kaziranga national park of india: some ...kaziranga national park of india 8129 review of literature...

Jharkhand Journal of Development and Management StudiesXISS, Ranchi, Vol. 17, No.2, June 2019, pp. 8127-8141

KAZIRANGA NATIONAL PARK OF INDIA: SOME WILDLIFEAND TOURISM MANAGEMENT RELATED PRESSING ISSUES

N. K. Dheerendra Patnaik1, Kunal Sharma2 &Pradeep Chaudhry3

Kaziranga National Park (KNP) is a world heritage site inhabitedby the world’s largest population of one-horned rhinoceroses. Inaddition, it also supports population no tigers, elephants, panthers,bears, and thousands of birds. As result of sustained conservationefforts, the estimated number of rhinoceros has increased from 40in 1911 to more than 2400 in 2018. Floods are regular annual featureof the park which is spread over Nagaon, Golaghat & Sonitpurdistricts of Assam and covers an area of little more than a thousandsquare kilometres (482 km2 of core zone and 548 km2 of bufferzone). Due to chronic flood problem in Brahmaputra river everyyear, the park’s management faces an uphill task on one hand,while poachers and heavy traffic on adjoining national highwaytake heavy toll of wild animals on the other. Besides these,unregulated tourism in the park has the potential to create problemsin conservation of the wildlife just like other National Parks of thecountry. Kaziranga National Park is facing these problems in recenttimes and Government of Assam must consider promoting andpublicizing other protected areas of the state to augment theirtourism potential and relieving tourists’ pressure on the park. Someurgent steps needed for sustainable management of this naturalasset have been discussed in the present article.

Keywords : Natural resource management, protected areas, financialsustainability, wildlife conservation, sustainable tourism, wildlifemanagement, Illegal Natural Resource Extractors, Man-AnimalConflict

IntroductionKaziranga National Park (KNP) (26°35'–26°45’N and 93°05'–93°40’E)islocated in the floodplain of the Brahmaputra river in the Nagaon,Golaghat and Sonitpur districts of Assam, India, covering an area of1030 km² and is the largest protected area on the southern bank of theBrahmaputra river (Figure1). The terrain of the park is flat (55-75 mabove msl) with an east to west incline. Being in the floodplain of theBrahmaputra river, the soil of the park is rich in alluvial deposits (Barua& Sharma, 1999). The park, also declared as a tiger reserve byGovernment of India, derives its name from the Karbi language in

8127

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



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 theecologically rich Indo-Malayan Biogeographic realm, complexing theelements of both the Indian and Malayan origins, giving it a distinctlandscape ranging from woodland–hilly area, woodland- grassland,grassland-water bodies to river islands. A large number of small riversand channels flow through the park from east to west, mostly originatingfrom the Karbi Anglong hills to the south, run northwards andultimately 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 itwas notified as a ‘Reserve Forest’, with the primary aim of protectingthe Indian Rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis and its habitat (Lahan &Sonowal, 1973). It was subsequently declared as a ‘Game Reserve’ in1916, made into a ‘Wildlife Sanctuary’ in 1950 and, finally, declared asa ‘National Park’ on January 1, 1974. It was also proclaimed as aUNESCO ‘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 literatureKNP went through three distinct phases of evolution, broadly arrangedinto the pre-1930s, 1930s to 1970s and post-1970s, before reaching thepresent status of a world renowned National park. While theconservation mechanisms common to these three phases remain oftenoverlapped, what became typical of these three phases were theirdistinguishing ideological contours of conservation (Saikia, 2009). Duringfirst phase the park conservation story begin with both faunaconservation and joyful game playing (by the Britishers and local rulers)a collective role in shaping the growth of KNP. Between 1871 and 1907Maharaj Nripendra Narayan shot dead more than 370 tigers, 208rhinoceroses, 430 buffaloes, and 324 barasingha deer (Thapar, 2003).In 1924, a large number of peasants, in a petition signed by severalhundred from the neighbourhood of the sanctuary, strongly protestedagainst the very idea of creating a reserve exclusively meant for animals,and demanded that they be allowed land for cultivation. The secondphase integrated it with a larger science of conservation and continuedto emphasize on the policy of exclusion of local community inconservation. A conservation framework with the background of somelocal wildlife laws and acts based on safeguarding a complex habitateco-system could hardly find space in the ideological imperative. Thelast and present phase is more driven by larger nationalistic politicalcompulsions, when various international conservation organizationsexhorted Government of India and state government to protect the rhino.Over the years the ideological paradigm of wildlife conservation in theKaziranga National Park had changed significantly (Saikia, 2009).

