? planned targets, but many activities are not completed Regular work plans exist but activities are not monitored Fair against the plan’s targets No regular work plans exist Poor

53 Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps 5. Monitoring and A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well Very good evaluation implemented and used for adaptive management There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and Good evaluation system of management activities but results are Are management not systematically used for management activities monitored There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation of Fair against performance? management activities, but no overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results

There is no monitoring and evaluation of management Poor activities in the World Heritage site 6. Reporting Site managers can fully comply with all reporting needs and Very good All reporting obligations have all the necessary information for full and informative are complied with Are all the reporting reporting requirements of the Site managers can fully comply with all reporting needs but Good World Heritage site do not have all the necessary information for full and fulfilled? informative reporting There is some reporting, but all reporting needs are not Fair fulfilled and managers do not have all the necessary information on the site to allow full and informative reporting There is no reporting on the World Heritage site Poor

7. Maintenance of Equipment and facilities are well maintained and an Very good equipment equipment maintenance plan is being implemented There is basic maintenance of equipment and facilities. If a Good Is equipment maintenance plan exists it is not fully implemented. adequately maintained? There is some ad hoc maintenance but a maintenance plan Fair does not exist or is not implemented There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities, Poor and no maintenance plan

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps 8. Management Management infrastructure is excellent and appropriate for Very good Infrastructure managing the site Management infrastructure is adequate and generally Good Is management appropriate for the site infrastructure (eg fire trails and fire towers) Management infrastructure is often inadequate and/or Fair adequate for the inappropriate for the site needs of the site? Management infrastructure is inadequate and/or Poor inappropriate for the site

9. Staff facilities Staff facilities at the World Heritage site are good and aid the Very good Facilities could range achievement of the objectives of the site from staff Are the available Staff facilities are not significantly constraining achievement Good accommodation to facilities suitable for of major objectives offices, guard posts etc the management Inadequate staff facilities constrain achievement of some Fair requirements of the management objectives Most of the Anti- site? poaching camps are in Inadequate staff facilities mean that achievement of major Poor dilapidated condition. objectives is constrained 10. Staff/ Staff directly participate in making decisions relating to Very good management management of the site at both site and management communication authority level Do staff have the Staff directly contribute to some decisions relating to Good opportunity to feed management into management decisions? Staff have some input into discussions relating to Fair management but no direct involvement in the resulting decisions There are no mechanisms for staff to have input into Poor decisions relating to the management of the World Heritage site

55 Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps 11. Personnel Provisions to ensure good personnel management are in Very good management place Although some provisions for personnel management are in Good How well are staff place these could be improved managed? There are minimal provisions for good personnel Fair management There are no provisions to ensure good personnel Poor management (e.g. staff appraisals, grievance procedures, promotion plans, insurance) 12. Staff training Staff training and skills are appropriate for the management Very good needs of the site, and with anticipated future needs Is staff adequately Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further Good trained? improved to fully achieve the objectives of management Staff training and skills are low relative to the management Fair needs of the site Staff lack the skills/training needed for effective site Poor management 13. Law The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce Very good enforcement legislation and regulations

Does staff have the The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce Good capacity to enforce legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain legislation? There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to Fair enforce legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills, no patrol budget, staff management problems)

The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce Poor legislation and regulations

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps 14. Financial Financial management is excellent and contributes to Very good management effective management of the site Does the financial management system Financial management is adequate but could be improved Good meet the critical management needs? Financial management is poor and constrains effectiveness Fair

Financial management is poor and significantly undermines Poor effectiveness of the World Heritage site (eg late release of funds for the financial year)

Resource Management 15. Managing Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and Very good resources activities in the protected area exist and are being effectively Are there implemented management mechanisms in place to control Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and Good inappropriate land activities in the protected area exist but there are some uses and activities problems in effectively implementing them (e.g. poaching)? Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and Fair activities in the protected area exist but there are major problems in implementing them effectively

