BACKGROUND PAPER NO.

13

JUNE 2006

BIODIVERSITY SIGNIFICANCE
OF NORTHEAST INDIA

BY

SUDIPTO CHATTERJEE, ABHINANDAN SAIKIA, PIJUSH DUTTA, DIPANKAR GHOSH, GOVINDA PANGGING AND ANIL K. GOSWAMI

WWF-INDIA

This paper was commissioned as an input to the study: Natural Resources, Water and the Environment Nexus for Development and Growth in Northeast India

Table of contents
Acknowledgments 1. 2. 3. Introduction to biodiversity in the Northeastern Region Objective and approach Priority setting for biodiversity conservation 3.1 Global priority sites in northeast India 3.2 National priority-setting exercises 3.3 Other major initiatives to highlight areas of biodiversity significance Threats to the biological diversity of the Northeast 4.1 Deforestation and degradation 4.2 Agriculture 4.3 Encroachment 4.4 Grazing 4.5 Human-wildlife conflict 4.6 Forest fires 4.7 Illegal extraction of forest products 4.8 Commercial plantations 4.9 Replacement of indigenous species with exotics 4.10 Uncoordinated infrastructure development 4.11 Immigration Analysis of the conservation issues 5.1 Information on biological richness of northeast India 5.2 Threats to biodiversity, and opportunities for action 5.3 Natural resource management structures and mechanisms 5.4 Activities of nongovernmental organizations 5.5 Operationalization of state biodiversity conservation action plans 5.6 Legal and policy issues Recommendations 6.1 Biodiversity status and values 6.2 Root causes of biodiversity loss 6.3 Models for impact assessment 6.4 Economic valuation of biodiversity and payments for environmental services 6.5 Tenure, access, and governance structures 6.6 Forest-based livelihood options iv 1 3 4 4 7 9 10 10 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 15 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 22

4.

5.

6.

Bibliography

Appendix A. Biological diversity of northeast India: An overview Appendix B. Biodiversity-rich locations identified through global and national priority-setting exercises Appendix C. Important bird areas of northeast India Appendix D. Sites prioritized by Biodiversity Conservation Prioritization project Appendix E. Biodiversity characterization at landscape level in northeast India Appendix F. Global ecoregions of WWF in northeast India Appendix G. Existing and proposed network of protected areas in northeast India Appendix H. Essential elements of the state biodiversity strategy and action plans Appendix I. Wetlands of northeast India Appendix J. Case studies Appendix K. NGOs working on biodiversity conservation in northeast India Appendix L. Northeastern Region: States maps of biodiversity priority areas

27

34 36 41 46 47 49 51 60 63 66 68

ii

Tables
Table 1. Species richness in northeast India, by state Table 2. Forest cover in northeast India, 2001 and 2003 Table 3. Indo-Burma hotspot: Representative data Table 4. Endemism in Indo-Burma hotspot Table 5. Changes in dense and open forest cover 20012003 (km2) 2 2 5 5 11

Figure
Figure 1. Priority-setting processes for northeast India 4

iii

Acknowledgments
The Forests Conservation Programme wishes to place on record the help and support received from all who contributed in developing this report. Thanks are due to Dr. P. C. Bhattacharya, Dr. Prasahat Bhattacharya, Dr. Lakshyahira, and Dr. Bibhab Talukdar in Guwahati; Dr. Kharbuli, Dr. B. K. Tewari, and Dr. Barik at North East Hill University, Shillong, Meghalaya; staff at the North Eastern Council; Dr. K. Bhattacharya, Director, North Eastern Space Application Centre; Mr. K. Moses, Program Coordinator, Northeastern Region Community Resource Management Project for Upland Areas; the International Fund for Agricultural Development, Shillong, Meghalaya; Dr. G. Sharma, Vice Chancellor, Nagaland University; Dr. Kire at the Department of Forests, Government of Nagaland; and officials of Nagaland Empowerment of People through Economic Development. We also thank the faculty of the Department of Life Sciences, University of Manipur, Imphal. We thank Sejal Worah, Director of Programs, WWF-India, and Mr. Tapas Paul for critically reviewing the manuscripts. Thanks are also due to Ms. Bela Varma and Mr. Tapas Paul for their administrative help at the World Bank, New Delhi. We thank Mr. G. Areendran and Mr. Krishna Raj at the Indira Gandhi Conservation Monitoring Centre, WWF-India, who helped us with the maps. We also thank Mr. Richard Damania and Ms. Karin Kemper, World Bank, Washington, D.C., who provided us with an opportunity to voice our concerns for the conservation of biological diversity in northeast India.

iv

1.

Introduction to biodiversity in the Northeastern Region

The Northeastern Region of India, comprising the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura, can be physiographically divided into the eastern Himalaya, the northeastern hills (Patkai-Naga Hills and Lushai Hills), and the Brahmaputra and Barak valley plains. At the confluence of the Indo-Malayan and Palearctic biogeographic realms, the region contains a profusion of habitats characterized by diverse biota with a high level of endemism (appendix A). The region is also the abode of approximately 225 of Indias 450 tribes, the culture and customs of which have an important role in understanding biodiversity conservation and management issues. The immense biodiversity of the Northeastern Region has made it a priority area for investment by the leading conservation agencies of the world. For example, WWF has identified the entire eastern Himalaya as a priority Global 2000 Ecoregion; and Conservation International has subsumed its eastern Himalaya hotspot into a wider Indo-Burma hotspot, which now includes all the eight states of northeast India along with the neighboring territories of Bhutan, southern China, and Myanmar (Myers and others 2000). The richness of the regions avifauna largely reflects the diversity of habitats associated with a wide altitudinal range. Northeast India supports one of the highest bird diversities in the Orient, with about 850 bird species. The eastern Himalaya and the Assam plains have been identified as an endemic bird area by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (Bibby and others 1992). The global distribution of 24 restricted-range species is limited to the region. The regions lowland and montane moist to wet tropical evergreen forests are considered to be the northernmost limit of true tropical rainforests in the world (Proctor, Haridasan, and Smith 1998). The region has been identified by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research as a center of rice germ plasm while the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, India, has highlighted the region as being rich in wild relatives of crop plants. Two primitive varieties of maize, Sikkim Primitive 1 and 2, have been reported from Sikkim (Dhawan 1964). It is the center of origin of citrus fruits. Although jhum cultivation, a traditional system of agriculture, is often cited as a reason for the loss of forest cover in the region, this primary agricultural economic activity practiced by local tribes uses 35 varieties of crops. The region is rich in medicinal plants and many other rare and endangered taxa. Its high endemism in higher plants and vertebrates and its avian diversity have led to its recognition as a biodiversity hotspot and this aspect will be elaborated in detail in subsequent sections. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) in 1995 identified Namdapha in Arunachal Pradesh as a center of plant diversity. Six major forest types occur in the region, namely tropical moist deciduous forests, tropical semievergreen forests, tropical wet evergreen forests, subtropical forests, temperate forests, and alpine forests. The diversity of flowering plants is particularly striking, especially in the gymnosperm, pteridophyte, orchid, rhododendron, bamboo, and cane families (Hegde 2000; FSI 2003). Among northeastern states the highest diversity of floral species is reported from Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim, as shown in table 1. These species belong to about 200 plant families of 315 recorded from northeast India. Some of the families, such as Nepenthaceae, Illiciaceae, and Clethraceae, are unique in the world. These families are reported from the Southeast Asian countries and are represented by a limited number of species, for example Clethra spp. and Nepenthes khasiana in northeast India (A. R. K. Sastry, personal communication).

According to the Indian Red Data Books published by the Botanical Survey of India, 10 percent of the total flowering plants in the country are endangered. Of the 1,500 endangered floral species, 800 are reported from northeast India (Nayar and Sastry 1987, 1988, 1990; Ahmedullah and others 1999). High biological diversity is often related to the forest cover of a region. Most of the northeastern states have more than 60 percent of their geographic area under forest cover, a minimum suggested coverage for the hill states in the country. The percentage of forest cover recorded during the assessments in 2001 and 2003 by the Forest Survey of India is shown in table 2.

Table 1. Species richness in northeast India, by state

State
Arunachal Pradesh Sikkim Meghalaya Assam Manipur Nagaland Mizoram Tripura

Species richness (flowering plants)

5000 4500 3500 3010 2500 2250 2200 1600

Table 2. Forest cover in northeast India, 2001 and 2003

N.E States Geographical Area of the state
83,743 78,438 22327 22,429 21,081 16,579 7,096 10,486

Forest cover in 2003 (Total)

68,019 27,826 17,219 16,839 18,430 13,609 3,262 8,093

Percentage Forest Cover in the state

81.22 24.04 77.12 75.08 87.42 82.09 45.97 77.18

Forest Cover in 2001

68,045 27,714 16,926 15,584 17,494 13,345 3,193 7.065

Arunachal Pradesh Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura

Source: FSI 2003.

The faunal diversity is relatively better documented than its floral counterpart for the Northeastern Region. However, the discovery of new species, such as the Tawang macaque (Macaca sp.), and range extensions of the Chinese goral (Nemorhaedatus caudatus) and leaf deer (Mentiacus putaoensis), highlight the need for more extensive research and systematic documentation of biodiversity in the Northeast.

2.

Objective and approach

The objective of this Background Paper is to highlight the significance of the biodiversity of the entire Northeastern Region of India, critically analyze the key conservation issues, and provide a set of broad recommendations for biodiversity conservation. Since meaningful analysis is difficult from isolated studies of biological diversity or any past attempts to inventorize the species richness of the region (though these are otherwise extremely valuable pieces of information), efforts have been made to collate information from previous studies that were more regional in nature. This report is based primarily on a literature survey of existing information combined with a few focused field visits and discussions with key informants based in regional research institutions. A number of priority-setting exercises at both global and national levels have been undertaken in the region. These exercises have used scientific and participatory methods of assessment, and the outcomes of these processes can be considered to reflect viewpoints of a large group of stakeholders. The results of these exercises have been synthesized and collated in this document. Priority sites in the northeastern states for biodiversity conservation were mapped to analyze the extent of agreement in identifying priorities through the different priority processes. An effort was also made to study the governance structures that affect biodiversity conservation through case studies drawn from the states of Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, and Meghalaya to represent the Northeastern Region.

3.

Priority setting for biodiversity conservation

Northeast India has been able to retain a significant proportion of its biodiversity, possibly due to long years of isolation and the difficult terrain, but it is now under increasing pressure to unleash its resources for economic development. Any development process that fails to put in place environmental safeguards may cause irreversible damage to the region. Three global and five national major priority-setting exercises have been carried out to highlight the biodiversity significance of the region. The priority-setting processes can help identify key sites and species that are ecologically unique or important from a social, cultural, or environmental perspective (figure 1).