As far as biodiversity of park is concerned, the vegetation of thepark may be broadly classified into four categories: (1) Eastern wetalluvial grasslands; (2) Eastern Dillenia swamp forest; (3) Riparianfringing forest; and (4) Assam alluvial plains semi-evergreen forest(Champion & Seth, 1968). According to Kushwaha (1997), wetlands inthe park cover 7%, grasslands cover 57%, sand cover 7%, and woodlandcover 29% of the total area. The vegetation of the water bodies includesaquatic plants like Andropogon species, Ipomoea reptans, Enhydrafluctuans , Pistia stratiotes , Lemna paucicostata, andEichhorniacrassipes. In the alluvial grasslands the prominent speciesof grass are: Phragmiteskarka, Arundodonax, Imperatacylindrica,Saccharumelephantinus and Erianthusravennae. Short grasses suchas Hemarthriacompressa, Microstegiumciliatum, Cynodondactylonand Cenchrusciliaris are found around the beels (or shallow lakes, ascalled locally). Tree species include Bombax ceiba, Dilleniapentagyna,Careyaarborea, Trewianudiflora, Tetramelesnudiflora, Lagerstroemiaparviflora, Albiziaprocera, Albizialucida, Phyllanthus officinalis,Ficusspp, Zizyphus jujuba, and Barringtoniaacutangula

The Kaziranga Tiger Reserve/National Park presents a uniqueecosystem where prescribed burning is used to maintain the vegetationstructure by arresting the seral stage of grassland and preventinginvasion of tree forest. This is done to ensure adequate quantity andnutritional value of food supply (i.e. grass) to the large population ofvarious 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), AsiaticElephant (Elephas maximus), Swamp Deer (Cervus duvauvceliranjitsinghi), and Royal Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris). The KazirangaNational Park (KNP) is home to about 35 mammal species out of which15 are threatened and listed under Schedule I of Wildlife (Protection)Act, 1972. The latest estimates by the forest department peg the numbersof few species of wild animals as – 2413 One-horned Rhinos (Figure3)1089 Elephants and 1148 Swamp Deers. The park is full of myriadspecies 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 ofbirds and has at least 479 different avifauna species visiting the tigerreserve (Barua & Sharma, 1999). The inventory contains 25 species ofglobal importance of which 23 are critically endangered, endangered orvulnerable. The park also acts as the roosting and nesting ground formigratory and indigenous water birds. Vulture population is decliningin India drastically due to various reasons but the population of vulturesin KNP which contains critically endangered long-billed and slender-billed vultures, has been growing up in recent times (Vasu, 2013).Objectives of the studyCertain challenges and wildlife management issues of the park havebeen discussed in the article. We have discussed about a series of stepsneeded for sustainable management of the park.