There are no management mechanisms for controlling Poor inappropriate land use and activities in the World Heritage site

57 Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps 16. Resource Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural Very good inventory values of the World Heritage site is sufficient to support planning and decision making and is being updated Is there enough Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural Good information to manage values of the protected area is sufficient for some areas of the World Heritage planning/decision making but further data gathering is not site? being carried out Some information is available on the critical habitats, species Fair and cultural values of the WH site, but this is insufficient to support planning and decision making

There is little or no information available on the critical Poor habitats, species and cultural values of the World Heritage site 17. Research There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of surveys Very good and research, which is relevant to management needs Is there a programme There is considerable survey and research work but it is not Good of management- directed towards the needs of World Heritage site orientated survey and management research work? There is some ad hoc survey and research work but it is not Fair directed towards the needs of World Heritage site management. There is no research taking place in the World Heritage site Poor 18. Ecosystems and Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and Very good species species are being fully implemented Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and Good Is the biodiversity of species are only being partially implemented the World Heritage Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and Fair site adequately species are known but are not being implemented managed? Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and Poor species have not been assessed

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps 19. Cultural/ Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values Very good historical resource are being substantially or fully implemented management Many requirements for management of cultural/ historical Good values are being implemented but some key issues may not be addressed Are the site’s cultural Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values Fair resources adequately are known but very few are being implemented managed? Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values Poor have not been assessed and/or active management is not being undertaken Management and Tourism 20. Visitor facilities Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels Very good of visitation Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels Good Are visitor facilities of visitation but could be improved (for tourists, pilgrims Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current Fair etc) adequate? levels of visitation There are no visitor facilities and services despite an Poor identified need 21. Commercial There is good co-operation between managers and tourism Very good tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, and protect site values Do commercial tour There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism Good operators contribute to operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain site protected area values management? There is contact between managers and tourism operators Fair but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory matters There is little or no contact between managers and tourism Poor operators using the protected area

59 Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps 22. Visitor Implementation of visitor management policies and Very good opportunities programmes is based on research into visitors’ needs and wants and the carrying capacity of the World Heritage site Have plans been Consideration has been given to the provision of visitor Good developed to provide opportunities and policies and programmes to enhance visitors with the most visitor opportunities are being implemented appropriate access Consideration has been given to the provision of visitor Fair and diversity of opportunities in terms of access to the World Heritage site or experience when the diversity of available experiences but little or no action visiting the World has been taken Heritage site? No consideration has been given to the provision of visitor Poor opportunities in terms of access to the World Heritage site or the diversity of available experiences 23. Education and There is a planned, implemented and effective education and Very good awareness awareness programme fully linked to the objectives and programme needs of the World Heritage site There is a planned education and awareness programme but Good Is there a planned there are still serious gaps either in the plan or in education implementation programme? There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness Fair programme, but no overall planning for this There is no education and awareness programme Poor

24. Access Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in Very good controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives Is visitor access Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling Good sufficiently controlled? access to the site in accordance with objectives Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling Fair access to the site in accordance with objectives Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) are ineffective in Poor controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Management and Communities/Neighbours 25. Local Local communities directly participate in all relevant Very good communities management decisions for the site

Do local communities Local communities directly contribute to some relevant Good resident in or near the management decisions but their involvement could be World Heritage site improved have input to management Local communities have some input into discussions relating Fair decisions? to management but no direct involvement in decision-making

Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the Poor management of the World Heritage site

26. Indigenous people Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all Very good relevant management decisions for the site Do indigenous and traditional peoples Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to Good resident in or regularly making some relevant management decisions but their using the site have involvement could be improved input to management decisions? Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into Fair discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in decision-making

Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into Poor decisions relating to the management of the site