Figure 1. Priority-setting processes for northeast India Priority setting for NE India

1. Global

2. National

1.1 Hotspots

1.2 EBAs

1.3 ER

2.1 PPAN
Key:

2.2 BCPP

2.3 BC

2.4 SBSAPs

EBA - endemic bird area, ER - ecoregions, PPAN - Planning a Protected Area Network, BCPP Biodiversity Conservation Prioritization project, BC - biodiversity characterization, SBSAP - state biodiversity strategy and action plan.

A brief description of the priority-setting exercises and their impacts is given in the following sections.

3.1
3.1.1

Global priority sites in northeast India

The Northeast as part of the Indo-Burma hotspot

The categorization of India by McNeely and others (1990) as one of the twelve megadiversity countries in the world paved the way for its placement on the worlds conservation map. Subsequently, Myers (1988) and Myers and others (2000) identified global biodiversity hotspots that were areas of high biological diversity and high endemism but were under severe

anthropogenic threat. Myers (1988) defined the eastern Himalaya hotspot covering the Indian states of Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim, Darjeeling District of West Bengal, and parts of Nepal, China, and Bhutan. In 2000 the eastern Himalaya biodiversity hotspot was brought within a wider Indo-Burma hotspot covering central Nepal, the whole of northeast India, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Hainan Island in southern China, Myanmar, Thailand, and on to Indochina, then south to the isthmus of Kra in the Malaysian peninsula (Myers and others 2000). The hotspot, with an area of 2,060,000 square kilometers, is the second largest to the Mediterranean basin among the 25 identified globally (table 3). All the global hotspots are based on two main criteria: species endemism and degree of threat. To qualify as a hotspot an area must contain at least 0.5 percent or 1,500 of the worlds 300,000 plant species as endemic. It might be pertinent to mention here that all the global hotspots have a minimum of 2,500 endemics. Other criteria are number of vertebrate species (excluding fish) and degree of threat through habitat loss. To qualify as a hotspot, the region should have lost 70 percent or more of its primary vegetation.

Table 3. Indo-Burma hotspot: Representative data

Criterion Original extent of primary vegetation Remaining primary vegetation (% of original extent) Plant species Endemic plants (% global plants) Vertebrate species Endemic vertebrates (% of global vertebrates) Source: Myers and others 2000. 2,060,000 sq km 100,000 sq km (4.9) 13,500 7000 (2.3%) 2185 528 (1.9%)

As the endemic species are irreplaceable, endemism signifies the uniqueness of a region. Table 4 shows that the extent of endemism in birds, mammals, reptiles, and vertebrates (except fish) is exceptionally high and is around 25 percent in this hotspot. The only other region in India with a comparably high level of endemism is the Western Ghats, which is also a global hotspot.

Table 4. Endemism in Indo-Burma hotspot

Bird sp
Total 1170 Endemic 140

Mammals
Total 329 Endemic 73

Reptiles
Total 484 Endemic 201

Amphibians
Total 202 Endemic 114

Total sp. of vertebrates (except fish)

Total 2185 Endemic 528

Until recently conservation efforts in the hotspots have been local and scattered. WWF-India implemented the Biodiversity Hotspots Conservation program in eastern Himalaya (Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim) during 19922001 (Chatterjee 1995). Biodiversity conservation initiatives were launched in partnership with such organizations as the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Research Institute at Itanagar and the state forest departments of Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim. To make conservation efforts more visible, the need was felt for larger and more robust programs through multistakeholder involvement. Recently Conservation International, of the United States, undertook preparation of an ecosystem profile for the Indo-Burma hotspot as part of a joint initiative by the Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, and the World Bank to make investments through an umbrella grant, the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. The

process involved a wide range of stakeholders, particularly nongovernmental organizations, who collectively shared their experiences to prioritize species and sites for conservation. The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund report, prepared in April 2004, identified priority landscapes based on faunal distribution and emphasized the importance of corridors, which are vital to the survival of wild fauna. It is interesting to note that prioritization was based on distribution of megafaunal species; flora were not considered for prioritization due to lack of information on distribution. A list of priority sites is given in appendix B.

3.1.2

Endemic birds areas and important bird areas in northeast India

The International Council for Bird Preservation, United Kingdom, identified the Assam plains and the eastern Himalaya as an endemic bird area (Bibby and others 1992). This endemic bird area is 220,000 square kilometers in extent, following the Himalayan range in the countries of Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Nepal, and Myanmar, and the Indian states of Sikkim, northern West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh, southern Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Meghalaya, and Mizoram. Because this mountain range is further south than other Himalayan ranges it has a distinctly different climate, with warmer mean temperatures and fewer days with frost, and much higher rainfall. This has resulted in the occurrence of a rich array of restricted-range bird species, including two critically endangered species, three endangered species, and 14 vulnerable species of birds within this endemic bird area (Islam and Rahmani 2004). Stattersfield and others (1998) identified 22 restricted-range species, 19 of which are confined to this region and the remaining three also present in other endemic and secondary areas. Eleven of the 22 restricted-range species found in this region are considered as threatened (BirdLife International 2001), a number greater than in any other endemic bird area of India (Stattersfield and others 1998). Endemic bird areas may not necessarily include all the important bird areas, so to further the protection of bird habitats, the Important Bird Area program was initiated by BirdLife International to document and advocate the protection and management of a network of sites that are important for the long-term viability of naturally occurring bird populations across the geographic range of those bird species for which a site-based approach is appropriate. Following these guidelines, a total of 59 important bird areas have been identified within the eastern Himalaya endemic bird area. All these important bird areas are distributed among six biomes: Eurasian high montane (alpine and Tibetan), Sino-Himalayan temperate forest, SinoHimalayan subtropical forest, Indo-Chinese tropical moist forest, Indo-Malayan tropical dry zone, and Indo-Gangetic plains (Islam and Rahmani 2004). The important bird areas designated were based on one or more of the following criteria: habitat for globally threatened species of birds (critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, conservation-dependent, data-deficient, and near-threatened species), area coverage of restricted-range species of birds, and areas having a significant assemblage of biome-restricted bird species and a significant assemblage of congregator species. Important bird areas are not always protected areas, but sometimes constitute part of such areas within this region. Though the eastern Himalaya endemic bird area has 59 important bird areas (appendix C), the conservation outcome remains far from satisfactory. Some of the important bird areas are protected areas or located within protected areas. However, some prominent important bird areas are not even located within a reserve forest (appendix L) and thus lack legal protection of the avian habitat. When the important bird area concept was coined in India, there were proposals for the incorporation of such areas as a type of protected area under the Wildlife

(Protection) Act (1972), but they were never followed up with the appropriate authorities. Another school of thought was to declare some of the important bird areas that were not in protected areas as either conservation reserves (located on land owned by the government) or as community reserves (located on private land). Despite some initial enthusiasm for community participation in conservation of avian habitats, not much was done either by the government or by any other organization to safeguard these habitats.

3.1.3

Global ecoregions of WWF in northeast India

In 2000, WWF identified 200 global priority ecoregions, wherein an ecoregion was defined as a relatively large area of land or water that contains a geographically distinct set of natural communities that share a majority of their species, ecological dynamics and environment conditions and function together as a conservation unit at global and regional scales (Wikramanayake and others 2002). WWF has identified the following priority ecoregions in northeast India: Brahmaputra valley semievergreen forests Eastern Himalaya broadleaved forests Eastern Himalaya subalpine coniferous forests IndiaMyanmar pine forests WWF plans to invest a major part of its conservation effort in the priority ecoregions (appendices D and F). Since these ecoregions are large areas that in some cases span international boundaries, critical landscapes within some of the ecoregions have been identified for immediate focus. These landscapes are usually mosaics of different land uses for which integrated conservation and sustainable development strategies are developed with a range of key stakeholders. Presently WWF is focusing on the following landscapes in the Northeast (appendix L): The western Arunachal landscape in Arunachal Pradesh The Khangchendzonga landscape in Sikkim and Darjeeling The north bank landscape and the Kaziranga-Karbi Anglong landscapes in Assam The landscapes have been delineated on the basis of distribution of species or forest types and each addresses a range of conservation issues. The diversity of rhododendrons in western Arunachal Pradesh, the distribution of snow leopard in Khangchendzonga, and the remnant evergreen and semievergreen forests in the foothills north of the Brahmaputra River, which are important corridors for elephant migration in Assam, define the landscape boundaries in the region. Meaningful and scientific data on the species and vegetation type distribution using Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques are being gathered, which will provide a baseline and aid more rigorous future analysis of biodiversity.

3.2
3.2.1

National priority-setting exercises

Planning a Protected Area Network

The Planning a Protected Area Network project of the Wildlife Institute of India (Rodgers and Panwar 1988) is one of the most comprehensive exercises for designing a scientifically robust and viable network of protected areas in India. Identifying 10 biogeographic zones, the exercise provided a rationale for existing and proposed sites of high biodiversity significance. While many of the areas have been included in the protected area network, some still continue to

remain as proposed sites. Details of the list of existing and proposed protected areas are given in appendix G. Given the fact that the region harbors community-owned forests, most of which are in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Meghalaya, and Nagaland, the declaration of additional protected areas will be difficult and would possibly lead to conflict, given the fact that despite addition of two new categories of protected areas, namely community reserves and conservation reserves, through the amendment of the Wildlife Protection Act in 2000, there has been practically no success in declaring community forest areas as community reserves.

3.2.2

Biodiversity Conservation Prioritization project

The Biodiversity Conservation Prioritization project of WWF-India (19972000) was the first exercise of its kind that attempted to identify priority sites and species on the basis of their biological and socioeconomic values and to develop strategies for their conservation at a national scale. The wetlands, grasslands, and forest areas that were prioritized in northeast India are given in appendices D and I. A significant outcome of the exercise was to bring out locations of biodiversity significance beyond the protected area network. Many important locations that were earlier not known widely were identified. The project attempted assigning IUCN conservation categories to groups of species such as invertebrates, fish, medicinal plants, and reptiles using a conservation assessment and management prioritization approach based on both published and unpublished information. Separately, priority medicinal plant species, wild relatives of crop plants, sacred forests, and national parks and sanctuaries were identified (Singh and others 2000). Priority sites were identified for three northeastern states or locations: Meghalaya, Tripura, and the middle hills of Arunachal Pradesh (appendix D). The Biodiversity Conservation Prioritization project also attempted to develop biodiversity registers to assist community strategies for conservation. However, registers were developed only for about ten villages in the state of Assam, which was considered to represent the entire Northeastern Region (Srishti Jigyasa Parivar 2000). The experiences and shortcomings of the project guided the approach used for the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.