Methodology and sources of dataThe review article is based on literature review, professional experience,knowledge, field visits and discussion with park officials (mostly duringcurrent year and during last ten years) enabling the authors to comparepark status over last ten years with present one. Certain chronic issuesare presented in below given paras to highlight main challenges facedby the park authorities.Observations and findingsThere are 733 protected areas in India presently, spreading over anarea of 160901.77 sq km, covering about 4.89% of the country’s area(Maan & Chaudhry, 2019). These protected areas cover various NationalParks, wildlife sanctuaries, conservation reserves and communityreserves. Kaziranga National Park is one of these protected areas ofthe country. This spot is a world heritage site inhabited by the world’slargest population of one-horned rhinoceroses. In view of the high densitytiger presence in the area and reportedly the only viable population oftigers in any of the north east India tiger landscapes, the Governmentof India approved the constitution of Kaziranga Tiger Reserve in August2006 (Verma et al., 2015). There are about 60 rivers and small waterchannels and about 200 water-bodies in the core area of KNP. Floodingis an integral part of the ecological system of the tiger reserve. It notonly helps in the maintenance of vegetation status, flooding alsocontributes to the process of silt deposition and soil formation. Theseriver ecosystems are responsible for other challenges discussed inensuing paras. Also, the ongoing efforts by various stakeholders arementioned towards the end.The Major ChallengesFlooding and erosionThe Kaziranga National Park is replete with water bodies and getsinundated by the flood waters every year, due to incessant rains andupwelling of the water streams (Figure 4). The northern and easternparts of the park are generally the most affected as these regions aredotted by the mighty Brahmaputra. Soil erosion is a serious problemduring every year’s summer floods. As per the records, from 1912 tothe Present, KNP has lost a staggering amount of 149.98 sq Km ofland in all. However, the area gained due to accretion is only 60.85 sqKm. Floods occur every year, sometimes many times during the year,submerging 80-90 % of the park area very often, affecting wildlifeconsiderably. Also, the concern is that while crucial Rhino habitat islost to floods and erosion year by year, it takes considerable time tocome to a point when it can support large numbers of the wildlifepopulation. The point that needs to be noted here is that the larger


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

Road developmentPlans are underway to convert the existing NH-37 to a six laneexpressway. If this happens, this linear development may cause apermanent barrier effect and also increase wild animal mortality. Thereis an urgent need to conduct a comprehensive Environmental ImpactAssessment study and develop appropriate mitigation options (Mathuret al., 2005).Poaching of rhinosThe killing of rhinos by poachers for the alleged aphrodisiac qualitiesand uses in traditional medicines of rhino horn is a serious issue relatingto the survival of this animal in the park (Kushwaha, Roy, Azeem,Boruah, & Lahan, 2000). In April 2016, poachers killed a rhino just afew hours after Kaziranga received a visit from Prince William and hiswife the Duchess of Cambridge. The royal couple had visited the parkto bring attention to the importance of protecting endangered speciesfrom poachers and wildlife trafficking (Waggoner, 2016).The poachingissue also figured in India’s parliament time to time (Javadekar, 2014).Main challenges and issues in rhino poaching include, recent highdemand for rhino horn in China and Southeast Asian countries,Insufficient intelligence gathering and field-based action for tracing the

threat that looms over the wild animals is not due to sinking in thefloodwaters, but being vulnerable to poaching or being hit by speedingvehicles as animals cross the National Highway (NH) 37, to seek safehigher reaches of the Karbi-Anglong Hills during floods. Das, Ahmed,Lahkar and Sharma (2007) recorded 68 instances of road kills of reptilesbelonging to 21 species and 7 families. Most affected reptiles were snakesfollowed by lizards.