61 Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps 27. Local, peoples Programmes to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional Very good welfare peoples welfare, while conserving World Heritage site Are there resources, are being implemented successfully programmes developed by the Programmes to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional Good World Heritage peoples welfare, while conserving World Heritage site managers which resources, are being implemented but could be improved consider local Programmes to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional Fair people’s welfare peoples welfare, while conserving World Heritage site whilst conserving the resources, exist but are either inadequate or are not being sites resources? implemented There are no programmes in place which aim to enhance Poor local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare 28. State and There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring Very good commercial official or corporate land/sea users, and substantial co- neighbours operation on management There is contact between managers and neighbouring official Good Is there co-operation or corporate land/sea users, but only some co-operation with neighbouring There is contact between managers and neighbouring official Fair land/sea owners and or corporate land/sea users but little or no cooperation users? There is no contact between managers and neighbouring Poor official or corporate land/sea users

29. Conflict resolution Conflict resolutions mechanisms exist and are used Very good Inability to compensate If conflicts between whenever conflicts arise the affected people the World Heritage Conflict resolutions mechanisms exist but are only partially Good renders the mechanism site and stakeholders effective partially ineffective. arise, are Conflict resolution mechanisms exist, but are largely Fair mechanisms in place ineffective to help find solutions? No conflict resolution mechanisms exist Poor

Worksheet 8b for Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes - Summary

Management area Issue and rating Distribution of rating 1 World Heritage Values -VG P= 0 Management structures and systems 2. Management planning- G F=4

3. Planning systems- G G=7 4.Regular work plans- VG VG=3 5.Monitoring -VG 6. Reporting-G 7. Maintenance of equipment-G 8. Management infrastructure-G 9. Staff facilities-F 10. Management communication.-F 11. Personnel management-F 12. Staff training-F 13. Law enforcement-G 14. Financial management-G 15. Managing resources-G P=0 Resource management 16. Resource inventory-G F=1

17. Research-F G=4

18. Ecosystem and species-G VG=0 19. Cultural management-G

63 Management area Issue and rating Distribution of rating 20. Visitors facilities-G P=0 Management and Tourism 21. Commercial tourism-G F=1 22. Visitor opportunities.-G G=2 23. Education and awareness-F VG=1 24. Access-VG

25. Local communities-F P=0 Management and Communities /Neighbours 26. Indigenous people-F F=4 27. Local people welfare-F G=1 28. State and commercial neighbours-G VG-0 29. Conflict resolution-F

Total distribution of ranks- P=0 F=10 G=14 VG=4

Section 6: Outputs

The assessment undertaken as part of this worksheet is based on the analysis of budgetary requirements projected in the management plan and the requisitions, sanctions and expenditures based on the theme plan budget heads. In the figure given in worksheet 9 the percentage of actual expenditure incurred as against the projected Plan requirements are given for the period 2004-2007 indicating an average expenditure of about 8% of Plan requirements. While funds for the Management of Kaziranga National Park are made available through Centrally Sponsored

Schemes (Development of National Park and Wildlife Sanctuaries, Project Elephant and Special Assistance), the State finances that are primarily utilised for meeting salary expenditure.

65 Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation

Expenditure % of Plan Projections 35

30 2006-07 2005-06 2004-05 2003-04 25 20 15

Percentage 10 5 0

F M P G S TR TS CH M N MD N MIS R RN NFLT TR LIVI C CODEV AW LPH RES A SMINT TAMNTS E U OUNDRY M R S INFRAS B DE CNTRLPOC TU ED Budget Items

CNTRLPOC: Control of Poaching MDF: Measures during Flood INFRASTR: Infrastructure Development BOUNDRY: Boundary Demarcation DELPHNTS: Departmental MIS: Management Information RESRCH: Research LIVIMM: Livestock Immunisation Elephants System MACNFLT: Man Animal Conflict TURSMINTP: Tourism and STAMNTS: Staff Amenities ECODEV: Ecodevelopment Interpretation TRNG: Training EDUAWRNS: Education and Awareness

Worksheet for Tool 10: Assessing Outputs (2005-2006)