3.2.3 Biodiversity characterization using GIS techniques

The only biodiversity characterization at a landscape level for the entire Northeast of India using satellite remote sensing and GIS was by the Indian Institute of Remote Sensing and the Department of Space, Government of India (IIRS 2002). Biological richness maps prepared by the North Eastern Space Application Centre were a function of disturbance index, terrain complexity, species richness, biodiversity values, and ecosystem uniqueness (appendix E).

3.2.4

State biodiversity conservation strategy and action plans

India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and has a commitment to prepare a national biodiversity strategy and action plan. Each of the states in India has prepared an action plan that feeds into the national plan. These respective state biodiversity conservation action plans provided an opportunity to compile existing information and highlight the biodiversity status of the states. Unlike the Biodiversity Conservation Prioritization project, which attempted identification of biodiversity-rich sites under different ecosystems (forests, grasslands, mountains, and wetlands), the state biodiversity strategy and

action plans were developed individually for the states. Priority locations identified by the strategy and action plans are given in appendix H.

3.3

Other major initiatives to highlight areas of biodiversity significance

The Botanical Survey of India published the Indian Red Data Books on plants to highlight the rare, endangered, and threatened species (Nayar and Sastry 1987, 1988, 1990; Ahmedullah and others 1999). The Tropical Botanical Garden Research Institutes publication on the endemic plant hotspots of India, Bhutan, and Nepal provides an account of endemic plants in the Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh Himalayas, the Naga and Manipur Hills, the Lushai-Mizo Hills, and the Khasi-Jaintia Hills (Nayar 1996). Recently, the Foundation for Revitalization of Local Health Traditions, Bangalore, used a conservation assessment and management prioritization study to develop taxon data sheets for the medicinal plants of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, and Sikkim (Ved and others 2003). Fifty-one plant species were assessed, of which 47 were found to be threatened in one or more states. Of these, six were globally threatened.1 Arunachal Pradesh was found to have five of these species, Assam had one, Meghalaya had two, Sikkim had two, and one was common to all the states. WWF-India, in collaboration with the Smithsonian Institute of the United States, made an assessment of the floral richness of the Pakhui Wildlife Sanctuary and Nameri National Park. Biodiversity richness was found to be comparable with many other regions of the globe.

These were Amento taxus assamica, Coptis teeta, Gymnocladus assamicus, Nepenthes khasiana, Piper pedicellatum, and Piper betleoides.

4.

Threats to the biological diversity of the Northeast

Threats to the biological diversity of the Northeastern Region have been compiled from the existing literature. The broad categories of threats are as follows:

4.1

Deforestation and degradation

The primary vegetation in extensive areas of northeast India has been disturbed and modified and in some places destroyed by seismic activities, frequent landslides, and resultant soil erosion. While these natural causes have contributed only marginally to the change in vegetation type, human-induced activities have led to irreversible transformation in the landscape and resulted in great loss of biodiversity throughout the region. Excessive logging for revenue generation was practiced for decades until the Supreme Court ban on logging in 1995, though it is still clandestinely carried out in some areas in the reserve forests (Handique 2004; SBSAP Tripura). The logging and extractions have also damaged some of the forest patches, as in the Borduaria preservation plot of hollong and mekai. Except in the Brahmaputra and Barak valleys of Assam, where substantial areas are under agriculture, relatively little land is suitable for settled cultivation. Hence, shifting or slash-andburn agriculture is the major land use in northeast India and extends over 1.73 million hectares (FSI 1999). Different agencies have made various calculations of the total area under shifting cultivation (jhum) in the region. This traditional practice has largely been blamed for deforestation in the region. Use of poison and dynamite has been responsible for depletion of fish stocks in the water bodies. In the state of Tripura almost the entire area of forest has been subjected to severe degradation. The Forest Survey of India in 1989 showed that the majority of forest areas (up to 73 percent) were heavily to moderately degraded. In Arunachal Pradesh deforestation has also resulted from excessive logging and timber extraction. Decades ago harvesting of timber from natural stands was not considered problematic, and forest-based industries were encouraged for economic development. In less than 10 years from 1982 the number of wood-based industries rose from 93 to 242, which is indicative of the demand for timber resources that has virtually stripped quality timbers such as hoolock and hollong from the forests, along with associated vegetation. Northeast India has 64 percent of its total geographic area under forest cover and it is often said that it continues to be a forest surplus region. However, the forest cover is rapidly disappearing. There was a decrease of about 1,800 square kilometers in the forest cover between 1991 and 1999 (FSI 2001). More worrisome is the fact that the quality of the forest is also deteriorating, with the dense forests (canopy closure of 40 percent or more) becoming degraded into open forest or scrub. Though there is a succession of several edaphic formations, a vast area of land has already been transformed into barren and unproductive wasteland. This being the case, the statistic of more than 64 percent of the total geographic area in this region under forest cover could be misleading. For example, though the forest cover in Manipur extends to 78 percent of the total geographic area, only 22 percent of the forest area is under dense forest cover and the rest has been converted to open forests. While the rest of the states have increased their forest cover, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur have registered a decline in 2003 in comparison to 2001. Four of the eight states Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Mizoram, and Sikkim lost dense forest, as shown in table 5.

10

Table 5. Changes in dense and open forest cover 20012003 (km2)

State Arunachal P Assam Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Source: FSI 2003. 2001 Assessment Dense Open Total
55,932 15,830 5710 5,681 8,936 5,393 2,391 3,463 14,113 11,884 11,216 9,903 8,558 7,952 802 3,602 68,045 27,714 16,926 15,584 17,494 13,345 3,193 7,065

2003 Assessment Dense Open Total

53,511 13,042 6,538 6,481 7,488 5,707 2,362 5,046 14,508 14,784 10,681 10,348 10,942 7,902 900 3,047 68,019 27,826 17,219 16,839 18,430 13,609 3,262 8,093

Change Dense Open

-421 -2,788 828 810 -1,448 314 -29 1,583 395 2900 -535 445 2,384 -50 98 -555

Total
-26 112 293 1,255 936 264 69 1,028

4.2

Agriculture

The economy throughout most of northeast India is agrarian in nature and, as mentioned in the preceding section, little land is available for settled agriculture. Some states, such as Assam, earn revenue through cultivation of the oil plant. The inaccessible terrain and other factors have made industrialization in this region difficult, and agriculture has therefore been the main livelihood among the hill and plain tribes. In addition to settled agriculture (mainly paddy cultivation), jhum (shifting cultivation) is carried out by many tribal groups. Jhumming is one of the most ancient systems of farming, believed to have originated in the Neolithic period around 7,000 BC, and it is intricately linked with the ethos and the social and cultural values of the tribal communities (Borthakur 1992). Jhumming has often been blamed in the literature for having adverse effects on ecology and conservation, including destruction of soil fertility, soil erosion in the upper catchments resulting in sedimentation of water bodies, destruction of wildlife and natural habitat, and flooding. Along with jhum cultivation, there are also other practices such as bun cultivation (for growing potatoes), particularly followed on the hill slopes of Meghalaya, which have the potential to cause both soil and water erosion. Similar instances can be found of settled agriculture being responsible for causing loss of biodiversity. Large forest patches in the plains, particularly in the tropical wet evergreen forests in Arunachal Pradesh (as seen in Diyum, Chowkham, and Miao), have been cleared and converted to agriculture. Some of the less arid lands are being converted to mustard cultivation. This practice has become more prevalent as people from higher altitudes have come down to the foothill areas to settle in new villages. Attempts to ban jhum in the region have met with little success. In Tripura, jhumias (shifting cultivators) do not have any other means to earn their livelihood. It is a necessity for their survival, and they are unfamiliar or comfortable with alternative activities. The traditional lifestyle and culture, and resistance to government policies by the local inhabitants, have led to nonadoption of any suggested alternatives to jhum cultivation. In the absence of a land use policy (except for the state of Manipur, which has a Land Reforms and Land Revenue Act, 1960, for the plains district only) and a clear identity of land ownership, suggested alternatives to jhum will remain an academic exercise. The Government of Mizoram launched a new Land Use Policy in 1984 with an objective to put an end to the practice of jhum. An analysis of the success

11

of the program (Garbayal 1999) revealed that noninvolvement of the village councils and the inadequacy of financial support to families practicing jhumming were the prime reasons for the program not being successful in the state. Imposition of the Shifting Cultivation Regulation Act in 1947 and the ban on timber logging have not helped the improvement or rehabilitation of the jhum lands.

4.3

Encroachment

Encroachment onto forestland is a serious threat to forests and their conservation. The situation is alarming in some states and needs strong political will to address the problem, which has caused loss of forest area and created a tool for perpetual degradation of forest resources. Unsuccessful efforts were made to evict encroachers from a reserve forest near Guwahati subsequent to a Supreme Court order in January 1998. The issue is politically sensitive and seldom discussed in a transparent manner (Kumar 2002).

4.4

Grazing

It is estimated that 60 percent of the domestic herbivore population graze in the forest. The grazing causes soil compaction and heavy damage to the forest plantations and hampers natural regeneration. The carrying capacity of the forests is far exceeded, which is a major factor in their degradation, especially near habitations. Barren and unproductive cattle, despite their uses for transport, manure, and capital, are generally viewed as a great drain on resources. There are few alternative grazing grounds as the community land for grazing purposes in many villages has either been encroached on or diverted to other forms of land use. Thus grazing constitutes a threat to forest conservation and biodiversity. Enforcement of strict controls or imposition of restrictions on such disturbances are practically impossible under present socioeconomic conditions. A case study on the pressure of grazing in the Barsey Rhododendron Sanctuary, Sikkim, and the efforts of the Forest Department in Sikkim to reduce the problem through establishment of ecodevelopment committees, is given in appendix J. The Arunachal Pradesh biodiversity strategy and action plan reports that biotic pressures are mostly in the form of grazing, trampling, and browsing. These problems are prevalent and growing in the foothill regions adjoining Assam, where large herds of cattle intrude into the young forest plantations and slow regeneration by consuming palatable shoots. The mithun, a semidomesticated animal, also causes extensive damage to young plantations. In higher elevations similar damage is caused by sheep and yak.

4.5

Human-wildlife conflict

The Northeastern Region harbors important corridors for movement of wild animals such as elephants, causing widespread human-wildlife conflict in several locations, including the foothills of the Assam-Arunachal Pradesh border along the north bank of the Brahmaputra. Human deaths and crop degradation are common and the efforts of organizations such as WWF and Aranyak to mitigate the conflicts will remain ineffective unless the natural corridors of movement are firmly secured.

