sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bengal tiger, Indian rhinoceros, Kaziranga National Park, Manas National Park, Nameri National Park

Jharkhand Journal of Development and Management Studies XISS, Ranchi, Vol. 17, No.2, June 2019, pp. 8127-8141 OF : SOME AND TOURISM MANAGEMENT RELATED PRESSING ISSUES N. K. Dheerendra Patnaik1, Kunal Sharma2 & Pradeep Chaudhry3

Kaziranga National Park (KNP) is a world heritage site inhabited by the world’s largest of one-horned . In addition, it also supports population no , , panthers, bears, and thousands of birds. As result of sustained conservation efforts, the estimated number of has increased from 40 in 1911 to more than 2400 in 2018. Floods are regular annual feature of the park which is spread over , & Sonitpur districts of and covers an area of little more than a thousand square kilometres (482 km2 of core zone and 548 km2 of buffer zone). Due to chronic flood problem in every year, the park’s management faces an uphill task on one hand, while poachers and heavy traffic on adjoining national highway take heavy toll of wild on the other. Besides these, unregulated tourism in the park has the potential to create problems in conservation of the wildlife just like other National Parks of the country. Kaziranga National Park is facing these problems in recent times and must consider promoting and publicizing other protected areas of the state to augment their tourism potential and relieving tourists’ pressure on the park. Some urgent steps needed for sustainable management of this natural asset have been discussed in the present article.

Keywords : Natural resource management, protected areas, financial sustainability, , sustainable tourism, wildlife management, Illegal Natural Resource Extractors, Man- Conflict Introduction Kaziranga National Park (KNP) (26°35'–26°45’N and 93°05'–93°40’E)is located in the floodplain of the Brahmaputra river in the Nagaon, Golaghat and Sonitpur districts of Assam, India, covering an area of 1030 km² and is the largest on the southern bank of the Brahmaputra river (Figure1). The terrain of the park is flat (55-75 m above msl) with an east to west incline. Being in the floodplain of the Brahmaputra river, the soil of the park is rich in alluvial deposits (Barua & Sharma, 1999). The park, also declared as a reserve by , derives its name from the in

1 Indian Institute of Forest Management, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal (MP) – 462003. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Indian Institute of Forest Management, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal (MP) – 462003. E-mail: [email protected] 3 Indian Institute of Forest Management, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal (MP) – 462003. E-mail: [email protected]

8127 8128 Patnaik, Sharma & Chaudhry which the word ‘Kazi’ means ‘Goat’ or ‘Deer’ and ‘Rangai’ means ‘Red’, thus meaning ‘the land of red goats or deer’. The Park rests in the ecologically rich Indo-Malayan Biogeographic realm, complexing the elements of both the Indian and Malayan origins, giving it a distinct landscape ranging from woodland–hilly area, woodland- , grassland-water bodies to river islands. A large number of small rivers and channels flow through the park from east to west, mostly originating from the Karbi Anglong hills to the south, run northwards and ultimately drain into Brahmaputra River, adding to its catchment area.

Figure–1. Locational map of Kaziranga National Park (adopted from Verma et al., 2015) The conservation efforts at Kaziranga began in 1908, when it was notified as a ‘Reserve Forest’, with the primary aim of protecting the Rhinoceros unicornis and its (Lahan & Sonowal, 1973). It was subsequently declared as a ‘Game Reserve’ in 1916, made into a ‘Wildlife Sanctuary’ in 1950 and, finally, declared as a ‘National Park’ on January 1, 1974. It was also proclaimed as a UNESCO ‘World Heritage Site’ in 1985 (Figure 2) (Barua & Sharma, 1999).