Indicator Work output target Performance Performance/level in Notes previous year Kilometres covered 0 km 10 Work has not been Boundary survey and -20 progressed due to demarcation inadequate availability of funds Numbers of camps- 8 12 Most of the camps are in 10 dilapidated condition. Camps (Construction, repair)

Rifle-25 0 0 Nature and importance of the Gun-20 0 0 site require up gradation / Equipment Procurement Binoculars-40 0 0 new arms. Procurement of Search light-20 2 6 important items- Night Vision Solar lighting system- 0 0 and Binoculars have not 30 commenced due to fund Night vision-10 0 0 constraints Computer-0 3 0 GPS-0 2 0 Gypsy-4 4 0 Mobility is one of the Vehicle procurement Country-boat-10 10 15 important anti-poaching Mechanized boat -2 1 1 activity. Mini truck-0 1 0 0 0

Excavator-1

67 Indicator Work output target Performance Performance/level in Notes previous year Number-2.5 km 2.5 0 Old high grounds require repair and construction of Construction of high more high grounds as per grounds (raised platform planned activity not and roads) commenced.

Number-5 5 5 Very important during Monsoon Construction/repair of Rumble strips/ Barriers

Number-16 16 4 This is very important for routine anti-poaching Construction of Bridges/ activities. Old wooden Culverts/causeway bridges should be replaced by RCC, where possible.

Construction of residences Number-10 51 2 Special grant received for for staff and officers construction of residences

Animal health No. of livestock 9,000 13,000 This includes health immunized-12000 maintenance of departmental elephant. Grassland management No. of fire lines-25 25 0 Controlled Burning requires Habitat manipulation- 2 2 more scientific approach for 10 ha. management of grasslands.

Indicator Work output target Performance Performance/level in Notes previous year Research Vehicle-1 0 0 Presently research activities Equipment-Rs,100000 are confined to some studies carried out by individuals and organizations for academic interest only.

Power-fence Km-2 0 5 Certain strategic location on the east and west of the site may help in reducing the stray incidents of rhinoceros Tourism facilities Bathrooms/Toilet-4 2 1

69 Section 7: Outcomes

Worksheet 11a for Tool 11: Plan for Monitoring the Outcomes of Management

Indicator : Population of rhino, wild buffalo, elephant, tiger, swamp deer, raptors (see Box 7)

Major Site Values assessed by the indicator : Biodiversity

Justification for selection : Assemblage of herbivores is one of the main features of Kaziranga and occupy most of the habitats available within the park thereby indicating health of the ecosystem as well as trends with respect to recruitment and mortality.

Indicator : Extent, productivity and structure of short grasslands

Major site Value assessed by the indicator : Other natural values

Justification of selection : Herbivore population and endangered species such as the Bengal Florican are directly dependent on palatable short grasses for shelter and food resources. Integrity in terms of invasive species as well as incursion of trees into grasslands also will be monitored

The table below provides an overview of the population of focal species

Species Population 1991 1993 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2005 2006 RHINO 1129 1164 - 1552 - - - -- 1855 ELEPHANT - 1094 945 - - - 1048 1246 -- TIGER - 72 80 - 86 ------SWAMP DEER - - - 398 468 ------WILD BUFFALO - - - 1192 - 1431 - -- --