4.6

Forest fires

12

Forest fires are common and frequent, especially at the end of the winter season, affecting about 20 percent of the total forest area. Villagers set fire to the forest floor, which is littered with inflammable dry leaves and twigs. Regeneration (natural as well as artificial) is affected and wildlife and their habitat are impacted negatively (Semwal and others 2003). The hill forests may be burnt when jhum fires go out of control and spread to the surrounding areas. This is causing immense harm in the catchment areas of major rivers. An assessment by the Forest Survey of India in 1993 estimated that 6.16 percent of the forests were heavily to moderately degraded by fire (SBSAP Tripura). In places, retrogression of vegetation has already set in. The main constraints to control of forest fires are lack of communication facilities for early detection of forest fire and lack of fire fighting equipment. Fire poses a serious threat to biodiversity as only hardy species are able to survive; microflora and microfauna are often destroyed. Forest fires are reported from the pine forests of Arunachal Pradesh. Resin tappers contracted by the village councils often do not take precautions, subjecting the forests to accidental fires. Although fire is an ecological requirement for pine, accidental or deliberate fires cause great damage to the forest ecosystems.

4.7

Illegal extraction of forest products

Tripura is surrounded on three sides by Bangladesh, a country with one of the highest population densities in the world (more than 400 persons per square kilometer), but not enough forests to meet the requirement of its people. The border with Bangladesh is 856 kilometers long and not very secure, which has led to large-scale smuggling of forest produce across the border (SBSAP Tripura). The result has been total elimination of some of the richest forests, including plantations, along the border. This is one of the most serious problems faced by the Forest Department. The enormity and extent of such illegal fellings can be judged from the annual revenue earned from intercepted illicitly extracted forest produce, which is only a small portion (around 10 percent) of the produce stolen and smuggled across the border. Taxus baccata, a medicinal plant species known for the treatment of ovarian and breast cancer, has been overexploited and smuggled heavily from western Arunachal Pradesh (Chatterjee and Dey 1997).

4.8

Commercial plantations

An area of 3,000 square kilometers of the original mixed vegetation has been replaced with monoculture plantations of rubber in Tripura. Tea plantations are also increasing rapidly in Arunachal Pradesh. Commercial plantations replace the original vegetation and flora and add to the damage to forests by attracting a large influx of people and by adding to pollution through the large quantities of chemicals, fertilizers, and pesticides applied in the plantations. In Lohit District, large areas of tropical evergreen forests have given way to tea plantations. A similar situation is emerging in parts of Tirap and Changlang Districts of Arunachal Pradesh.

4.9

Replacement of indigenous species with exotics

Due to the increase in demand for certain products, such as food grain, vegetables, milk, and meat, some high-yielding varieties of plants and animals have been introduced in Tripura, leading to reduced propagation of indigenous varieties. In some cases, the indigenous varieties

13

have been altogether ignored. The current dominance of intensive agricultural production of high-yielding varieties of rice and vegetables has led to a significant reduction in the genetic diversity of these crop families. Similarly, new varieties of poultry, fish, livestock, and fruit have been introduced for mass propagation and higher production. In Tripura more than 280 species of plants have been introduced, often to increase productivity. Crossbreeding between local varieties of animals and exotics has been undertaken. Though production has increased, the crossbreds are susceptible to disease, sometimes causing large losses of livestock and birds. The major exotic flora are the water hyacinth, hydrilla, water lily, and lotus. The population increase of aquatic insects, such as species of Notonecta, Ranatra, Geris, Nepa, Lithocerus, Cybistra, Dytiscus, and Gyrinus, and dragonfly nymph, are causing management problems (SBSAP Tripura). In Mizoram the introduction of exotic fish species into the rivers by the state Fisheries Department has resulted in the reduction of indigenous species in some areas. The unsustainable harvesting of fish, crabs, and prawns, often by means of poison, bombs, or electric generators, can cause irreparable damage to aquatic systems. Hunting, trapping, and snaring of wild animals and birds are also common in the state. In Arunachal Pradesh new townships are mushrooming. The resulting widespread movement of essential commodities from one place to another facilitates the invasion of alien flora. The recent invasion of Parthenium, Tagetes minuta, and Xanthium strumarium in the Tenga valley area is causing an imbalance in the native flora. Damming of one of the lakes in the highly fragile ecosystem of the Sela Pass in the Tawang District of Arunachal Pradesh for initiating fisheries is interfering with the natural hydrology of the region, with unknown ecological consequences. The Kaziranga National Park in Assam has suffered from the rapid proliferation of Mimosa invisia, which has destroyed native vegetation.

4.10 Uncoordinated infrastructure development

Some of the developmental pressures are new to the fragile region and are taking place at a pace that does not permit a thorough environmental assessment of possible ecological impacts. Due to a lack of deep environmental awareness in policymaking, many models of development are proving to be unsustainable, and the dimensions of such negative impacts are as yet unclear, as monitoring, baseline data, impact assessment, and threat or risk assessment are poorly developed in the states. In Arunachal Pradesh, activities such as road construction, which are an essential component of developmental infrastructure, have been at times the road to destruction of biodiversity. Roads damage the land over which they pass and cause landslides that destroy patches of forest. The construction of roads also leads to depletion of firewood, poles, and timber. After construction, roads continue to facilitate extraction of valuable forest resources and encourage settlement in ecologically fragile areas. There are instances in Arunachal Pradesh where highly endangered species, such as Sapria himalayana located near Yasong in Lohit valley, disappeared due to the construction of the road from Hayuliang to Walong, as recorded by the state Forest Research Institute, Itanagar, during its exploration. Similarly, road construction in the Eagle Nest foothill section is damaging some important species of trees, and a threat to a rare Agapetes epiphytic plant has been reported. Pleione macculata is another important orchid species that is being affected due to this road

14

construction. When the Green Mizoram program was started, roadside plantations were established along the Aizawl-Lengpui road, but many young plants were destroyed as a result of widening and improving the road, a clear indication of lack of coordination between developmental departments and lack of proper planning. Environmental management plans have not been incorporated into developmental plans in the state. Mining has been a cause of concern in Meghalaya. Coal extraction uses a primitive mining method commonly called rathole mining. Dumping of coal has been the cause of air, water, and soil pollution. Water in coal mining areas has been found to be highly acidic, with low dissolved oxygen (Patiram and Kumar 2005). In Arunachal Pradesh extraction of oil, coal, and lime has commenced relatively recently to harness the rich mineral resources of the state. Though extraction is only in its initial stages, adequate precautions need to be built in to minimize future impacts. In the case of northeast India, the proposed linking of the Brahmaputra (and its tributaries) with the Ganges has raised many sensitive questions. The idea to link these rivers, mooted in the National Perspective Plan of the Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, envisaged optimum development of water resources through interbasin water transfers from surplus to deficit areas. Goswami (2002) proposed that a detailed study encompassing social, economic, and environmental issues needed to be carried out before pursuing plans to link the Brahmaputra with other basins. Construction of large dam projects provokes controversy in the northeastern states. Sikkim witnessed mass protests from citizens that led to the abandonment of the Rothangchu hydroelectric project. In Arunachal Pradesh there has been much debate on the issue. Construction of dams on the Subansiri River has also generated controversy. Large dam projects often involve inundation of biologically rich areas, township development, an influx of people, and construction of wider roads to transport heavy machinery. All such activities have a telling impact on biodiversity in the region. The Ranganadi hydel project has necessitated abandonment of an earlier road and construction of a new alternative road. It has also required construction of the Doimukh-Hoj road for development of the region, but not without impact on the flora and fauna. The proposed Tipaimukh dam in Manipur is presently being heatedly debated.

4.11 Immigration
The people of the northeastern states have managed biodiversity with traditional wisdom. The influx of people, mostly laborers, from neighboring states and countries will generally have scant regard for local sentiments and values. In addition, the exposure to Western cultures and new education systems have changed lifestyles in a manner that has affected biodiversity resources and their sustainability. There was, for example, a large influx of people into Tripura from Bangladesh during the second half of the 20th century, contributing to an increase in population of about 327 percent between 1951 to 1991. The per capita forest area has been reduced from 0.97 hectares to the present level of 0.18 hectares. The Northeastern Region, particularly the states of Meghalaya and Manipur, is known for its sacred groves and forests. Loss of traditional beliefs has been a cause of the loss of forests of reverence in Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim, the umang lais of Manipur, and numerous sacred forests in Meghalaya (Malhotra and others 1997; Higgins and Chatterjee 2005).

15

16

5.

Analysis of the conservation issues

Some of the broad preliminary issues that emerged from this study related to biodiversity values, threats, opportunities, and management are summarized below.

5.1

Information on biological richness of northeast India

An important finding of this background document is that there have been substantial efforts at both global and national scales to identify biodiversity-rich locations across the Northeastern Region. The priorities overlap, indicating general agreement among different organizations. Despite recognition of the region by various conservation organizations as a biodiversity hotspot, priority ecoregion, and endemic bird area, biodiversity information is generally restricted to species inventories for specific locations (mainly the protected areas). Important data, such as distributional patterns and population dynamics, are unavailable, except for very few species. Since the richness of the region rests on its high biological diversity, documentation and systematic analysis of that diversity is vital to an understanding of the correlations between richness and distributional patterns, the relationships between landscape variables and species composition, the impacts of habitat fragmentation, and the role of biological corridors, which are vital for determining biodiversity management strategies and options. The availability of biodiversity information among the northeastern states is not uniform. Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Meghalaya, and Assam are more information rich, possibly due to a stronger institutional base, which includes the state Forest Research Institute and the North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology in Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, the G. B. Pant Institute for Himalayan Environment and Development in Itanagar and Gangtok, and the North East Hill University at Shillong, Meghalaya. There is a need to develop mechanisms for generating more information in the states of Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Tripura. Creation of new institutes, such as the North Eastern Region Community Resource Management Project for Upland Areas (a joint project under the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the North Eastern Council, and the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region), the Bio Resources Development Center in Shillong, and the Nagaland Empowerment of People through Economic Development, might help close some of the existing gaps. The fact that a center for biodiversity for the region could not be established despite political assurances was a setback. The recent change in focus by the North Eastern Council from biodiversity to medicinal plants through the Biodiversity Cell at North East Hill University is a cause of concern. A mapping exercise undertaken to examine the extent of overlap in priority locations reveals that there is general understanding and agreement on biodiversity-rich locations. However, global priorities have been considered in only a few of the northeastern states. States such as Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura require much more investment and more rigorous documentation (appendix D). Reports on the customary laws of 200 tribes in India are being prepared by the Guwahati Law Institute. The institute has made a modest beginning with 31 tribes, including the Apatani, Mishmi, Khasi, and Jaintia.