Figure–2, A country-made wooden sign board at the entry gate Kaziranga National Park of India 8129

Review of literature KNP went through three distinct phases of evolution, broadly arranged into the pre-1930s, 1930s to 1970s and post-1970s, before reaching the present status of a world renowned National park. While the conservation mechanisms common to these three phases remain often overlapped, what became typical of these three phases were their distinguishing ideological contours of conservation (Saikia, 2009). During first phase the park conservation story begin with both fauna conservation and joyful game playing (by the Britishers and local rulers) a collective role in shaping the growth of KNP. Between 1871 and 1907 Maharaj Nripendra Narayan shot dead more than 370 tigers, 208 rhinoceroses, 430 buffaloes, and 324 deer (Thapar, 2003). In 1924, a large number of peasants, in a petition signed by several hundred from the neighbourhood of the sanctuary, strongly protested against the very idea of creating a reserve exclusively meant for animals, and demanded that they be allowed land for cultivation. The second phase integrated it with a larger science of conservation and continued to emphasize on the policy of exclusion of local community in conservation. A conservation framework with the background of some local wildlife laws and acts based on safeguarding a complex habitat eco-system could hardly find space in the ideological imperative. The last and present phase is more driven by larger nationalistic political compulsions, when various international conservation organizations exhorted Government of India and state government to protect the rhino. Over the years the ideological paradigm of wildlife conservation in the Kaziranga National Park had changed significantly (Saikia, 2009). As far as biodiversity of park is concerned, the vegetation of the park may be broadly classified into four categories: (1) Eastern wet alluvial ; (2) Eastern Dillenia swamp forest; (3) Riparian fringing forest; and (4) Assam alluvial plains semi-evergreen forest (Champion & Seth, 1968). According to Kushwaha (1997), wetlands in the park cover 7%, grasslands cover 57%, sand cover 7%, and woodland cover 29% of the total area. The vegetation of the water bodies includes aquatic plants like Andropogon , Ipomoea reptans, Enhydra fluctuans, Pistia stratiotes, Lemna paucicostata, and Eichhorniacrassipes. In the alluvial grasslands the prominent species of grass are: Phragmiteskarka, Arundodonax, Imperatacylindrica, Saccharumelephantinus and Erianthusravennae. Short grasses such as Hemarthriacompressa, Microstegiumciliatum, Cynodondactylon and Cenchrusciliaris are found around the (or shallow lakes, as called locally). Tree species include Bombax ceiba, Dilleniapentagyna, Careyaarborea, Trewianudiflora, Tetramelesnudiflora, Lagerstroemia parviflora, Albiziaprocera, Albizialucida, Phyllanthus officinalis, Ficusspp, Zizyphus jujuba, and Barringtoniaacutangula 8130 Patnaik, Sharma & Chaudhry

The Kaziranga Tiger Reserve/National Park presents a unique where prescribed burning is used to maintain the vegetation structure by arresting the seral stage of grassland and preventing invasion of tree forest. This is done to ensure adequate quantity and nutritional value of food supply (i.e. grass) to the large population of various herbivores (Verma et al., 2015). The Kaziranga Tiger Reserve (or the erstwhile Kaziranga National Park) is known for the charismatic ‘BIGFIVE’. These include Great Indian One Horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), Asiatic Wild Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), Asiatic (Elephas maximus), Swamp Deer (Cervus duvauvceli ranjitsinghi), and Royal Tiger ( tigris). The Kaziranga National Park (KNP) is home to about 35 species out of which 15 are threatened and listed under Schedule I of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The latest estimates by the forest department peg the numbers of few species of wild animals as – 2413 One-horned Rhinos (Figure3) 1089 Elephants and 1148 Swamp Deers. The park is full of myriad species of different insects including butterfly and moths.