poachers’ networks, permeability of the protected area boundaries andinsufficient anti- poaching camps and patrolling at the border areas,lack of mechanism for monitoring and protection of straying rhinosoutside the protected areas, low rate of conviction of the suspects due toimproper legal procedures and lack of proper evidence- gatheringmechanism, poor coordination of the forest department with residents,local organisations and other government agencies in generating supportfor conservation and protection and finally delay in release of funds tothe protected areas by the government. Assam forest department hasnot recruited sufficient number of rangers and forest guards to strengthenthe field staff in the park. This has resulted in a top-heavy departmentalstructure where officers out- number the trained personnel adept atcarrying out conservation duty. There is a need to form armed protectionsquads trained by the army along the lines adopted in South Africa,Namibia and Botswana with modern armaments, electronic surveillanceand vehicles for protection and anti-poaching actions both outside andinside protected areas.Encroachment and grazing issuesEncroachment of the park area by growing human population in thepark vicinity is also a major issue. Demand for agricultural land, grazingand settlement has increased to a manifold. Grazing by domestic cattlealso constitutes a serious threat to wild animals due to possible spreadingof diseases like anthrax, foot & mouth diseases among park animals(Pathak, 1978; Kushwaha, Roy, Azeem, Boruah, & Lahan 2000).Construction of damsAccording to local news (personal communication), Assam governmentis thinking to build big dams over river Bharmaputra in near future.Dams are considered to bring several advantages including power, betterirrigation and a reduction in the surges of water that cause flooding.However, from a conservation perspective, reduction in flooding wouldhave enormous impacts on the ecology of Kaziranga. Many of theseimpacts would be detrimental to an ecology that has adapted overmillennia to regular flooding (Mathur et al., 2005).Urbanization in the areaUrbanization trend in the area of rhino habitat, along the side of NH-37 is tremendous. Settlements are increasing every year and posechallenge as they may lead to other harmful activities like expansionof agriculture, more demand for fodder and firewood, construction ofroads, markets etc. in future (Kushwaha, Roy, Azeem, Boruah, &Lahan, 2000).There are 23 villages surrounding the park along withfour tea gardens. Another 30 villages are located in the vicinity. Thetotal human population in the immediate surroundings of the park is


about 70,000 according to the 2001 census report. The tea gardenslocated near the park boundaries also create a threat to the preservationof wild life through pesticide run-off. Hathikuli Tea Estate is a typicalexample. During the last 50 years large scale habitat changes in theKarbi plateau include expansion of tea gardens, human settlement,logging and shifting agriculture cultivation (Bharali & Mazumdar,2012).Invasive weeds and shrinking grasslandsThe Kaziranga National Park is a distinct grassland ecosystem, assuch the invasion of tree species like Bombax Ceiba (Semal Tree) is aserious concern, especially in the grasslands of Central and WesternRanges. Also, invasive weeds like Ipomoea Carnea and Water Hyacinthhave spread in several water bodies and slowly spreading to the coreareas. These deteriorate the water quality and are detrimental to thehealth of the fish. One way the park management deals with this problemis uprooting the trees and burning them down routinely as part ofHabitat Management. On enquiring as to why the uprooted weeds arejust burnt down instead of being channelized towards any economicuse, the prime reason shared by the officials there was the stringentprovisions of the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA), 1972 which strictlyrestricts the transportation of any forest resource from the precincts ofa protected area to outside the jurisdiction of the protected area.However, such a measure to protect wildlife runs the risk of improperand non-judicious use of crucial forest resources. For example, theBombax Ceiba species which has multiple uses ranging from extractionof cotton for making pillows and mattresses to the extraction of plantparts for the cure of complications like sexual debility, Acid Reflux,Acne, Arthritis, etc. Now if an uprooted Bombax Ceiba tree is burntdown rather than utilizing it productively, then the tree’s inherentvalue will be lost forever.

Tourist’s pressureTill the early 1930, the spot (game sanctuary at that time) was hardlyvisited by any tourist and completely left to itself by the forestdepartment. The park got a facelift during the energetic leadership ofA. Milroy, forest conservator of that period, who opened it up for thevisitors in 1938. During the financial year of 1938-1939, the gamesanctuary collected Rs. 305 in the form of rent for hired elephants andview permits (Saikia, 2009). Presently, revenue collected is more thanRs. 26 million (Table 1) while tourist population reached 177,431 during2017-18.

Tourists come from various parts of the world for viewing theunique wildlife and biodiversity of the National Park. In 2005-06, the


total tourists flow was 54,326, which increased to 1,09,606 in 2009-10and to 177,431 in 2017-18. On an average 5 percent of the tourists areforeigners.