5.2

Threats to biodiversity, and opportunities for action

17

There is considerable similarity in the nature of threats to biodiversity across the Northeastern Region, as is apparent from the respective state biodiversity strategy and action plans, although the intensity of threat may vary between states. There has been a conscious effort to amalgamate the Northeast with the mainstream economy, as a result of which the region is experiencing mounting changes in the social and political environment. There is a need to undertake a thorough analysis of the threats by bringing in all the stakeholders who have some involvement in the biodiversity of the region. To provide an example, jhum cultivation, which has been given attention by most of the state action plans and many of the publications referred to during the course of this study, has been considered in Nagaland to present an opportunity as an agricultural practice that could be improved upon in order to preserve the agrodiversity of the region. Conflicts between development and conservation, coupled with insurgency, are likely to have profound impacts on biodiversity conservation.

5.3

Natural resource management structures and mechanisms

The northeastern states exhibit a diversity of governance structures and institutions (case studies 1 and 2, appendix J). Studies related to natural resource management and the constitutional framework show that a variety of governance structures can be accommodated through Schedule 5 and Schedule 6. It is a matter of concern that in spite of the constitutional mandate, there has been a gradual erosion of such traditional structures as village councils and autonomous district councils, and the traditional knowledge and wisdom associated with this governance. Institutional analysis of these structures, except for the state of Meghalaya and partially for Arunachal Pradesh, is practically nonexistent. This study revealed that many of the protected areas in the northeastern states do not have a management plan. An assessment of the management effectiveness of protected areas in Sikkim by WWF-India revealed that, barring the Maenam Wildlife Sanctuary, management plans for the protected areas do not exist, though they are presently under formulation. A similar study in Arunachal Pradesh revealed that working schemes, a necessity for management of the community-owned forests (unclassified state forests), need to be in place if communities are to benefit from sustainable use of forests.

5.4

Activities of nongovernmental organizations

The fact that the activities of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have been gaining ground, and the increasing collective strength of the NGOs, could be treated as an opportunity. The collective impact of the NGOs has certainly led to a better understanding of biodiversity and preservation of natural resources in the northeastern states. The stalling of the Rothangchu hydroelectric project by the peoples movement in Sikkim is a case in point. NGOs have core competencies in their respective areas and these skills must be synergized. A selected list of NGOs with their focal areas of work is given in appendix K.

5.5

Operationalization of state biodiversity conservation action plans

The state biodiversity strategy and action plans, which have been developed through a participatory process in each of the states, need to be operationalized. While the plans have the endorsement of the respective state governments, they are yet to become components of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. While some of the state biodiversity strategy and action plans need further strengthening, others could be implemented in phases. Sikkim is

18

an example of a state that has formally adopted its strategy and action plan and is in the process of moving towards implementation. During the course of the study, it was felt that there was not adequate linkage between the state biodiversity boards and the biodiversity action plans. The roles and functions of the state biodiversity boards still remain unclear to conservation agencies.

5.6

Legal and policy issues

Many of the initiatives cited in this report remain good sources of information on the biodiversity of the region, though they have largely failed to influence policy decisions. Many of the states protected areas have been declared on the basis of baseline information collected by research institutes and have not taken into account the priorities and values, or the rights, ownership, and management systems, of local communities. Considering the unique forest ownership status in the Northeastern Region there has been a demand to consider formulation of a separate regulation or act, apart from that which exists already at the national level, specifically designed for the Northeastern Region. Assam went ahead and launched a separate policy for the state, and similar efforts by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh are in the pipeline. Lack of proper understanding of the situation on the ground in the Northeast by policymakers at the national level is a major concern for the area. Some officials at the Ministry of Environment and Forests are yet to be convinced that a separate policy environment is required for the Northeastern Region. As mentioned earlier in this report the district councils and tribal councils in the region already have traditional laws for natural resource management, and there is a need to look into their effectiveness before making any other policy or law. There is an urgent need to address the conflicts between customary and statutory laws and regulations related to forest ownership and natural resource use by local communities.

19

6.

Recommendations

Based on the information collated and analyzed and on discussions with key informants it is apparent that the Northeastern Region faces tremendous conservation challenges in the coming years, but at the same time offers unique opportunities for conservation. Threats largely emanate from the concerted push for further economic development of the region, which, if not planned with long-term biodiversity values in mind, could lead to irreplaceable losses due to large-scale infrastructure development, agricultural expansion, and industrial growth. Other major threats are linked to population increase, partly due to immigration with resultant impacts from unsustainable use of forest resources for subsistence and commercial purposes. However, the opportunities for local empowerment and community involvement in conservation are found in few other parts of India. Community ownership of forests provides for a strong incentive to conserve and use forest resources sustainably. Strong local institutions provide an important entry point for power sharing and inclusive management of resources. Progressive policies in some states, as in Sikkim, have already created an enabling environment for conservation. Finally, there are many successful models of community-managed conservation initiatives and enterprises in states such as Sikkim, Assam, and Nagaland that can be scaled up across the region with the right capacity and political will. Since this report is based largely on a desktop review of the biodiversity of northeast India, and since it was found that in many areas there was a deficiency of data, the recommendations below pertain mainly to key areas where further data collection and analysis need to be undertaken in order to develop overall and site-specific recommendations for effective conservation and sustainable development of this region.

6.1

Biodiversity status and values

While some states have a good database of critical biodiversity areas, this information is lacking in others. As development and the spread of infrastructure are inevitable in many parts of the Northeast, it is critical that assessment and mapping of high biodiversity value areas is undertaken so that long-term threats can be minimized through an improved information base for informing development planners.

6.2

Root causes of biodiversity loss

While the proximal causes of biodiversity loss and threats to biodiversity are believed to be widely known (and often generalized), there is limited understanding of underlying causes. There are perceptions and attitudes prevailing about threats that are in many cases not substantiated by facts or a thorough analysis. As a result, solutions presented to address such threats tend to be generalized and often inappropriate, while only dealing with the symptoms rather than the causes of biodiversity loss. There is a need to further understand root causes of biodiversity loss in order to formulate appropriate interventions.

6.3

Models for impact assessment

With the increasing amount of infrastructure development being planned in the region, there is a need to develop rigorous models and standards for environmental and social impact assessment. This is a general gap at a national level and most assessments are found to be weak

20

or biased. This gap needs to be urgently addressed through development of standards and enhancing capacity for undertaking objective and effective impact analyses.

6.4

Economic valuation of biodiversity and payments for environmental services

As an emerging area, some feasibility assessments to see if environmental service payments can work in specific situations need to be undertaken. This will also require developing approaches and methodologies for undertaking economic valuation of biodiversity and forest resources. There could be great potential for using these tools as conservation incentives and also for developing sustainable financing for conservation, but feasibility assessments are a first requirement.

6.5

Tenure, access, and governance structures

Much has been written in general terms about the unique tenure systems of the region and the local institutional and governance structures. However, these vary tremendously across the region and there is a need to better understand the different systems of tenure and governance and the impacts of these on conservation. The impacts of conflicting policies on conservation also need to be better understood. This will help in developing an appropriate legal and policy environment that supports biodiversity conservation in the Northeast.

6.6

Forest-based livelihood options

There is great potential for developing and enhancing forest-based livelihoods in many parts of northeast India. However, this requires, in addition to the appropriate policy instruments, a strong scientific basis for determining harvesting and extraction levels, value addition, marketing, and benefit sharing. Specific options need to be studied throughout the life cycle from harvesting to benefit sharing in order to develop mechanisms that can enable forest-based livelihoods to play a role in economic development as well as acting as an incentive for conservation.

21

Bibliography
Ahmedullah, M., and others. 1999. Red Data Book of Indian Plants. Volume IV. Botanical Survey of India. Arunachalam, A., and others. 2002. Balancing Traditional Jhum Cultivation with Modern Agroforestry in Eastern Himalaya, a Biodiversity Hot Spot. Current Science 83(2). Arunachalam, A., and others. 2005. Anthropogenic Threats and Biodiversity Conservation in Namdapha Natural Reserve in the Eastern Himalayas. Current Science 87(4). Balakrishnan, N. P. 1981. Flora of Jowai. Vol. 1. Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata. Basu, S. K. 1992. Rattans (Canes) in India. Monograph revision. Rattan Information Centre, Kepong, Kuala Lumpur. Baveja, J. D. 1982. New Horizons of the North East. Western Book Depot, Guwahati, India. Bibby, C. J., and others. 1992. Putting Biodiversity on the Map: Global Priorities for Conservation. International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP), Cambridge, United Kingdom. BirdLife International. 2001. Threatened Birds of Asia: The BirdLife International Red Data Book. BirdLife International, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Borang, A. 2004. Birds of Arunachal Pradesh in North East India: Check List and Distribution in Protected Areas. Unpublished. Forest Zoology Division, SFRI, Itanagar, India. Borthakur, D. N. 2002. Shifting Cultivation in North-East India: An Approach towards Control. In Deb, Bimal J., ed., Development Priorities in North-East India. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, India. Budruk, M. 1996. Chakrashilla Golden Langur Haven. Sanctuary Asia XVI(2):2631. Chakravorty, A. K. 1951. Origin of Cultivated Banana of Southeast Asia. Indian J. Genet. 11:34 46. Chatterjee, S. 1995. Global Hotspots of Biodiversity. Current Science 68(12):11781180. Chatterjee, S., and S. Dey. 1997. A Preliminary Survey of Taxus baccata var. wallichiana in Tawang District of Arunachal Pradesh. Indian Forester 8:746754. Chatterjee, S., and others. 2000. Conservation and Sustainable Use of Natural Bioresources: A Case Study on Apatanis in Arunachal Pradesh. WWF-India, New Delhi, India. Chatterjee, S., and others. 2003. Relevance of Certification to the Wood Carving Industry in India. WWF-India, New Delhi, India. Chatterjee, S., and others. 2006. Enterprise Based Conservation: A Case Study on Orchid Cultivation from Arunachal Pradesh, Eastern Himalaya. In A. P. Joshi and others, eds., Mountain Technology Agenda: Status, Gaps and Possibilities. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun, India. Choudhery, H. J. 1998. Orchid Flora of Arunachal Pradesh. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun, India. Choudhury, A. 2000. Survey of Grasslands in Some Parts of Central and Southern Assam. In S. Singh, A. R. K. Sastry, R. Mehta, and V. Uppal, eds., Setting Biodiversity Conservation Priorities for