Figure–3. One Horned Rhino spotted during safari at Kaziranga

Kaziranga is situated in the Indo-Australian mega fly way of birds and has at least 479 different avifauna species visiting the tiger reserve (Barua & Sharma, 1999). The inventory contains 25 species of global importance of which 23 are critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable. The park also acts as the roosting and nesting ground for migratory and indigenous water birds. population is declining in India drastically due to various reasons but the population of in KNP which contains critically endangered long-billed and slender- billed vultures, has been growing up in recent times (Vasu, 2013). Objectives of the study Certain challenges and wildlife management issues of the park have been discussed in the article. We have discussed about a series of steps needed for sustainable management of the park. Kaziranga National Park of India 8131

Methodology and sources of data The review article is based on literature review, professional experience, knowledge, field visits and discussion with park officials (mostly during current year and during last ten years) enabling the authors to compare park status over last ten years with present one. Certain chronic issues are presented in below given paras to highlight main challenges faced by the park authorities. Observations and findings There are 733 protected areas in India presently, spreading over an area of 160901.77 sq km, covering about 4.89% of the country’s area (Maan & Chaudhry, 2019). These protected areas cover various National Parks, wildlife sanctuaries, conservation reserves and community reserves. Kaziranga National Park is one of these protected areas of the country. This spot is a world heritage site inhabited by the world’s largest population of one-horned rhinoceroses. In view of the high density tiger presence in the area and reportedly the only viable population of tigers in any of the north tiger landscapes, the Government of India approved the constitution of Kaziranga Tiger Reserve in August 2006 (Verma et al., 2015). There are about 60 rivers and small water channels and about 200 water-bodies in the core area of KNP. Flooding is an integral part of the ecological system of the tiger reserve. It not only helps in the maintenance of vegetation status, flooding also contributes to the process of silt deposition and soil formation. These river are responsible for other challenges discussed in ensuing paras. Also, the ongoing efforts by various stakeholders are mentioned towards the end. The Major Challenges Flooding and erosion The Kaziranga National Park is replete with water bodies and gets inundated by the flood waters every year, due to incessant rains and upwelling of the water streams (Figure 4). The northern and eastern parts of the park are generally the most affected as these regions are dotted by the mighty Brahmaputra. Soil erosion is a serious problem during every year’s summer floods. As per the records, from 1912 to the Present, KNP has lost a staggering amount of 149.98 sq Km of land in all. However, the area gained due to accretion is only 60.85 sq Km. Floods occur every year, sometimes many times during the year, submerging 80-90 % of the park area very often, affecting wildlife considerably. Also, the concern is that while crucial Rhino habitat is lost to floods and erosion year by year, it takes considerable time to come to a point when it can support large numbers of the wildlife population. The point that needs to be noted here is that the larger 8132 Patnaik, Sharma & Chaudhry threat that looms over the wild animals is not due to sinking in the floodwaters, but being vulnerable to or being hit by speeding vehicles as animals cross the National Highway (NH) 37, to seek safe higher reaches of the Karbi-Anglong Hills during floods. Das, Ahmed, Lahkar and Sharma (2007) recorded 68 instances of road kills of reptiles belonging to 21 species and 7 families. Most affected reptiles were snakes followed by lizards.