Box 7: Raptor community of Kaziranga National Park, Assam Raptors or Birds of Prey comprise hawks, eagles, vultures, falcons (diurnally active) and owls (mostly nocturnal). Most raptor species exhibit use of large areas and a diversity of habitat types compared with many other animal groups, hence they are links among habitats and they connect ecosystems across the landscapes. They are important components of ecological food webs, where they stand at the top most position. A monitoring of diurnal raptors was initiated to determine relative abundance and diversity in different habitats, under the UNESCO- IUCN Project ‘Enhancing Our Heritage’ during 2005-2006 in Kaziranga National Park (KNP). Road counts were conducted during clear weather conditions. Approximately 800 km of road length in four ranges of KNP i.e. Agratoli, Kohora, Bagori and Burapahar were covered between December 2005 and April 2006. The road counts were made by two person team and the observations were made from 0700 h to near sunset. A total of 27 raptor species were recorded from KNP during 2005-2006 (Annexure 2), 22 species were observed in winter and 13 in summer. The presence of more species of raptors in winter was due to influx of migratory raptors. In winter, Grey-headed Fish Eagle (Plate 1) was the dominant species followed by Pallas's Fish Eagle, Short-toed Eagle, Crested Serpent Eagle, Changeable Hawk Eagle and Osprey whereas in summer Grey-headed Fish Eagle was again the dominant species followed by Crested Serpent Eagle, Changeable Hawk Eagle, Pallas's Fish Eagle, Oriental Honey Buzzard, and Short-toed Eagle. A large communal roost of Short-toed Eagle (20 birds) was located from the Aarimora grassland in Agratoli Range of the park. Of the 8 globally threatened raptors recorded from the park, 6 breed here (Annexure 2). In winter, species richness was recorded to be high in Bagori (16 spp.) followed by Agratoli (15 spp.), Kohora (11 spp.) and Burapahar (6 spp.) whereas in summer the raptor species richness was high again in Bagori (13 spp.) followed by Kohora (12 spp.), Agratoli (10 spp.) and Burapahar (7 spp.).

The mosaic of ecosystems in the Kaziranga National Park is responsible for its rich raptor diversity. In winter, maximum number of raptors were supported by grasslands (54%) followed by wetlands (31%) and woodlands (15%) whereas wetlands supported maximum numbers of raptors in summer (42%) followed by woodland (29%) and grasslands (28%). Plate1. Grey-headed Fish Eagle is an indicator of the As top predators, raptors are key species for enhancing the understanding on ecosystem functioning. health of wetland ecosystem Changes in their status can reflect changes in the availability of their prey species, including population declines of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects. Changes in raptor status also can be an indicator of more subtle detrimental environmental changes such as chemical contamination occurring in the ecosystem.

Minimum integrity Confidence level Monitoring Monitoring protocol Cost and Management implications thresholds of threshold activity funding source Rhino (946 counted Total count Current: Census-Direct block count for herbivore after every 6 Rs.3,00,000/-, Help the management to take decision in 1984) years. Government for necessary intervention for population declines and monitoring trends New: 1.Population estimation after every 3 years Rs.4,00,000/-, Same as above 2. yearly for select blocks Government Tiger (80 counted in Total count Current: Pugmark method Rs.4,00,000/-, Same as above 1997) (pugmark) Government New: New 4 stage estimation initiated with the WII and Project Rs,4,00,000/- Same as above Tiger Government Wild buffalo (1192 Total count Current: Same as rhino (also proposed for every 3 yrs) Rs 2,00,000/- Same as above counted in 1999) Government Elephants (1094 Total count Current: Every year at local level counted in 1993) Rs 3,00,000/- Same as above New: Every three years for entire area Government Swamp Deer (398 Total count Current: Every year at local level Same as above counted in 1998) Rs 1,50,000/- New: Every three years for entire area Government Short grasslands High Regular monitoring for controlled burning and seasonal Rs 5,00,000 use by herbivores and Periodic monitoring through Land (every five cover mapping and productivity (every five years) years) Government

Worksheet 11b for Tool 11: Assessment of Outcomes of Management

While it has not been possible to acquire age and sex classification details through all the census efforts in the past for all the species it is especially important to monitor the recruitment rates and sex ratios for all the five major species taken up as indicators of biodiversity. However as these are not available at the present for all the species the minimum integrity thresholds are considered as the population closest to the

73 inscription as a world heritage site in 1985. Also regular monitoring of avifaunal elements of the biodiversity including species such as Bengal Florican and water fowl congregations would provide better understanding of the outcomes of management interventions.