22

India: Summary of the Findings and Conclusions of the Biodiversity Conservation Prioritisation Project. WWF-India, New Delhi, India. Choudhury, A. 2002. The Red Panda: Status and Conservation. In S. Chatterjee, ed., Biodiversity Hotspots Conservation Programme (BHCP): Final Report. Vol. II. WWF-India, New Delhi, India. Choudhury, A. 2003. Meghalayas Vanishing Wilderness. Sanctuary Asia XVIII(4):4250. Corbett, G. B., and J. E. Hill. 1986. A World List of Mammalian Species. Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom. Datta, A., J. Pansa, M. D. Madhusudan, and C. Mishra. 2003. Discovery of the Leaf Deer Muntiacus putaoensis in Arunachal Pradesh: An Addition to the Large Mammals of India. Current Science 84:101103. Dhawan, N. L. 1964. Primitive Maize in Sikkim. Maize Genetics Co-op Newsletter 38:6970. FSI (Forest Survey of India). 1999. State of Forest Report 1999. FSI, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Dehradun, India. FSI (Forest Survey of India). 2001. State of Forest Report 2003. FSI, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Dehradun, India. FSI (Forest Survey of India). 2003. State of Forest Report 2003. FSI, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Dehradun, India. Garbayal, S. S. 1999. Jhuming (Shifting Cultivation) in Mizoram (India) and New Land Use Policy: How Far It Has Succeeded in Containing This Primitive Agricultural Practice. Indian Forester February 1999:137148. Gillision, A. N. 2004. Biodiversity Assessment in the North Bank Landscape, North East India: A Preliminary Survey. WWF-India, New Delhi, India. Available at http://www.cbmglobe.com. Gupta, A. K. 1994. Status and Conservation of Non-Human Primates in Tripura, India. In B. Thierry, J. R. Anderson, J. J. Roeder, and N. Herrenschmidt, eds., Current Primatology. Vol. 1: Ecology and Evolution. University of Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg. Gupta, A. K., and A. Kumar. 1994. Feeding Ecology and Conservation of the Phayres Leaf Monkey, Presbytes phayrei, in Northeast India. Biological Conservation 69(3):301306. Handique, Rajib. 2004. British Forest Policy in Assam. Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, India. Haridasan, K., and others. 2003. Medicinal Plants Sector in Arunachal Pradesh: An Overview. Indian Forester January 2003:3747. Hegde, S. N. 2000. Conservation of North East Flora. Arunachal Forest News 18(1,2). Higgins-Zogib, Liza, and Sudipto Chatterjee. 2005. Eastern Himalayas (Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh) Sacred Gumpa Forests. In Nigel Dudley, Liza Higgins-Zogib, and Stephanie Mansouriam, eds., Beyond Belief: Linking Faiths and Protected Areas to Support Biodiversity Conservation. WWW-International, Switzerland, and Alliance of Religion and Conservation, United Kingdom.

23

IIRS (Indian Institute of Remote Sensing). 2002. Biodiversity Characterization at Landscape Level in North East India Using Satellite Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System. Joint project of Department of Biotechnology and Department of Space, Government of India. Islam, J., and A. R. Rahmani. 2004. Important Bird Areas of India. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India. IUCN (World Conservation Union). 1995. Centres of Plant Diversity: Asia, Australia and the Pacific. Vol. 2. IUCN Publications Services Unit, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Jackson, R. 2002. Snow Leopard Status, Distribution and Protected Areas Coverage: A Report. The Snow Leopard Conservancy. Jain, S. K., and R. R. Rao. 1983. An Assessment of Threatened Plants in India. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta. Jhunjhunwala, Supriya. 2002. Important Bird Areas (IBA). Briefing material in the IBA Programme for Coordinators of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), Bombay Natural History Museum, Mumbai, India. Kaul, R. 1999. Arunachal: In Quest of Natures Bounty. WWF-India, New Delhi, India. Khan, M. L., Putul Bhuyan, and R. S. Tripathi. 2005. Effects of Forest Disturbance on Fruit Set, Seed Dispersal and Predation of Rudraksh (Elaeocarpus ganitrus Roxb.) in North East India. Kumar, Anuradha. 2002. A Controversial Eviction Drive. Frontline 19(15). Mahanta, Debajit, and S. C. Tewari. 2005. Natural Dye-Yielding Plants and Indigenous Knowledge on Dye Preparation in Arunachal Pradesh. Current Science 88(9):14741480. Malhotra, K. C., S. Chatterjee, Yogesh Gokhale, and Sanjeeva Srivastava. 2001. Sacred Groves of India: An Overview. Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi, and Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sanghrahalay, Bhopal, India. McNeely. J. A., and others. 1990. Conserving the Worlds Biological Diversity. IUCN, WRI, CI, WWF-US, and World Bank, Gland, Switzerland, and Washington, D.C., United States. Myers, N. 1988. Threatened Biotas: Hot Spots in Tropical Forests. The Environmentalist 8:187 208. Myers, N. 1990. The Biological Challenge: Extended Hot Spot Analysis. The Environmentalist 10:243256. Myers, N., R. A. Mittermier, C. G. Mittermier, G. A. B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Priorities. Nature 403:853858. Nayar, M. P. 1996. Hotspots of Endemic Plants of India, Nepal and Bhutan. Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute, Trivandrum, India. Nayar, M. P., and A. R. K. Sastry. 1987. Red Data Book of Indian Plants. Volume I. Botanical Survey of India. Nayar, M. P., and A. R. K. Sastry. 1988. Red Data Book of Indian Plants. Volume II. Botanical Survey of India. Nayar, M. P., and A. R. K. Sastry. 1990. Red Data Book of Indian Plants. Volume III. Botanical Survey of India.

24

North Eastern Council. 2002. Basic Statistics of North Eastern Region. E & M Cell, North Eastern Council Secretariat, Shillong, India. Patiram, and Kumar, Rajesh. 2005. Land Husbandry for Restoration of Degradation in North Eastern Hills. Himalayan Ecology 13(1). Proctor, J., K. Haridasan, and G. Smith. 1998. How Far North Does Lowland Evergreen Tropical Forest Go? Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 7(2):141146. Rahmani, A. R., and M. Zafar Ul Islam. 2000. Prioritization of Indian Grasslands for Conservation of Biodiversity. In S. Singh, A. R. K. Sastry, R. Mehta, and V. Uppal, eds., Setting Biodiversity Conservation Priorities for India: Summary of the Findings and Conclusions of the Biodiversity Conservation Prioritisation Project. WWF-India, New Delhi, India. Raman, T. R. S. 2001. Effect of Slash and Burn Shifting Cultivation on Rainforest Birds in Mizoram, North East India. Conserv. Biol. 15:685698. Rana, R. S., and Sudipto Chatterjee. 2000. Prioritisation of Wild Relatives and Crop Plants of India and Domesticated Animals. In S. Singh, A. R. K. Sastry, R. Mehta, and V. Uppal, eds., Setting Biodiversity Conservation Priorities for India: Summary of the Findings and Conclusions of the Biodiversity Conservation Prioritisation Project. WWF-India, New Delhi, India. Rastogi, A. 2000. Recommendations for Critical Areas for Conservation Action in Arunachal Pradesh. WWF-Nepal. Rodgers, W. A., and H. S. Panwar. 1988. Planning a Wildlife Protected Area Network in India. Vols. I and II. Wildlife Trust of India, Dehradun, India. Sala, O. E., and others. 2000. Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100. Science 287:1770 1774. Samant, J. S. 2000. Prioritisation of Biological Conservation Sites in Indian Wetlands. In S. Singh, A. R. K. Sastry, R. Mehta, and V. Uppal, eds., Setting Biodiversity Conservation Priorities for India: Summary of the Findings and Conclusions of the Biodiversity Conservation Prioritisation Project. WWF-India, New Delhi, India. Sastry, A. R. K., and Sudipto Chatterjee. 2000. Prioritization of Medicinal Plants in India. In S. Singh, A. R. K. Sastry, R. Mehta, and V. Uppal, eds., Setting Biodiversity Conservation Priorities for India: Summary of the Findings and Conclusions of the Biodiversity Conservation Prioritisation Project. WWF-India, New Delhi, India. SBSAP (state biodiversity strategy and action plan). 2005. Reports for Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura. Semwal, R. L., and others. 2003. Forest Fires in India: Lessons from Case Studies. WWF-India, New Delhi, India. Shankar, Uma. 2003. Aconitum fletcheranum G. Taylor (Ranunculaceae) in Eastern Himalaya: Occurrence and Conservation. Current Science 84(2). Singh, S., A. R. K. Sastry, R. Mehta, and V. Uppal, eds. 2000. Setting Biodiversity Conservation Priorities for India: Summary of the Findings and Conclusions of the Biodiversity Conservation Prioritisation Project. WWF-India, New Delhi, India.

25

Srishti Jigyasa Parivar. 2000. Conserving Indias Biodiversity: Let People Speak. In S. Singh, A. R. K. Sastry, R. Mehta, and V. Uppal, eds., Setting Biodiversity Conservation Priorities for India: Summary of the Findings and Conclusions of the Biodiversity Conservation Prioritisation Project. Vol. II. WWF-India, New Delhi, India. Stattersfield, A. J., and others. 1998. Endemic Bird Areas of the World: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation. BirdLife International, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Ved, D. K., G. A. Kinhal, K. Haridasan, K. V. Ravikumar, U. Ghate, V. Sankar, and J. H. Indresha, eds. 2003. Report of the Conservation Assessment and Management Prioritization for the Medicinal Plants of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya and Sikkim, 27 February to 1 March 2003, Guwahati. Unpublished report. Foundation for Revitalization of Local Health Traditions, Bangalore, India. Wikramanayake, E., and others. 2002. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific. Island Press, Washington, D.C., United States. WWF-India. 2000a. Prioritization of Biodiversity-Rich Sites in Middle and Lower Hills of Arunachal Pradesh. In S. Singh, A. R. K. Sastry, R. Mehta, and V. Uppal, eds., Setting Biodiversity Conservation Priorities for India: Summary of the Findings and Conclusions of the Biodiversity Conservation Prioritisation Project. WWF-India, New Delhi, India. WWF-India. 2000b. Prioritization of Biodiversity-Rich Sites in State of Meghalaya. In S. Singh, A. R. K. Sastry, R. Mehta, and V. Uppal, eds., Setting Biodiversity Conservation Priorities for India: Summary of the Findings and Conclusions of the Biodiversity Conservation Prioritisation Project. WWF-India, New Delhi, India. WWF-India. 2000c. Prioritization of Biodiversity-Rich Sites in State of Tripura. In S. Singh, A. R. K. Sastry, R. Mehta, and V. Uppal, eds., Setting Biodiversity Conservation Priorities for India: Summary of the Findings and Conclusions of the Biodiversity Conservation Prioritisation Project. WWF-India, New Delhi, India. WWF-India. 2001. Biodiversity Hotspot Conservation Programme. Technical Report. WWF-India, New Delhi, India. WWF-India. 2004. Consultation on Conservation of High Altitude Wetlands of Indian Himalaya 25th to 27th May 2004, Gangtok, Sikkim. WWF-India unpublished report. WWF-India. 2005a. High Altitude Sacred Wetlands of Western Arunachal Pradesh, Eastern Himalaya, India. WWF-India unpublished report. WWF-India. 2005b. Sacred High Altitude Lakes of Sikkim. WWF-India unpublished report.