Figure–4. A panoramic view of a water body inside park

Road development Plans are underway to convert the existing NH-37 to a six lane expressway. If this happens, this linear development may cause a permanent barrier effect and also increase wild animal mortality. There is an urgent need to conduct a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment study and develop appropriate mitigation options (Mathur et al., 2005). Poaching of rhinos The killing of rhinos by poachers for the alleged aphrodisiac qualities and uses in traditional medicines of rhino horn is a serious issue relating to the survival of this animal in the park (Kushwaha, Roy, Azeem, Boruah, & Lahan, 2000). In April 2016, poachers killed a rhino just a few hours after Kaziranga received a visit from Prince William and his wife the Duchess of Cambridge. The royal couple had visited the park to bring attention to the importance of protecting endangered species from poachers and wildlife trafficking (Waggoner, 2016).The poaching issue also figured in India’s parliament time to time (Javadekar, 2014). Main challenges and issues in rhino poaching include, recent high demand for rhino horn in China and Southeast Asian countries, Insufficient intelligence gathering and field-based action for tracing the Kaziranga National Park of India 8133 poachers’ networks, permeability of the protected area boundaries and insufficient anti- poaching camps and patrolling at the border areas, lack of mechanism for monitoring and protection of straying rhinos outside the protected areas, low rate of conviction of the suspects due to improper legal procedures and lack of proper evidence- gathering mechanism, poor coordination of the forest department with residents, local organisations and other government agencies in generating support for conservation and protection and finally delay in release of funds to the protected areas by the government. Assam forest department has not recruited sufficient number of rangers and forest guards to strengthen the field staff in the park. This has resulted in a top-heavy departmental structure where officers out- number the trained personnel adept at carrying out conservation duty. There is a need to form armed protection squads trained by the army along the lines adopted in South , Namibia and Botswana with modern armaments, electronic surveillance and vehicles for protection and anti-poaching actions both outside and inside protected areas. Encroachment and grazing issues Encroachment of the park area by growing human population in the park vicinity is also a major issue. Demand for agricultural land, grazing and settlement has increased to a manifold. Grazing by domestic cattle also constitutes a serious threat to wild animals due to possible spreading of diseases like anthrax, foot & mouth diseases among park animals (Pathak, 1978; Kushwaha, Roy, Azeem, Boruah, & Lahan 2000). Construction of dams According to local news (personal communication), Assam government is thinking to build big dams over river Bharmaputra in near future. Dams are considered to bring several advantages including power, better irrigation and a reduction in the surges of water that cause flooding. However, from a conservation perspective, reduction in flooding would have enormous impacts on the ecology of Kaziranga. Many of these impacts would be detrimental to an ecology that has adapted over millennia to regular flooding (Mathur et al., 2005). in the area Urbanization trend in the area of rhino habitat, along the side of NH- 37 is tremendous. Settlements are increasing every year and pose challenge as they may lead to other harmful activities like expansion of agriculture, more demand for fodder and firewood, construction of roads, markets etc. in future (Kushwaha, Roy, Azeem, Boruah, & Lahan, 2000).There are 23 villages surrounding the park along with four tea gardens. Another 30 villages are located in the vicinity. The total human population in the immediate surroundings of the park is 8134 Patnaik, Sharma & Chaudhry about 70,000 according to the 2001 census report. The tea gardens located near the park boundaries also create a threat to the preservation of wild life through run-off. Hathikuli Tea Estate is a typical example. During the last 50 years large scale habitat changes in the Karbi plateau include expansion of tea gardens, human settlement, logging and shifting agriculture cultivation (Bharali & Mazumdar, 2012). Invasive weeds and shrinking grasslands The Kaziranga National Park is a distinct grassland ecosystem, as such the invasion of tree species like Bombax Ceiba (Semal Tree) is a serious concern, especially in the grasslands of Central and Western Ranges. Also, invasive weeds like Ipomoea Carnea and Water Hyacinth have spread in several water bodies and slowly spreading to the core areas. These deteriorate the water quality and are detrimental to the health of the fish. One way the park management deals with this problem is uprooting the trees and burning them down routinely as part of Habitat Management. On enquiring as to why the uprooted weeds are just burnt down instead of being channelized towards any economic use, the prime reason shared by the officials there was the stringent provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA), 1972 which strictly restricts the transportation of any forest resource from the precincts of a protected area to outside the jurisdiction of the protected area. However, such a measure to protect wildlife runs the risk of improper and non-judicious use of crucial forest resources. For example, the Bombax Ceiba species which has multiple uses ranging from extraction of cotton for making pillows and mattresses to the extraction of plant parts for the cure of complications like sexual debility, Acid Reflux, Acne, Arthritis, etc. Now if an uprooted Bombax Ceiba tree is burnt down rather than utilizing it productively, then the tree’s inherent value will be lost forever.