The information on the average annual tourist influx of the pastsix years (2008-09 to2013-14) is as shown in Table-1 (adopted from Vermaet al., 2015). As revealed from the Table-1, revenue from gate fees isconstantly 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 11.222009-10 112844 12.162010-11 119839 13.672011-12 124932 14.942012-13 101165 20.572013-14 128435 26.86

The Kaziranga National Park (KNP) has been suffering fromover-exposure in recent years as is evident from the data above. In thesouthern part of the Kaziranga National Park, almost seventy privateand public hotels and lodges (there are only four Government lodges)have been constructed providing hospitality services to the visitors(Bharali & Mazumdar, 2012).Man animal conflictThe prominent cases of wild carnivores preying upon domesticated cattleand animals, which are common in other protected areas of the countryare rare in Kaziranga National Park because of the huge prey base (thenumerous deer and other herbivores) within the park. However, casesof human elephant conflict are common. The elephant’s natural habitatin Assam is rapidly diminishing because of increased land clearancefor agriculture and industrial use. Human encroachment has forcedelephants to forage in non-protected areas, thus augmenting thelikelihood of disturbing local people (Talukdar & Barman, 2004). Theincreased opportunity for human-elephant encounters has resulted inmany elephants being killed both accidentally (i.e.by road accidents orelectrocution) and purposely (i.e. through poisoning), causing thepopulation in Golaghat district of Assam to decline from 500 individualsin 1973 to between 160 and 190 in 2006 (Talukdar, Baruah & Lahkar,2005). Di Fonzo (2007) highlighted the negative association betweenproportion of reported house damage and forest cover, thus providingan incentive for further analyses concerning the elephant’s preferredfood types. In her doctoral study the research scholar furtherrecommended Joint Forest Management as an alternative incomegeneration activity to compensate losses in such conflicts. Her study


also showed that human elephant conflict did not lessen with increasingdistance from the park boundary, indicating that additional researchmust be carried out on a larger spatial scale to encompass the elephant’sentire range. She detected intense respect towards elephants by localAssamese people, which is of considerable importance to theirconservation.The ongoing effortsDespite numerous issues and challenges faced by the park authoritiesas mentioned above, the Kaziranga National Park is a thriving exampleof effective conservation efforts to protect wildlife, and the same can beseen from the steady rise in the numbers of One- horned Rhinos from75 in 1905 to more than 2400 in 2018. Moreover, this is commendableconsidering the grave challenges of incessant flooding the park facesalmost every year. In fact, the last one hundred years have seen majorconservation successes in Kaziranga National Park, with populationsof many endangered species, including rhino, elephant and tiger risingand the ecological integrity of the area being maintained, despite highbiotic pressures and stochastic perturbations in the landscape (Mathuret al., 2005).

To mitigate the situation, considerable efforts have been takenby the local forest department from time to time. Some of the measuresinclude pressing speed boats into the service, several rounds of awarenessdrives among the fringe villagers, seeking their cooperation and support,repairing the highlands inside the park so that these can provide shelterto animals during flood, heightened anti-poaching vigilance throughfloating camps and deployment of over 1200 staff members on duty.

The local Forest Department is working rigorously to combat theproblem of Man-Animal Conflict. The forest department boasts of 24×7patrolling of the park through various modes like Foot, Vehicles, Boats,Elephants, etc. The department is also deploying drones for monitoringand surveillance (KNP, 2018). The various Non-GovernmentalOrganisations are also playing a key role in checking Man- AnimalConflict. For Example, The Corbett Foundation has taken up the causeof building solar and bio fences around fields. They also catch up reptilesthat have sneaked into human habitations and release them safely inthe wild. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is working to createawareness among the people in fringe villages and supports them throughcompensation in case of damage to life and property. The PantheraFoundation has deployed its own team of spirited guards withsophisticated equipment to track and arrest the Illegal Natural ResourceExtractors (INREs). Based on this it has even developed a database ofoffenders which it shares with other agencies including the forestdepartment. The Aaranyak Foundation is also working towards


channelizing people in the fringe areas of the park towards alternativesources of employment. It also maintains a superior and robust Dogsquad to catch offenders of wildlife crime.