26

Appendix A. Biological diversity of northeast India: An overview

Introduction
The Northeastern Region of India, covering nearly 262,379 square kilometers, has been divided into two biogeographic zones the eastern Himalaya and northeast India based on floristic composition, the naturalness of the flora, and the local climate (Rodgers and Panwar 1988). The eastern Himalaya, comprising Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim, is more mesic due to high precipitation resulting from the direct confrontation of monsoon winds blowing from the Bay of Bengal and abruptly rising hills. The northeast India biogeographic zone (Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura) is most significant, and represents the transition zone between the Indian, Indo-Malayan, and Indo-Chinese biogeographic regions, as well as being a meeting place of Himalayan mountains with those of peninsular India (Rao 1994). The Northeastern Region of India lies between 22 N and 295 N latitude and 88 E and 9730 E longitude, and shares international borders with Bhutan, China, Myanmar, and Bangladesh. The region is a geographic gateway for much of Indias flora and fauna, and as a result the region is one of the richest in biological values, with vegetation types ranging from tropical rain forest in the foothills to alpine meadows and cold deserts. The Northeastern Region of India contains more than one-third of the countrys total biodiversity. The region represents an important part of the Indo-Myanmar biodiversity hotspot, one of 25 recognized global biodiversity hotspots (www.biodiversityhotspots.org).

Flora
The region has at least 7,500 species of flowering plants, including 700 orchids, 58 bamboos, 64 citrus, 28 conifers, 500 mosses, 700 ferns, and 728 lichen species. Some of the important gene pools of citrus, banana, and rice are reported to have originated from this region (Anonymous 1996). About one-third of the flora of northeast India is endemic to this region. The eastern Himalaya supports one of the worlds richest alpine flora, with high level of endemism (WWF and ICIMOD 2001). According to WWF and ICIMOD 2001, the temperate broadleaved forest type in the eastern Himalaya is among the most species-rich temperate forests in the world. Nearly 50 percent of the total flowering plants recorded from India are found in the Northeastern Region of India (Rao 1994). Takhtajan (1969) terms this region the cradle of flowering plants. The region is the habitat of many botanical curiosities and rarities. Sapria himalayana Griff., of the family Rafflesiaceae, discovered in Arunachal Pradesh, is one of the largest root parasites, with crimson flowers measuring 35 centimeters across. Among insectivorous plants Nepenthes khasiana Hk. f., endemic to Meghalaya and listed in Appendix I of CITES and placed in Schedule VI of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and two species of Drosera peltata Sm. and D. burmanii Vahl. are important. Many families represented in India by a solitary genus with one or two species are found in this region, for example Coriariaceae, Nepenthaceae, Turneraceae, Illiciaceae, Ruppiaceae, Siphonodontaceae, and Tetracentraceae (Rao and Murti 1990). According to Vavilov (1926, 1951), the Northeastern Region of India, forming the Hindustan center of origin of cultivated plants, is very important for tropical and subtropical fruits and

27

cereals. Over 50 species of economic plants have their genetic origin in this region (Zeven and Zhukovsky 1975). Based on geographic distribution and taxonomic and cytogenetic studies, Chakravorty (1951) suggested that the Assam-Burma-Siam-Indo-China region was the center of origin of Musa. Of an estimated 800 species consumed as food plants in India (Singh and Arora 1978), about 300 species occur in the eastern Himalaya alone (Rao 1994). Orchidaceae, the most fascinating and highly evolved group of plants, has 1,229 species belonging to 184 genera in India (Singh and Chauhan 1999). About 700 species have been reported from the Northeastern Region of India. Of these, 545 species belonging to 122 genera are reported from only Arunachal Pradesh (Chowdhery 1998), of which 12 species are in the endangered category, 16 species are vulnerable, and 31 species are threatened. The genus Rhododendron of Ericaceae is another remarkable group of showy plants with nearly 98 percent of the total rhododendrons reported from India confined to the Himalayan region (Singh and others 2003). In total 72 species, 20 subspecies, and 19 varieties are listed from India, with the eastern Himalaya region harboring 71 species. Of 12 species, 2 subspecies, and 5 varieties of Rhododendron endemic to India, in the Northeastern Region Arunachal Pradesh has most endemic species, with 9 species and 1 subspecies, followed by Manipur and Sikkim with 3 species and 1 subspecies, and Mizoram with 2 species (Mao and others 2001). Rattan, commonly known as cane, is one of the most important nontimber forest products from northeast India. Of 60 species of canes reported from India (Basu 1992; Renuka 1997), the Northeastern Region harbors more than 26 species (Thomas and Haridasan 1999), with nearly 18 species distributed in Arunachal Pradesh (Thomas and others 1998). Of 150 species of bamboo found in India, 63 species in 22 genera are found in northeast India, spread over an area of 30,500 square kilometers. About 25 species of bamboo are considered rare in northeast India.

Fauna
The region is equally rich in faunal diversity. An estimated 3,624 species of insects, 50 molluscs, 236 fishes, 64 amphibians, 137 reptiles, 541 birds, and 160 mammalian species have been so far described (Anonymous 1998b). The remoteness of the region and difficult terrain make it extremely difficult to document the faunal diversity of the region. However, the occurrence of a new species of barking deer, the leaf deer (Muntiacus putaoensis), recently discovered in Myanmar and reported from the forests of Arunachal Pradesh in 2003 (Datta and others 2003), and more recently the discovery of the Tawang macaque (Macaca munjala) as a new record for India (Mishra and others 2004), justify the observation that much is yet to be identified, named, and studied in northeast India.

Primates
Three families of primates occur in India with 15 known species, 9 of which occur in northeast India (Mohnot 1980; Roonwal and Mohnot 1977). The golden langur (Trachypithecus geei) is one of the most localized species, occurring between the Manas and Sankosh Rivers in the Himalayan foothills along the Assam-Bhutan border. This localized endemic was discovered in the Chakrashilla Hills Reserve in Dhubri District of Assam (Budruk 1996), and the area has been turned into a wildlife sanctuary. This Schedule I animal is listed in Appendix I of CITES. In

28

Tripura, within 5.8 percent of the states protected area, seven species of primates are distributed (Gupta 1994). The stump-tailed macaque (Macaca arctoides) and the northern pigtailed macaque (M. leonina) have sympatric distributions in northeast India and both have become endangered. The slow loris (Nycticebus bengalensis) is an inhabitant of tropical forests south of the Brahmaputra River in northeast India. This highly endangered animal is listed in Schedule I, and in Appendix I of CITES.

Carnivores
Of the six big cats of the world recorded from India, the state of Arunachal Pradesh sustains four the tiger (Panthera tigris), the leopard (Panthera pardus), the snow leopard (Uncia uncia), and the clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa). Of these, the Indian population of the clouded leopard is restricted to the Northeastern Region. The tiger has become a very rare animal in the entire region with the exception of Assam, which is still considered one of the safest asylums for this large cat. Very little information is available about the status of the snow leopard in the region, though it has been confirmed to be present in the Khangchendzonga National Park of Sikkim (Jackson 2002) and the Mago Chu valley of Tawang District of Arunachal Pradesh (Mishra and others 2004), and is likely to be present in the Dzong Wildlife Sanctuary and Tolung Wildlife Sanctuary in Sikkim, and the Dibang valley and Namdapha National Park in Arunachal Pradesh (Jackson 2002). The red panda, protected under Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act (1972), and listed in Appendix I of CITES and as endangered by IUCN, is also found in the region. The approximate total habitat of the red panda in India is about 25,000 square kilometers, of which 23,000 square kilometers are in Arunachal Pradesh. If the lowest average density of one panda per 4.4 square kilometers (Yonzon and Hunter Jr. 1991) is taken as a guideline, then there could be around 5,000 to 6,000 animals in India, about 90 percent in Arunachal Pradesh (Choudhury 2002). All the bear species that occur in India are recorded from the Northeastern Region. Northeast India forms the western end of the range of the Malayan sun bear (Helarctos malayanus).

Ungulates
The foothill grasslands and broadleaved forests harbor important populations of Asian elephant, one-horned rhinoceros, and wild water buffalo. The elephant population of the north bank of the Brahmaputra River in Assam is one of Indias largest and most important (Sukumar 1992). Of the 28,000 wild elephants in India, about 33 percent are found in northeast India. In fact, Assam alone accounts for more elephants than Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia, or any other country in Asia. In northeast India the great Indian rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) is now restricted to Kaziranga, Pabitora, and Orang in Assam. The population at Manas in Assam is believed to have been decimated in recent years. Historical records suggest that both the one-horned Javan rhinoceros (Rhinoceros sondaicus) and the two-horned Sumatran rhinoceros (Didermocerus sumatrensis) were once found in parts of northeast India. Both the species are now extinct from the region.

29

The brow-antlered deer (Cervus eldi eldi), locally known as the sangai, is endemic to Manipur and is one of rarest and the most localized subspecies of deer in the world. The pygmy hog (Sus salvanius) is the smallest and the rarest wild suid in the world, and only a few isolated wild populations survive in northeast India. Arunachal Pradesh is home to some fascinating large herbivores, such as the newly discovered Chinese goral (Naemorhedus goral), the red goral (Naemorhedus baileyi), the takin (Budorcas taxicolor), and the serow (Capricornis sumatraensis) (Mishra and others 2004).