Tourist’s pressure Till the early 1930, the spot (game sanctuary at that time) was hardly visited by any tourist and completely left to itself by the forest department. The park got a facelift during the energetic leadership of A. Milroy, forest conservator of that period, who opened it up for the visitors in 1938. During the financial year of 1938-1939, the game sanctuary collected Rs. 305 in the form of rent for hired elephants and view permits (Saikia, 2009). Presently, revenue collected is more than Rs. 26 million (Table 1) while tourist population reached 177,431 during 2017-18. Tourists come from various parts of the world for viewing the unique wildlife and biodiversity of the National Park. In 2005-06, the Kaziranga National Park of India 8135 total tourists flow was 54,326, which increased to 1,09,606 in 2009-10 and to 177,431 in 2017-18. On an average 5 percent of the tourists are foreigners. The information on the average annual tourist influx of the past six years (2008-09 to2013-14) is as shown in Table-1 (adopted from Verma et al., 2015). As revealed from the Table-1, revenue from gate fees is constantly increasing. Table–1. Number of tourists and corresponding revenue at KNP

Year Annual influx of tourists Revenue from gate fees (Rs. million) 2008-09 106151 11.22 2009-10 112844 12.16 2010-11 119839 13.67 2011-12 124932 14.94 2012-13 101165 20.57 2013-14 128435 26.86 The Kaziranga National Park (KNP) has been suffering from over-exposure in recent years as is evident from the data above. In the southern part of the Kaziranga National Park, almost seventy private and public hotels and lodges (there are only four Government lodges) have been constructed providing hospitality services to the visitors (Bharali & Mazumdar, 2012). Man animal conflict The prominent cases of wild preying upon domesticated cattle and animals, which are common in other protected areas of the country are rare in Kaziranga National Park because of the huge prey base (the numerous deer and other herbivores) within the park. However, cases of human elephant conflict are common. The elephant’s natural habitat in Assam is rapidly diminishing because of increased land clearance for agriculture and industrial use. Human encroachment has forced elephants to forage in non-protected areas, thus augmenting the likelihood of disturbing local people (Talukdar & Barman, 2004). The increased opportunity for human-elephant encounters has resulted in many elephants being killed both accidentally (i.e.by road accidents or electrocution) and purposely (i.e. through poisoning), causing the population in of Assam to decline from 500 individuals in 1973 to between 160 and 190 in 2006 (Talukdar, Baruah & Lahkar, 2005). Di Fonzo (2007) highlighted the negative association between proportion of reported house damage and forest cover, thus providing an incentive for further analyses concerning the elephant’s preferred food types. In her doctoral study the research scholar further recommended Joint Forest Management as an alternative income generation activity to compensate losses in such conflicts. Her study 8136 Patnaik, Sharma & Chaudhry also showed that human elephant conflict did not lessen with increasing distance from the park boundary, indicating that additional research must be carried out on a larger spatial scale to encompass the elephant’s entire range. She detected intense respect towards elephants by local , which is of considerable importance to their conservation. The ongoing efforts Despite numerous issues and challenges faced by the park authorities as mentioned above, the Kaziranga National Park is a thriving example of effective conservation efforts to protect wildlife, and the same can be seen from the steady rise in the numbers of One- horned Rhinos from 75 in 1905 to more than 2400 in 2018. Moreover, this is commendable considering the grave challenges of incessant flooding the park faces almost every year. In fact, the last one hundred years have seen major conservation successes in Kaziranga National Park, with of many endangered species, including rhino, elephant and tiger rising and the ecological integrity of the area being maintained, despite high biotic pressures and stochastic perturbations in the landscape (Mathur et al., 2005). To mitigate the situation, considerable efforts have been taken by the local forest department from time to time. Some of the measures include pressing speed boats into the service, several rounds of awareness drives among the fringe villagers, seeking their cooperation and support, repairing the highlands inside the park so that these can provide shelter to animals during flood, heightened anti-poaching vigilance through floating camps and deployment of over 1200 staff members on duty. The local Forest Department is working rigorously to combat the problem of Man-Animal Conflict. The forest department boasts of 24×7 patrolling of the park through various modes like Foot, Vehicles, Boats, Elephants, etc. The department is also deploying drones for monitoring and surveillance (KNP, 2018). The various Non-Governmental Organisations are also playing a key role in checking Man- Animal Conflict. For Example, The Corbett Foundation has taken up the cause of building solar and bio fences around fields. They also catch up reptiles that have sneaked into human habitations and release them safely in the wild. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is working to create awareness among the people in fringe villages and supports them through compensation in case of damage to life and property. The Panthera Foundation has deployed its own team of spirited guards with sophisticated equipment to track and arrest the Illegal Natural Resource Extractors (INREs). Based on this it has even developed a database of offenders which it shares with other agencies including the forest department. The Aaranyak Foundation is also working towards Kaziranga National Park of India 8137 channelizing people in the fringe areas of the park towards alternative sources of employment. It also maintains a superior and robust Dog squad to catch offenders of wildlife crime.