DiscussionIn light of the wildlife and tourism management related pressing issuesand the various ongoing efforts as mentioned above, the followingadditional solutions must be considered and proactively implementedfor effective maintenance of the KNP.

There’s a need to explore and exploit the potential of Joint ForestManagement to resolve the Man-Animal Conflict problem. Also there’sneed to promote Eco-tourism avenues so as to provide alternatelivelihoods to the poachers and their families. Though the avenue ofeco-tourism has started to sprout in and around KNP, the park can tryto emulate initiatives like the ‘Manas Maozigendri Initiative’ whichhad played a pivotal role in getting the Manas National Park off the listof ‘World Heritage Sites in Danger’ in 2011 by leveraging and mobilisingthe painstaking efforts by the Bodo community and others in and aroundthe Park.

For mitigating the problem of Flooding and Erosion, furthermeasures that could be considered are construction of Swales (linear,shallow, vegetated drainage features that convey and store surface waterand provide the opportunity for infiltration and water treatment byencouraging settlement), Planting and Managing Hedgerows atappropriate places in the park and putting in place a multi-disciplinaryapproach eliciting support from experts and other departments to restorefloodplains by way of restoring meanders, setting back of flood banks,creation of wetlands, habitats for winter species, etc. (YDNPA, 2017).Also, as suggested by the officials there during our visit, an immediatemeasure to save wild animals from poaching and road accidents couldbe enforcement of ban on assembly of more than five persons (Section144 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. PC)) in areas within the park andits adjoining areas during floods by the district administrations ofGolaghat & Nagaon districts where the park is spanned across. TheDistrict administration could also keep a check on the speed limit ofvehicles plying on NH 37 (Borah, 2015).

There is also a need to re-look at the habitat management practicesof the KNP so that such resources which may not be needed for effectivemanagement of the flora and fauna of the park but are productiveotherwise may be suitably diverted for judicious use. To begin with, apan-India enumeration exercise needs to be undertaken across all theprotected areas of the country, to build an inventory of such forestresources which have productive economic uses but are not utilized


within the precincts of the protected areas. Later, such an inventorymay be appended to the WLPA, 1972 as an Appendix, with thecorresponding amendment made to the Act to effect the utilisation ofsuch unwanted forest resources outside the precincts of the ProtectedAreas, with suitable procedural safeguards built in so as to avoidexploitation and misuse of such resources. Doing so would help reapthe huge inherent untapped potential of such forest resources whichare otherwise cleared and burnt down for habitat management.

The enormous footfall of tourists in the park (as shown underTable 1 above) has resulted in several problems which impede pursuanceof 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, Orang NationalPark, Dibru-Saikhowa National Park, Nameri National Park andeighteen wildlife sanctuaries. But the tourist inflow pressure is muchhigher in Kaziranga National Park as compared to the other NationalParks and Sanctuaries in Assam (modified from Bharali & Mazumdar,2012). According to the authors there was an urgent need for a strategicshift of policy on the part of the Tourism and Forest departments sothat a segment of the tourist inflow can be diverted towards other parksand 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 payand the price one actually pays for an average tourist visiting KazirangaNational Park was equal to Rs. 187 per visit. The authors advocated anincrease in the gate fee to Rs. 187 per visitor from present level tomaximize the revenue collection. By introducing the revenuemaximizing entry fee on the visitors of, the park authorities can solvetwo major problems relating to the park, that is, lack of funds for parkconservation/protection and tourist inflow pressure. This is in sync withthe recognition of ‘Tourist Pressure’ as one of the many challengesmentioned above in this article and we are of the view that the tourismat KNP needs to be regulated to aid its conservation.

ConclusionKaziranga National Park is a unique protected area not only in India,but perhaps in the whole of Asia (Kushwaha et al., 2000). Therefore, inorder to maintain and govern this natural asset on sustainable basis,more attention is needed on part of the state and central governmentsas discussed in preceding paras. Government of Assam must considerpromoting and publicizing other protected areas of the state to augmenttheir tourism potential and relieving tourists’ pressure on the park.The continued survival of Kaziranga National Park over the next yearsand consolidation of the conservation successes achieved in the last one


hundred years will therefore depend to a large extent on what happensbeyond the park’s boundaries and in the surrounding landscape. Needof the hour is to carry out a landscape level strategic environmentassessment so that environmental issues are taken care of properly.

