Manas Wildlife Sanctuary

a) Insurgency 1988-2003;

b) Forced evacuation of Park staff;

c) Destruction of Park infrastructure;

d) Poaching and logging;

e) Illegal cultivation.

• Insurgency resulting in destruction of Park infrastructure;
• Depletion of forest habitat and wildlife populations.

A series of corrective measures was adopted by the Committee at its 29th session (Durban, 2005). Following the 2008 joint World Heritage Centre / IUCN monitoring mission, the World Heritage Committee at its 32nd session (Quebec City, 2008) updated the corrective measures as follows:

a) Urgently conduct a baseline survey on recovery of wildlife populations and set up a full monitoring system which will allow monitoring and documenting the recovery of flagship species;

b) Resolve the problem of fund release which did not progress significantly since the last mission;

c) Complete the work for the reconstruction and improvement of park infrastructure;

d) Fill the remaining vacant positions in the park by recruiting the best elements of the volunteers, and/or others, into permanent positions;

e) Strengthen and consolidate park management operations, in particular the efforts for reducing illegal logging and wildlife poaching in the Panbari Range;

f) Continue efforts for the reintroduction of the one-horned rhino and assess the need and feasibility for a restoration programme of the swamp deer.

Total amount provided to the property: As of 2008, the property is benefiting from the UNF funded World Heritage India programme. Project interventions include: enhancing management effectiveness and building staff capacity; increasing the involvement of local communities in the management of the property and promoting their sustainable development; and raising awareness through communication and advocacy. 

Manas Wildlife Sanctuary was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992, during a prolonged period of political unrest and insecurity, which resulted in poaching and a dramatic decline in wildlife, as well as deforestation and habitat degradation. With the security situation improving, a joint World Heritage Centre / IUCN monitoring mission visited the property in 2005 and established a set of corrective measures, which were adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 29th session (Durban, 2005). A further mission visited the property in 2008 to review progress in the implementation. The mission concluded that the rehabilitation of the outstanding universal value of the property had just started, and that the presence of viable populations of key wildlife species and a clear upward trend of these populations were key elements for removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

On 11 February 2009, a report on the state of conservation of the property was submitted by the State Party, which provides the following information on the implementation of the corrective measures:

a) Urgently conduct a baseline survey on recovery of wildlife populations and set up a full monitoring system which will allow monitoring and documenting the recovery of flagship species;

The State Party report provides data on the wildlife populations of 27 species of mammals, including elephant, wild water buffalo; swamp deer, pygmy hog and others. Population estimates on eight rare species of bird is also provided, including the Bengal florican. No information is provided on the data collection techniques used or on the statistical accuracy of the data, making it difficult to do a proper interpretation. The report also does not include an analysis of the data, comparing population estimates with the levels at the time of inscription.

The data seem to confirm the conclusion of the 2008 monitoring mission that recovery of wildlife populations has just started. For several key species, population estimates are significantly lower than at the time of inscription: for instance current estimated elephant population in the park and surrounding buffer areas stands at 1,284, while this population was estimated 2000-3000 in 1990. The report does not include information on the tiger population in Manas, but states that the average population of the entire North Eastern Hills and Brahmaputra flood plains, which includes Manas, is estimated at 70 individuals. In 1990, the tiger population in the property alone was estimated at 123. The next tiger census will be carried out in 2009. The report also mentions 163 Golden Langur (population estimated 305 in 1980), 10 swamp dear (population estimated 450 in 1992) and 43 Bengal florican (population estimated 80 in 1980). Several species have populations close to or lower than 50 individuals: sloth bear (17), leopard (29), golden cat (35), fishing cat (35), leopard cat (52), wild dog (52), giant squirrel (52), Indian pangolin (35), Himalayan black bear (35), Himalayan palm civet (17). Populations of pygmy hog and hispid hare were estimated at 192 and 297 individuals respectively.

b) Resolve the problem of fund release which did not progress significantely since the last mission;

The report states that the funding situation has continued to improve. The Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) continues to provide regular funding to the property. In 2008, State and Central funds of about USD 113,900 were also provided to the property and the Indian Rhino Vision-2020 programme has provided a further USD 51,800. No information is provided regarding whether the funds provided by the national authorities were released in a timely way at the site level.

c) Complete the work for the reconstruction and improvement of park infrastructure;

Since April 2008 an additional six anti-poaching camps have been constructed , bringing the total to 37. Additional wireless base stations have been installed and other equipment has been purchased to aid patrolling. The southern boundary road has also been re-opened, which facilitates patrol activities, in particular preventing illegal livestock grazing in the property.

d) Fill the remaining vacant positions in the park by recruiting the best elements of the volunteers, and/or others, into permanent positions;

Staffing levels have improved significantly since the 2008 mission with a reduction in the number of vacancies from 123 to 32. There are currently 319 staff, including 71 armed rangers. There is additional support from conservation workers, armed guards and forest protection officers provided by the Bodo Territorial Council, Indian Rhino Vision-2020 and the Assam Forest Protection Force.

e) Strengthen and consolidate park management operations, in particular the efforts for reducing illegal logging and wildlife poaching in the Panbari Range;

Patrolling has been reinforced in the Panbari Range and the Bhuyanpara Range, the areas most affected during the crisis. Anti-poaching camps in these areas have been reinstated and are staffed. According to the State Party report, poaching and illegal logging in both areas is now under control.

f) Continue efforts for the reintroduction of the one-horned rhino and assess the need and feasibility for a restoration programme of the swamp deer.