Discussion In light of the wildlife and tourism management related pressing issues and the various ongoing efforts as mentioned above, the following additional solutions must be considered and proactively implemented for effective maintenance of the KNP. There’s a need to explore and exploit the potential of Joint Forest Management to resolve the Man-Animal Conflict problem. Also there’s need to promote Eco-tourism avenues so as to provide alternate livelihoods to the poachers and their families. Though the avenue of eco-tourism has started to sprout in and around KNP, the park can try to emulate initiatives like the ‘Manas Maozigendri Initiative’ which had played a pivotal role in getting the off the list of ‘World Heritage Sites in Danger’ in 2011 by leveraging and mobilising the painstaking efforts by the Bodo community and others in and around the Park. For mitigating the problem of Flooding and Erosion, further measures that could be considered are construction of Swales (linear, shallow, vegetated drainage features that convey and store surface water and provide the opportunity for infiltration and water treatment by encouraging settlement), Planting and Managing Hedgerows at appropriate places in the park and putting in place a multi-disciplinary approach eliciting support from experts and other departments to restore floodplains by way of restoring meanders, setting back of flood banks, creation of wetlands, for winter species, etc. (YDNPA, 2017). Also, as suggested by the officials there during our visit, an immediate measure to save wild animals from poaching and road accidents could be enforcement of ban on assembly of more than five persons (Section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. PC)) in areas within the park and its adjoining areas during floods by the district administrations of Golaghat & Nagaon districts where the park is spanned across. The District administration could also keep a check on the speed limit of vehicles plying on NH 37 (Borah, 2015). There is also a need to re-look at the habitat management practices of the KNP so that such resources which may not be needed for effective management of the flora and fauna of the park but are productive otherwise may be suitably diverted for judicious use. To begin with, a pan-India enumeration exercise needs to be undertaken across all the protected areas of the country, to build an inventory of such forest resources which have productive economic uses but are not utilized 8138 Patnaik, Sharma & Chaudhry within the precincts of the protected areas. Later, such an inventory may be appended to the WLPA, 1972 as an Appendix, with the corresponding amendment made to the Act to effect the utilisation of such unwanted forest resources outside the precincts of the Protected Areas, with suitable procedural safeguards built in so as to avoid exploitation and misuse of such resources. Doing so would help reap the huge inherent untapped potential of such forest resources which are otherwise cleared and burnt down for habitat management. The enormous footfall of tourists in the park (as shown under Table 1 above) has resulted in several problems which impede pursuance of the main objectives of establishment of the Kaziranga National Park – namely conservation of biodiversity. Assam has five National Parks, viz. Kaziranga National Park, Manas National Park, , Dibru-Saikhowa National Park, and eighteen wildlife sanctuaries. But the tourist inflow pressure is much higher in Kaziranga National Park as compared to the other National Parks and Sanctuaries in Assam (modified from Bharali & Mazumdar, 2012). According to the authors there was an urgent need for a strategic shift of policy on the part of the Tourism and Forest departments so that a segment of the tourist inflow can be diverted towards other parks and sanctuaries to lessen the pressure on Kaziranga National Park. The study used travel cost method and found that the consumer surplus, which is the difference between the price which one is willing to pay and the price one actually pays for an average tourist visiting Kaziranga National Park was equal to Rs. 187 per visit. The authors advocated an increase in the gate fee to Rs. 187 per visitor from present level to maximize the revenue collection. By introducing the revenue maximizing entry fee on the visitors of, the park authorities can solve two major problems relating to the park, that is, lack of funds for park conservation/protection and tourist inflow pressure. This is in sync with the recognition of ‘Tourist Pressure’ as one of the many challenges mentioned above in this article and we are of the view that the tourism at KNP needs to be regulated to aid its conservation.

