Manas Wildlife Sanctuary
Factors affecting the property in 2005*
- Civil unrest
- Financial resources
- Human resources
- Illegal activities
- Other Threats:
Destruction to park infrastructure
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Insurgency related threats resulting in destruction to park infrastructure and depletion of forest habitat and wildlife populations.
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2005
Total amount approved : 165,000 USD
| 1997 | Contribution towards the implementation of an Emergency ... (Approved) | 90,000 USD |
| 1997 | Contribution to the implementation of an Emergency ... (Approved) | 75,000 USD |
Missions to the property until 2005**
IUCN missions in 1992 and 2002.
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2005
As requested by the Committee at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004), an IUCN/WHC mission visited the property in April 2005. A detailed report will be available for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its 29th session.
The mission noted:
a) that on ground conservation action has commenced after the signing of an agreement between the Bodo people and the Government of India and the formation of the Bodoland Territorial Council. Specifically, action has recently commenced in rebuilding guard posts and infrastructure in the park. The mission inspected an ecotourism initiative being developed by the Bodo villagers of Kokilabari on the eastern fringe of the Manas World Heritage property, in co-operation with the Silguri based Help Tourism and Ashoka Holidays. This is a very positive initiative that aims to involve villagers in park management and specifically the control of poaching, but requires close coordination with and supervision by the park authorities. It is noted that nearly 150 poachers surrendered their gaziman (handmade guns) recently to take up forest conservation and tourism activities;
b) the insurgency appears to have had significant impacts on the forests and the wildlife populations of the park, particularly rhino, tiger and swamp deer populations. However this will need to be verified through a comprehensive baseline survey;
c) the level of control of the park is significantly less in the western part of the park (Panbari Range) and impacts from the removal of timber were noted;
d) that concerns still exist regarding the timely release of funds from the Assam State Government, although it is anticipated that this will be addressed by a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India that funding must be released by the State Government within 15 days of its receipt from the Central Government.
The mission underscored the need for the State Party to initiate a dialogue with the Royal Government of Bhutan to progress the possibility of a transboundary World Heritage property, especially as Bhutan has ratified the Convention in 2001. It was noted that the approval of the UNF supported World Heritage Biodiversity Programme for India (WHBPI) was in its final stages which would contribute to enhancing the conservation status of the property, as several recommendations of the Committee have been taken into account in the preparation of this programme.
The mission also established a number of recommendations to accelerate the recovery of the property, of which the most crucial are detailed in the draft decision and which can be used as benchmarks to measure progress for eventual consideration for removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2005
29 COM 7A.9
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7A,
2. Recalling its Decision 28 COM 15A.10, adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),
3. Welcomes the cessation of conflict at this property and the positive measures undertaken by the State Party of India to improve its state of conservation, including ecotourism initiatives in Kokilabari which involve the Bodo people and the re-building of park infrastructure;
4. Notes that the impacts of the conflict still exist, in particular in relation to wildlife populations (rhino, tiger and swamp deer) and timber removal in the Panbari Range;
5. Urges the State Party of India, in view of the possible removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, to meet the following benchmarks identified by the monitoring mission:
a) accelerate efforts to re-build park infrastructure;
b) take prompt measures to fill vacant positions within the park;
c) ensure timely release of funds to the park, in compliance with the recent Supreme Court ruling of the State Party; and
d) undertake a comprehensive wildlife survey in the park, which could act as a future baseline for monitoring recovery of the property;
6. Requests the State Party to work with the Royal Government of Bhutan to have the contiguous Royal Manas National Park inscribed on the World Heritage List as a transboundary property; and to expedite its approval of the World Heritage Biodiversity Programme of India that has provision for crucial support for conservation of the property;
7. Also requests the State Party to submit by 1 February 2006 a report on progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the 2005 monitoring mission and in particular on the results of the status survey of wildlife in the park and progress in re-building park infrastructure, including a time-table for its completion, for examination by the Committee at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006);
8. Decides to retain Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.29 COM 8C.2
New World Heritage List in Danger
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined the of state of conservation reports of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-05/29.COM/7A and WHC-05/29.COM/7A.Add),
2. Decides to maintain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:
- Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Afghanistan)(Decision 29 COM 7A.20)
- Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Afghanistan)(Decision 29 COM 7A.21)
- Tipasa (Algeria) (Decision 29 COM 7A.16)
- Walled City of Baku with the Shirvanshah's Palace and Maiden Tower (Azerbaijan) (Decision 29 COM 7A.28)
- Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin) (Decision 29 COM 7A.13)
- Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Central African Republic)(Decision 29 COM 7A.1)
- Comoé National Park (Côte d'Ivoire) (Decision 29 COM 7A.2)
- Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Côte d'Ivoire/Guinea) (Decision 29 COM 7A.3)
- Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
- Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
- Virunga National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
- Garamba National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
- Salonga National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
- Abu Mena (Egypt) (Decision 29 COM 7A.17)
- Simien National Park (Ethiopia) (Decision 29 COM 7A.4)
- Cologne Cathedral (Germany) (Decision 28 COM 7A.29)
- Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras) (Decision 29 COM 7A.12)
- Group of Monuments at Hampi (India) (Decision 29 COM 7A.22)
- Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India) (Decision 29 COM 7A.9)
- Bam and its Cultural Landscape (Islamic Republic of Iran) (Decision 29 COM 7A.23)
- Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Iraq) (Decision 29 COM 7A.18)
- Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Jerusalem) (Decision 29 COM 7A.31)
- Kathmandu Valley (Nepal ) (Decision 29 COM 7A.24)
- Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Niger) (Decision 29 COM 7A.6)
- Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore (Pakistan) (Decision 29 COM 7A.25)
- Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru) (Decision 29 COM 7A.30)
- Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines) (Decision 29 COM 7A.26)
- Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal) (Decision 29 COM 7A.7)
- Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia) (Decision 29 COM 7A.8)
- Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (United Republic of Tanzania) (Decision 28 COM 7A.15)
- Everglades National Park (United States of America) (Decision 29 COM 7A.10)
- Historic Town of Zabid (Yemen) (Decision 29 COM 7A.19)
Draft Decision: 29 COM 7A.9
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7A,
2. Recalling its Decision 28 COM 15A.10, adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),
3. Welcomes the cessation of conflict at this property and the positive measures undertaken by the State Party to improve its conservation status, including ecotourism initiatives in Kokilabari which involve the Bodo people and the re-building of park infrastructure;
4. Notes that the impacts of the conflict still exist, in particular in relation to wildlife populations (rhino, tiger and swamp deer) and timber removal in the Panbari Range;
5. Urges the State Party, in view of the possible removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, to meet the following benchmarks identified by the mission:
a) accelerate efforts to re-build park infrastructure;
b) take prompt measures to fill vacant positions within the park;
c) ensure timely release of funds to the park, in compliance with the recent Supreme Court ruling; and
d) undertake a comprehensive wildlife survey in the park, which could act as a future baseline for monitoring recovery of the property;
6. Requests the State Party also to work with the Royal Government of Bhutan to have the contiguous Royal Manas National Park inscribed on the World Heritage List as a transboundary property; and to expedite its approval of the World Heritage Biodiversity Programme of India that has provision for crucial support for conservation of the property;
7. Further requests the State Party to submit a report by 1 February 2006 on the progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the 2005 monitoring mission and in particular on the results of the status survey of wildlife in the park and progress in re-building of park infrastructure, including a time-table for its completion, for examination by the Committee at its 30th session in 2006;
8. Decides to retain Manas Wildlife Sanctuary on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
India
Exports
* :
The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).
** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.