In 1990, the population of one-horned rhino in Manas was estimated at 80 individuals, but the species was poached out during the crisis. A reintroduction programme began in 2006, with the translocation of several rescued females. Two males were successfully translocated from other National Parks in April 2008 and three rescued female rhinos were released in November 2008. The report notes that all translocated individuals have adapted well to their new surroundings. It is planned to translocate a total of 20 rhinos.under the reintroduction programme “Indian Rhino Vision-2020” which is supported by the Government of Assam, Bodoland Territorial Council, WWF, International Rhino Foundation and United States Fish and Wildlife Services. The rescue programme is also supported by the Wildlife Trust of India.

The report notes that the presence of 10 swamp deer was confirmed during the census. While it will take time, it is thought that this group could provide a sufficient basis for a future recovery and no translocation is necessary.

The State Party report further notes that while the property for the moment has no approved management plan, a draft is available which addresses the concerns included in Decision 32 COM 7A.12. The draft notes the vision for the future management of the property, wildlife monitoring, management of invasive species, land use management, fire management and tourism. Unfortunately, no copy of this draft management plan was submitted by the State Party, thus it has not been reviewed. The report mentions that the Bodoland Territorial Council has taken the initiative to enlarge the Park on its western flank, from 500 to 974 sq. km, in line with the recommendations of the 2008 mission.

The report also notes the support for the property through UNESCO’s World Heritage Programme in India, via project components related to strengthening capacity for effective management; local communities; habitat connectivity; research and monitoring; management and governance and raising profile of World Heritage properties in civil society.

No information was provided on the following recommendations of the 2008 monitoring mission: transboundary cooperation, tourism planning, capacity building for volunteers and field staff, status of invasive species and need to clarify responsibilities between the Government of Assam and the Bodoland Territorial Council on the management of the property. IUCN notes the publication of several research papers on habitat changes in Manas National Park (‘Land-use and Land-cover change and future implication analysis in Manas National Park, India using multi-temporal satellite data’ published in June 2008 by P K Sarma et al in the Journal Current Science and ‘A study of habitat utilization patterns of Asian elephant Elephas maximus and current status of human elephant conflict in Manas National Park within Chirang-Ripu Elephant Reserve, Assam’ in Aaranyak Technical report by Lahkar, B.P., Das, J.P., Nath, N.K., Dey, S., Brahma, N & Sarma, P.K. 2007),) Findings of these reports include that for the period 1998 to 2006 woodland decreased by 8.97sq. km, alluvial grasslands decreased by 38.84sq. km, and waterbodies decreased by 1.68sq. km. In contrast, savannah grasslands have increased by 29.13sq. km, and encroached land has increased by 4.93sq. km. Alluvial grasslands are particularly important for pygmy hog and the paper suggests that invasive plants and fires may be contributing to the siltation and drying of the alluvial grasslands. Reduced rainfall appears to be a further factor contributing to the reduction in the area of waterbodies and alluvial grasslands.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN welcome the continued progress made in the implementation of the corrective measures and believe these are creating the conditions for a recovery of the outstanding universal value and integrity of the property. They also welcome the data on wildlife populations which have been submitted through the State Party report. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN consider that these data seem to confirm the conclusion of the 2008 mission that, while the recovery of wildlife populations has started, it is still at an early stage. The successful reintroduction of rhino to the property is also encouraging but it will be necessary to continue the programme to create a viable new population. While the re-discovery of swamp deer is encouraging, it remains to be seen if the population is sufficient to be viable. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN consider that the decision of the World Heritage Committee at its 32nd session (Quebec City, 2008) that a clear upward trend of populations of key wildlife species needs to be demonstrated to justify a removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger remains the clear and appropriate basis for consideration of the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The current population data can be considered as a baseline to monitor these trends. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN hope that the State Party will be able to demonstrate these positive trends over the next two to three years, in order for the World Heritage Committee to consider removing the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN also invite the State Party to develop a draft Statement of Outstanding Universal Value and to develop a proposal for the Desired state of conservation for a removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger, based on the presented baseline data. The monitoring of the outstanding universal value of the property should also include data on habitat change in relation to criterion (ix) and the mentioned research papers can provide a useful baseline for this.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN note that the State Party reports that a draft management plan has recently been completed and invites the State Party to submit it to the World Heritage Centre. The monitoring of the Outstanding Universal Value and integrity of the property should be fully integrated into the implementation of the new management plan, taking into account concerns about invasive species, changes in land-cover, reduced rainfall, and the need to monitor possible climate change impacts, and consider developing appropriate adaptive management measures.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN welcome the reports that the Bodoland Territorial Council has taken the initiative to expand the National Park to the west and note that this would contribute to improve the integrity and landscape connectivity of the property and its wildlife.