RecommendationsDue to its unique geographical position in India in general and northeast India in particular, Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM)Bhopal conducted an economic valuation study of the park upon therequest of National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India,Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The flow benefits(mainly carbon sequestration, water provisioning, water purification,sediment regulation/retention, nutrient cycling/ retention, biologicalcontrol, 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 toauthors, during the year 2014-15, overall management costs incurredin park’s administration was Rs. 48.88 million. Thus, for every rupeespent on management costs in Kaziranga National Park, flow benefitsof Rs. 200 were realized within and outside the park.

Given such a huge multiplier effect, the ongoing efforts by theforest department and other Civil Society Organizations must be furtheraugmented by a strategic shift towards landscape management of theentire area rather than just the area enclosed within the boundaries ofthe park. There’s a need to re-look at few of the development initiativeswhich may adversely affect the integrity of the landscape and learnfrom the past experiences through the various phases of evolution asmentioned above as also to adopt best practices from other places tofurther the cause of conservation.

The bulk of tourists interested in wild-life tourism, mainly visitKaziranga but no other National Parks and sanctuaries in Assam. If awell-crafted publicity campaign is conducted for the promotion of theseother parks and sanctuaries, besides introducing the revenuemaximization entry fee in Kaziranga National Park, then a large chunkof visitors would be forced to think beyond Kaziranga National Parkand visit other parks and sanctuaries of Assam.

Secondly, there is an urgent need to carry out a landscape levelstrategic environment assessment as envisaged by Mathur et al. (2005)involving competent national and international agencies to review thedevelopment scenarios which are expected to occur around KNP in nearfuture like road expansion, dam construction & urbanization of theregion and to ensure that conservation concerns are fully integrated inthe development trajectories.


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 thepricing policy of public parks: The case of Kaziranga National Park. Journalof 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 type of India.New Delhi: Government of India publication.

Das, A., Ahmed, M. F., Lahkar, B.P., & Sharma, P. (2007). A preliminary report ofreptilian mortality on road due to vehicular movements near KNP, Assam,India. Zoo’s Print Journal, 22(7), 2722-2744.

Di Fonzo, M. M. I .(2007. Determining correlates of human-elephant conflict reportswithin fringe villages of KNP, Assam. In the thesis submitted in partialfulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Research of theUniversity of London and the diploma of Imperial College. Retrieved fromhttps://www.iccs.org.uk/wp-content/thesis/DiFonzoMSc.pdf

Javadekar, P. (2014). Government to take steps to stop poaching of one hornedrhino. 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). Landarea change and rhino habitat suitability analysis in KNP, Assam. Tigerpaper,XXVII (2), 09-17.

Lahan, P., & Sonowal, R. N. (1973). Kaziranga wildlife sanctuary, Assam. Journalof Bombay Natural Historical Society, 7(1), 245-278.

Maan, J. S., & Chaudhry, P. (2019). People and protected areas: Some issues fromIndia. 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 HumanElephant Relationships and Conflicts, Sri Lanka, September 2003.Biodiversity and Elephant Conservation Trust, Colombo.

Talukdar, B., Baruah. J., & Lahkar, B. (2005). Human– elephant conflict in Assam:Quest for feasible solution. Guwahati, Assam: Aaranyak.

Saikia, A. (2009). The Kaziranga national park: Dynamics of social and politicalhistory. 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 inIndia: A value+ approach. Indian Institute of Forest Management Bhopal,


India. A report submitted to National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA),Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government ofIndia.

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 floodmanagement measures - A practical guide for farmers. Retrieved fromhttps://www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1010991/11301_flood_management_guide_WEBx.pdf


kaziranga national park of india: some ...kaziranga national park of india 8129 review of literature...

Documents