Conclusion Kaziranga National Park is a unique protected area not only in India, but perhaps in the whole of Asia (Kushwaha et al., 2000). Therefore, in order to maintain and govern this natural asset on sustainable basis, more attention is needed on part of the state and central governments as discussed in preceding paras. Government of Assam must consider promoting and publicizing other protected areas of the state to augment their tourism potential and relieving tourists’ pressure on the park. The continued survival of Kaziranga National Park over the next years and consolidation of the conservation successes achieved in the last one Kaziranga National Park of India 8139 hundred years will therefore depend to a large extent on what happens beyond the park’s boundaries and in the surrounding landscape. Need of the hour is to carry out a landscape level strategic environment assessment so that environmental issues are taken care of properly.

Recommendations Due to its unique geographical position in India in general and north east India in particular, Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM) Bhopal conducted an economic valuation study of the park upon the request of National Authority, Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and . The flow benefits (mainly carbon sequestration, water provisioning, water purification, sediment regulation/retention, nutrient cycling/ retention, biological control, moderation of extreme events, pollination, nursery function, recreation and gene pool protection) from the park are immense i.e. Rs. 9.76 billion/year as estimated by Verma et al., (2015). According to authors, during the year 2014-15, overall management costs incurred in park’s administration was Rs. 48.88 million. Thus, for every rupee spent on management costs in Kaziranga National Park, flow benefits of Rs. 200 were realized within and outside the park. Given such a huge multiplier effect, the ongoing efforts by the forest department and other Civil Society Organizations must be further augmented by a strategic shift towards landscape management of the entire area rather than just the area enclosed within the boundaries of the park. There’s a need to re-look at few of the development initiatives which may adversely affect the integrity of the landscape and learn from the past experiences through the various phases of evolution as mentioned above as also to adopt best practices from other places to further the cause of conservation. The bulk of tourists interested in wild-life tourism, mainly visit Kaziranga but no other National Parks and sanctuaries in Assam. If a well-crafted publicity campaign is conducted for the promotion of these other parks and sanctuaries, besides introducing the revenue maximization entry fee in Kaziranga National Park, then a large chunk of visitors would be forced to think beyond Kaziranga National Park and visit other parks and sanctuaries of Assam. Secondly, there is an urgent need to carry out a landscape level strategic environment assessment as envisaged by Mathur et al. (2005) involving competent national and international agencies to review the development scenarios which are expected to occur around KNP in near future like road expansion, dam construction & urbanization of the region and to ensure that conservation concerns are fully integrated in the development trajectories. 8140 Patnaik, Sharma & Chaudhry