Minimum Integrity Status of indicator in relation Management interventions: Indicator Threshold Rating to threshold urgency and details of actions

Rhino 940 1855 counted in 2006 Regular protection measures, habitat manipulation are being followed. High floods render all Tiger 80 86 counted in 2000 wild animals vulnerable and patrolling and antipoaching measures are stepped up during this period. Overall the long term

viability of these indicators is ensured in Kaziranga Wild buffalo 1190 1431 counted in 2001

Elephant 1090 1246 counted in 2005

Swamp deer 390 468 counted in 2000

Good and Condition Developing concern Good and Condition is unchanged is improving and Condition is unchanged

Worksheet for Tool 12: Achievement of Principal Management Objectives Assessment

Principal Management Objective: To maintain and wherever necessary restore the demographic features relating to the populations of all endangered , endemic, vulnerable, rare species of animals and plants with special focus on Rhino, Tiger and their habitat

Desired outcomes: Increase or maintenance of all wild animal to optimal level and maintenance and improvement of the habitat.

Performance indicators Performance assessment Data and methods of collection Assessment of indicator in relation to target and target Recruitment of young and Direct or block count method for All major herbivore populations have shown an population from last most of the herbivores. increase in numbers in the subsequent census Breeding success of census. herbivores. Recruitment of young and Pugmark census and new All major carnivore populations have shown an Breeding success of population from last method initiated by WII and increase in subsequent census carnivores. census. Project Tiger.

75 Principal Management Objective: To maintain and wherever necessary restore the physical integrity of the area with special considerations to the flooding pattern.

Desired outcomes: losses accruing from bank erosion along the Brahmaputra are compensated for by incorporating areas containing suitable habitat

Performance indicators Performance assessment Data and methods of collection Assessment of indicator in relation to target and target Area available to wild Increase in effective area Departmental records 1st and 6th Addition areas (totalling 420.29 km2) animals available for wild animals included within park and available for wild animals. 2nd-5th Additions are in the process of finalization (totalling 9.2 km2)

Principal Management Objective: To enhance the quality of educational, recreational and wilderness experience given to the general public.

Desired outcomes: Park visitors are provided with quality educational, recreational and interpretation facilities and opportunities

Performance indicators Performance assessment Data and methods of collection Assessment of indicator in relation to target and target Visitor satisfaction Higher level of reported Questionnaire surveys The number of tourists visiting Kaziranga has satisfaction with wildlife administered to tourists shown a steady increase over the years, viewing opportunities and however a continuous programme of monitoring interpretation facilities visitor satisfaction is not currently in place. A new interpretation facility that was inaugurated during the Centenary Celebrations in 2005 is being upgraded (see Box 8).

Box 8: Kaziranga Centenary Celebrations (1905-2005) Kaziranga National Park situated in the floodplains of mighty river Brahamaputra in central Assam, is renowned world over and epitomises the richness of biodiversity of not only Assam but the whole of the North-Eastern India. The Park has a long and luminous history of conservation, and right from its inception in 1905 till date, it has become a symbol of dedication and commitment of the people who protect and preserve its rich biological heritage. A mega event named “Kaziranga Centenary Celebration” was organized from 11th to 17th February 2005 for showcasing the rich natural and cultural heritage of the region. The objective was to organize a series of consultations, debates, exhibitions, studies and exchanges with Kaziranga acting as a gateway for conservation of the unique bio-diversity of North East India. The event witnessed a large assemblage of diverse group of participants including apex government functionaries representing legislature, executive and judiciary both from the state government as well as the Union of India, wildlife conservationists, travel writers, nature lovers and scientific community from across the globe. They examined persistent challenges, emerging concerns and fresh insights on wildlife protection initiatives along with traditional bonding between man and animal to engender understanding for nature conservation. Apart from cultural events, the national and international experts had brainstorming sessions covering: (i) Grassland Management; (ii) Man-Animal coexistence; (iii) Nature-Tourism; (iv) Avifaunal diversity and its conservation and (v) Vision Kaziranga: Beyond 2005. The UNESCO-IUCN Project Team presented papers on “Opportunities and Challenges for Kaziranga National Park, Assam over the next Fifty Years” and “Tall all Grasslands in Kaziranga National Park: Management Concerns and Conservation Perspective”. A special tribute function Shraddharghya - ‘A salute to the Sentinels of Kaziranga’ was organized at Centenary Convention Center, Kaziranga, remembering and felicitating all those starting from Lady Curzon to the present pioneers from civil society, local communities, frontline forest staff making Kaziranga a safe Park for wild animals.

