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. 

At the time of preparation of this report, the State Party had not submitted a state of conservation report, which was requested by the World Heritage Committee at its 33^rd session (Seville, Spain). Therefore, progress on the implementation of the corrective measures is difficult to assess. However, IUCN has received reports and data from its network of scientists and members on certain aspects of the state of conservation of the property.

With respect to wildlife monitoring and the establishment of an effective monitoring system (corrective measure a), IUCN has received reports that the park authority, in collaboration with conservation NGOs, has recently developed wildlife monitoring forms to serve as the basis for a monitoring database. A number of conservation NGOs, including ATREE (Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment), Aaranyak, and WWF-India, among others, will soon begin surveying the property’s tiger population, and are currently monitoring populations of swamp deer, hispid hare, Bengal florican, Pygmy hog and the relocated one-horned rhinoceros.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN welcome the reports received by IUCN on efforts to monitor wildlife population, since these will be essential to demonstrate a clear upward trend in wildlife populations to allow a future decision on a removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger. They note that information on the results from these monitoring activities and on the implementation of the 5 other corrective measures was not provided by the State Party.

IUCN also received reports that invasive species are increasingly a major threat to the property’s habitats. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN recall the recommendation of the 2008 reactive monitoring mission to assess the status of invasive species within the property, and to develop and implement effective control measures.

IUCN has received reports that several local ecotourism groups within the property have begun building roads and other infrastructure without informing the park authorities. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN recommend that the State Party monitor the activities of these groups, ensure they are undertaken in close collaboration with the park authorities, and increase control of vehicle movement. They recall the recommendation of the 2008 reactive monitoring mission to build a regional vision on tourism taking into account the limited carrying capacity of the property ensuring that any tourism developments are consistent with the values of the property.

IUCN has also received reports that a paramilitary group on the Indo-Bhutan border, Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), is attempting to set up base camps within the property. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN recall that instability and the presence of groups of insurgents in the past had been at the origin of increased poaching which led to the declines in wildlife populations and the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in danger and recommend that the State Party continue its reported efforts to ban these camps.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN consider that without a report by the State Party on the implementation of the corrective measures and on the status of wildlife populations, it is impossible to evaluate the progress made towards a removal from the List of World Heritage in danger. They reiterate that a clear upward trend in the populations of key wildlife species needs to be demonstrated in order to consider this removal, as decided by the Committee at previous sessions. In light of the above, the World Heritage Centre and IUCN consider that the property should be retained on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Noting as well that a management plan for the property has not been finalized and approved, they encourage the State Party to continue its efforts in implementing the corrective measures, finalizing the draft management plan, and developing an effective monitoring system and database.