REFERENCES

Barua, M., & Sharma, P. (1999). Birds of Kaziranga National Park, India. Forktail, 15, 47-60. Bharali, A., & Mazumdar, R. (2012). Application of travel cost method to assess the pricing policy of public parks: The case of Kaziranga National Park. Journal of Regional Development and Planning, 1(1), 44-52. Borah, A. (2015). Flood threatens Kaziranga. Down to Earth. Retrieved from https:/ /www.downtoearth.org.in/news/flood-threatens-kaziranga-41580 Champion, H. G., & Seth, S. K. (1968). A revised survey of the forest of India. New Delhi: Government of India publication. Das, A., Ahmed, M. F., Lahkar, B.P., & Sharma, P. (2007). A preliminary report of reptilian mortality on road due to vehicular movements near KNP, Assam, India. ’s Print Journal, 22(7), 2722-2744. Di Fonzo, M. M. I .(2007. Determining correlates of human-elephant conflict reports within fringe villages of KNP, Assam. In the thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Research of the University of and the diploma of Imperial College. Retrieved from https://www.iccs.org.uk/wp-content/thesis/DiFonzoMSc.pdf Javadekar, P. (2014). Government to take steps to stop poaching of one horned rhino. The Economic Times. Retrieved from https:// economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and- nation/government-to- take-steps-to-stop-poaching-of-one-horned-rhino/articleshow/40177888.cms Kaziranga National Park .(2018).The year of 2017 for Kaziranga National Park. Retrieved from https://www.kaziranga-national-park.com/blog/year-2017- kaziranga-national-park/ Kushwaha, S. P. S. (1997). Remote sensing and GIS in wildlife habitat management. Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun, India. Kushwaha, S. P. S., Roy, P. S., Azeem, A., Boruah, P., & Lahan, P. (2000). Land area change and rhino habitat suitability analysis in KNP, Assam. Tigerpaper, XXVII (2), 09-17. Lahan, P., & Sonowal, R. N. (1973). Kaziranga wildlife sanctuary, Assam. Journal of Bombay Natural Historical Society, 7(1), 245-278. Maan, J. S., & Chaudhry, P. (2019). People and protected areas: Some issues from India. Animal and Biodiversity conservation, 42(1), 79-90. Mathur, V. B., Verma, A., Dudly, N., Stolton, S., Hockings, M., & James, R. (2005). Opportunities and challenges for KNP, Assam over the next fifty years. Retrieved from Citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/doi=10.1.1.578.8204 Pathak, B. N. (1978). Kaziranga Natioanl park-1978 census report (p.546). Government of Assam, Department of Forests. Talukdar, B., & Barman, R. (2004). Current state of man-elephant conflictin Assam: Solution still elusive. In J. Jayewardene (Ed.), Endangered Elephant, past, present and future (p. 228). Proceedings of the Symposium on Human Elephant Relationships and Conflicts, , September 2003. Biodiversity and Elephant Conservation Trust, Colombo. Talukdar, B., Baruah. J., & Lahkar, B. (2005). Human– elephant conflict in Assam: Quest for feasible solution. , Assam: Aaranyak. Saikia, A. (2009). The Kaziranga national park: Dynamics of social and political history. Conservation and Society, 7(2), 113-129. Thapar, V. (Ed.). (2003). Battling for survivals: India’s wilderness over two centuries. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Vasu, N. K. (2013). Kaziranga Tiger reserve conservation plan (2013-14 to 2022- 23). Verma, M., Negandhi, D., Khanna, C., Edgaonkar, A., David, A., Kadekodi, G., Costanza, R., & Singh, R. (2015). Economic valuation of Tiger reserves in India: A value+ approach. Indian Institute of Forest Management Bhopal, Kaziranga National Park of India 8141

India. A report submitted to National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India. Waggoner, J .(2016). Assam state in India takes new steps to stop rhino poaching. In Good Nature Travel. Retrieved from https://www.nathab.com/blog/assam- state-in-india-takes-new-steps-to-stop-rhino-poaching/ Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, Britain. (2017). Natural flood management measures - A practical guide for farmers. Retrieved from https://www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1010991/ 11301_flood_management_guide_WEBx.pdf