77 Principal Management Objective: To identify research priorities and implement such programmes to establish and create opportunities for enhancing management capabilities and knowledge of wildlife science

Desired outcomes: Higher number of studies relating to various aspects of species diversity, abundance and habitat availability and use and enhanced information and training for the park staff.

Performance Performance indicators Data and methods of Assessment of indicator in relation to target assessment and target collection Research Number of research Departmental records and Over 15 research studies have been undertaken within the park studies undertaken within research reports including one doctoral study and two MSc dissertations. The park park has a full time Research Officer appointed, however research facilities such as GIS based facilities and lab equipment are not available Training Number of personnel Departmental records While six persons among the existing staff have received formal receiving training training in wildlife management the rest of the staff have been exposed intermittently to several aspects of population and habitat management.

Principal Management Objective: Consistent with the above four objectives, in the zone of influence with sensitivity to cultural and economic well being of the communities and reduce the dependence on forest based resources.

Desired outcomes:

Performance Performance indicators Data and methods of Assessment of indicator in relation to target assessment and target collection Dependence of Reduced dependence on Departmental records and The marginal dependency on fish, fuel wood, fodder and NTFPs local communities forest based resources surveys has not declined significantly due to lack of access to purchased on forest based and increased access to fuels and other alternatives. However additional income sources resources among alternatives have been developed from income generation from tourism by the 41 adjoining way of home stay programmes and vehicles engaged in tourism villages activities.

References

Barua, M. & P. Sharma (1999), Birds of Kaziranga National Park, India, Forktail 15: 47–60.

Champion H. G., Seth H. K., (1968) Forest Types of India, Manager of Publications, Government Press, New Delhi.

Kushwaha, S.P.S. (1997) Land Mass Dynamics and Rhino habitat suitability in Kaziranga National Park. Indian Institute of Remote Sensing. Dehra Dun.

Muley Parag D. (2001) Genetic and Morphometric Studies to Differentiate between wild and domestic Asian Water Buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) and their hybrids in Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Sawarkar V. B., (1995) A manual for Planning Wildlife Management in Protected Areas and Managed Forests, Wildlife Institute of India, DehraDun.

Vattakkavan J., Vasu, N.K., Varma, S. Gureja, N. and Aiyadurai, A. (2002). Silent Stranglers: Eradication of Mimosa in Kaziranga National Park, Assam. Wildlife Trust of India. New Delhi.

79 ANNEXURE 1 List of water birds recorded during 2005-2006 from Kaziranga National Park. (* denotes globally threatened species according to IUCN 2007 and √ denotes presence of species in the respective Range of KNP)

S.No. Common name Scientific name Bagori Kohora Agratoli Burapahar Range Range Range Range 1 Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis √ 2 Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus √ 3 Spot-billed Pelican* Pelecanus philippensis √ √ √ 4 Little Cormorant Phalacrocorax niger √ √ √ √ 5 Indian Shag Phalacrocorax √ √ √ fuscicollis 6 Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo √ √ √ 7 Darter * Anhinga melanogaster √ √ √ √ 8 Little Egret Egretta garzetta √ √ √ √ 9 Purple Heron Ardea purpurea √ √ √ 10 Grey Heron Ardea cinerea √ √ √ 11 Large Egret Casmerodius albus √ √ √ √ 12 Median Egret Mesophoyx intermedia √ √ √ √ 13 Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis √ √ 14 Indian Pond-Heron Ardeola grayii √ √ √ √ 15 Asian Openbill-Stork Anastomus oscitans √ √ √ √ 16 White-necked Stork Ciconia episcopus √ 17 Black-necked Stork* Ephippiorhynchus √ √ √ √ asiaticus 18 Lesser Adjutant-Stork* Leptoptilos javanicus √ √ √ √ 19 Oriental White Ibis* Threskiornis √ melanocephalus

S.No. Common name Scientific name Bagori Kohora Agratoli Burapahar Range Range Range Range 20 Lesser Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna javanica √ √ √ √ 21 Greylag Goose Anser anser √ 22 Bar-headed Goose Anser indicus √ 23 Brahminy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea √ √ √ 24 Cotton Teal Nettapus √ coromandelianus 25 Gadwall Anas strepera √ √ √ √ 26 Falcated Duck* Anas falcata √ 27 Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope √ √ √ 28 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos √ √ √ √ 29 Spot-billed Duck Anas poecilorhyncha √ √ √ √ 30 Northern Shoveller Anas clypeata √ √ 31 Northern Pintail Anas acuta √ √ √ √ 32 Common Teal Anas crecca √ √ √ √ 33 Common Pochard Aythya ferina √ √ √ 34 Ferruginous Pochard* Aythya nyroca √ √ 35 Red-crested Pochard Rhodonessa rufina √ 36 Tufted Pochard Aythya fuligula √ 37 Swamp Francolin* Francolinus gularis √ √ √ √ 38 Purple Moorhen Porphyrio porphyrio √ 39 Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus √ √ 40 Common Coot Fulica atra √ 41 Pheasant-tailed Jacana Hydrophasianus √ √ chirurgus 42 Bronze-winged Jacana Metopidius indicus √ √ √ 43 Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus √ √ √

81 S.No. Common name Scientific name Bagori Kohora Agratoli Burapahar Range Range Range Range 44 River Lapwing Vanellus duvaucelii √ 45 Grey-headed Lapwing Vanellus cinereus √ √ 46 Red-wattled Lapwing Vanellus indicus √ √ √ 47 Little Tern Sterna albifrons √ 48 River Tern Sterna aurantia √ √ √ 49 Stork-billed Kingfisher Halcyon capensis √ √ √

Annexure 2 List of raptor species recorded from the Kaziranga National Park during 2005-2006.

SN Species Name Scientific Name Status IUCN Category Local 1 Osprey Pandion haliaetus migratory 2 Pallas's Fish Eagle Haliaeetus leucoryphus Resident Vulnerable 3 Grey-headed Fish Eagle Ichthyophaga ichthyaetus Resident Near Threatened Critically 4 White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis Resident Endangered Critically 5 Slender-billed Vulture Gyps tenuirostris Resident Endangered Local 6 Euraisn Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus Migratory Critically 7 Red-headed Vulture Sarcogyps calvus Resident Endangered 8 Short-toed Snake Eagle Circaetus gallicus Resident 9 Crested Serpent Eagle Spilornis cheela Resident Local 10 Black Eagle Ictinaetus malayensis migratory 11 Eurasian Marsh Harrier C. aeruginosus Migratory 12 Eastern Marsh Harrier Circus spilonotus Migratory 13 Pied Harrier C. melanoleucos Migratory 14 Hen Harrier C. cyaneus Migratory 15 Montagu's Harrier C. pygargus Migratory 16 Shikra Accipiter badius Resident 17 Oriental Honey Buzzard Pernis ptilohyncus Resident

83 SN Species Name Scientific Name Status IUCN Category 18 Common Buzzard Buteo buteo Migratory 19 Indian Spotted Eagle Aquila hestata Resident Vulnerable 20 Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga Migratory Vulnerable 21 Steppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis Migratory 22 Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca Migratory Vulnerable 23 Rufous-bellied Eagle Hieraaetus kienerii Resident 24 Changeable Hawk Eagle Spizaetus cirrhatus Resident 25 Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Migratory 26 Peregrine Falco peregrinus Migratory 27 Pied Falconet Microhierax melanoleucos Resident