Birds
The eastern Himalaya and Assam plains are two endemic bird areas among the seven such areas identified in the country (Jhunjhunwala 2002). This region perhaps supports the highest diversity of bird species in the Orient. From Arunachal Pradesh over 760 bird species have been reported (Borang 2004). Elliots laughing thrush (Garrulax elliotii) and the brown-cheeked laughing thrush (G. henrici) are two species that have been recently added to the regions list, from Arunachal Pradesh. Both these species had previously been recorded only in China. The white-winged duck, which has been reported from the DEring Wildlife Sanctuary in Arunachal Pradesh (Kaul 2000), is identified as highly endangered. The Sangte valley of Arunachal Pradesh is the only habitat for wintering black-necked crane (Grus nigricolis). The greater adjutant (Leptoptilos dubius) is a globally threatened bird, with the majority of the worlds population now found in Assam. The spot-billed pelican (Pelicanus philippensis), the black-necked stork (Ephippiorhyncus asiaticus), the lesser adjutant (Leptotilos javanicus), and the pale-capped pigeon (Columba punicea) are only a few of the globally threatened birds found in the region. The swamp francolin (Francolinus gularis), found in northeast India, is endemic to the Indian subcontinent. The Bengal florican (Houbaropsis bengalensis) is globally one of the rarest bustards. The Manas National Park has the largest population of this bird in the world. The lesser fish eagle (Icthyophaga humilis) is the rarest of the fish and sea eagles, and there are reports of sightings in Namdapha in Arunachal Pradesh. The highly endangered eastern population of the rufous-vented prinia, regarded as the separate species swamp prinia (Prinia cinerascens), is reported from the Pobitora Wildlife Sanctuary in Assam. The beautiful nuthatch (Sitta formosa) is a resident of the primary forests of northeast India.

Lower vertebrates
So far 137 species of reptiles have been recorded from northeast India, which has the greatest affinity to the Oriental, Indo-Malayan, and Indo-Chinese regions. The gharial (Gavialis gangeticus), found in the Brahmaputra River, is of great conservation significance. Northeast India has the highest diversity of turtles. As recently as 2000 a chelonian species, Amyda cartilaginaea, was reported from Mizoram as a first record for India, the previous range for this species being from southern Myanmar to central Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand. The black softshell turtle (Aspideretes nigricans), once considered as extinct (IUCN 2002), has been rediscovered recently from the Assam valley (Praschag and Gamel 2002). Twenty lizard species have been recorded from the state of Assam. Of the three species of monitor lizard found in the region, Varanus flavescens is listed in Schedule I of the Wildlife

30

(Protection) Act and listed in Appendix I of CITES. The Tokay gecko (Gekko gekko) is the largest gecko alive today and is found in northeast India. Fifty-eight species of snakes have been recorded in Assam, 34 from Manipur, and 92 from Arunachal Pradesh. Python reticulatus, the largest snake in India, is found in northeast India, and Python molurus bivittatus is the most commonly known in the region. Both species can be seen in Mouling National Park in Upper Siang District in Arunachal Pradesh. The king cobra (Ophiophagus hannah) is the most awe-inspiring reptile of the region. Typhlops jerdoni, T. tenuicollis, Stoliczkaia khasiensis, Elaphe mandarina, Oligodon melazonotus, Xenochrophis punctulatus, Bungarus bungaroides, and Trimeresurus jerdoni are just a few examples of very elusive and rare snakes of northeast India. So far 64 species of amphibians have been recorded from northeast India. A survey of amphibians conducted in Nagaland from 1998 to 2002 resulted in 19 species as new records for the state and 5 species (Megophrys wuliangshanensis, M. glandulosa, Amolops viridimaculatus, Rana humeralis, and Rhacophorus gongshanensis) as new records for India. The Orang Wildlife Sanctuary in Assam is the only known site for the Orang sticky frog (Kalophrynus orangensis) (Anon 2005).

Invertebrates
The Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for the northeast ecoregion shows that 3,624 species of insects and 50 molluscs are recorded from the region (Tripathi and Barik 2003). Butterflies and moths are by far the best-studied invertebrate organisms in northeast India, and the region contributes the greatest number of species for the group in the country. A decade ago, 689 species of butterflies were recorded from the state of Sikkim. An ecological study on mammals, birds, herpetofauna and butterflies carried out in Teesta basin, Sikkim, revealed nearly 350 species of butterflies at altitudes lower than 900 meters. In the study area the family Nymphalidae is recorded to be the most species rich, forming 50 percent of the observed species, followed by Lycaenidae and Pieridae (17.2 percent each). Papilionidae and Hesperiidae have relatively low species richness, forming only 8.6 percent and 7.0 percent of the species respectively. As species richness in the study area was found to be far greater than that reported earlier, especially at higher altitudes, this particular study highlights the importance of altitudinal gradients in the distribution of butterflies, and in their conservation. One of the largest known tropical Lepidoptera is the atlas moth (Attacus atlas), not uncommon in many parts of northeast India. Princeps polyctor ganesa, which occurs in northeast India, is one of the most beautiful butterflies in the country, while Erysmia pulchella and Nyctalemon patroclus are very beautiful moths that occur in the region. It is pertinent to add that sericulture is an ageold occupation for some people in Assam and Manipur, especially in the Loi community in Manipur, who have raised the skill of silkworm rearing and silk weaving to an art form.

Threats and pressures on biodiversity

Dichotomy in forest administration
Most of the forests in Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, and Nagaland are owned by private individuals, communities, and clans, and local communities have traditional ownership and user rights over such forest areas. The ownership rights over land and resources are further

31

protected by the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. The acts and rules framed by the state and national governments are therefore not applicable to such forests to ensure their protection (Tripathi and Barik 2003). This necessitates the framing of appropriate policies and laws to effectively manage these forests.

Deforestation
Northeast India has 64 percent of its total geographic area under forest cover and it is often said that it continues to be a forest surplus region. However, the forest cover is rapidly disappearing from the entire region. There was a decrease of about 1,800 square kilometers in the forest cover between 1991 and 1999 (FSI 2000). More worrisome is the fact that the quality of the forest is also deteriorating, with the dense forests (canopy closure of 40 percent or more) becoming degraded into open forest or scrub. For example, though the forest cover in Manipur extends to 78 percent of the total geographic area, only 22 percent of the forest area is under dense forest cover and the rest has been converted to open forests. Unregulated shifting cultivation by the local tribe populations extends over 1.73 million hectares (FSI 1999), and the shortening of the jhum cycle has been one of the major reasons for deforestation, mainly in the unclassified and community forests of the region. In the absence of any alternative livelihood source, shifting cultivation continues to be the mainstay of sustenance for the vast majority of the forest dwellers. In 1851 J. D. Hooker, on his expedition to the Jaintia Hills, collected seven headloads of live blue vanda orchid (Vanda coerulea) plants for cultivation in England. Balakrishnan (1981) states that after 100 years, during various field trips stretching from 1965 to 1970, he could hardly spot a dozen plants even in the remote forest areas of Nertiang, where Hooker had made his collections. This is an indication of the rate at which primary forest and the wealth it carries is being irrevocably destroyed. In all, at present more than 700 species of plants from northeast India are facing the threat of extinction in the wild (Ramakantha and others).

Species loss
Many forest bird species, especially those with ranges restricted to northeast India, declined in abundance or disappeared in successional fallows followed for the shifting cultivation practices in the region, unless regeneration exceeded 10 years (Raman 2001). Studies conducted on Phayres langur (T. phayrei) revealed that it needs at least 910 years fallow period to survive in secondary forest (Gupta and Kumar 1994). However, a progressively shortening cycle of shifting cultivation and degradation of forests poses a threat even for such adaptive animals. Similarly, studies conducted reveal that arboreal mammal species such as the Malayan giant squirrel (Ratufa bicolor), Pallass squirrel (Callosciurus erythraeus), and the hoolock gibbon are dependent on tall, undisturbed primary forests or, at least, late successional vegetation (25 years old, or more) (Raman 1997). However, it is a stark reality that in most parts of northeast India, fallow periods have declined to 510 years, and in some places may be as short as 35 years. With a sharp decline in their populations, the role of birds, bats, ungulates, and primates as seed dispersers is decreasing, leading to further impoverishment of the primary as well as the secondary forests. Choudhury (2003), while describing Meghalayas vanishing wilderness, writes that there are good populations of hoolock (Bunopithecus hoolock) in the forests of the West Khasi Hills, but those are private and community lands and he is not too optimistic about their future there. It should be a matter of disquiet that only a meager 4.4 percent of the geographic area is under the state Forest Department, the rest being land belonging to other categories, such as private forests, clan forests, and community forests (Ramakantha and others, unpublished).

32

33

Appendix B. Biodiversity-rich locations identified through global and national priority-setting exercises
Sites identified by Conservation International for investment through the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund
State Arunachal Pradesh Priority Site
DEring WLS Eagles Nest and Sessa WLS Mehao WLS Pakke WLS Dibang Valley WLS and Biosphere Mouling NP Namdapha and Kamlang NP and WS

Reason for selection as priority

Harbors core population of landscape population Important for conservation of the landscape species red panda Important for conservation of landscape species Important for conservation of landscape species Sclaters Monal Chestnut breasted patridge, Rusty bellied shortwing Eerie Tree frog Namdapha tree frog , Namdapha flying squirell, snowy throated babbler > 20 species of globally threatened vertebrates, important for conservation species

Corridor
North Bank Landscape

Dibang-Dihang Dibang -Dihang

Assam

Dibru Saikhowa NP and Biosphere Reserve

North Bank landscape

North and East Karbi Anglong Important for conservation of landscape Karbi Anglong Landscape species Garampani and Namboor WS Jatinga Kaziranga national park Important for conservation of landscape Karbi Anglong landscape species Tawny breasted Wren Babbler > 20 species of globally threatened vertebrates, largest population of greater one horned rhinocerosimportant for conservation species Important for conservation of Pygmy hog, Tiger, Wild water buffalo. Hispid hare. > 20 gl;obally threatened vertebrates. Indian Flying frog. Important for conservation of landscape species Orang Sticky frog Golden langur, Bengal Florican, 4 species of turtles Golden langur, Bengal florican, 4 species of turtles White winged Duck, White bellied Heron, Baikal Teal Keeled Box Turtle, Humes pheasant, Blyths tragopan Manipur Bush Quail, Humes Pheasent, Blyths tragopan, Hoolock Gibbon Khasi Hillas Toad North Bank Landscape JJL Karbi Anglong landscape MBL North bank landscape -

Lumding Endemic Bird Area Manas Tiger Reserve Nameri NP

Orang national park Ripu Chirang Sonai Rupai WS Upper Dihing (East and Kakojan Jamjing and Sengagan IBA

Important for conservation of landscape North Bank Landscape -

Maniur

Dzuko Siroi

Megahalaya

Cherrapunjee cliffs, gorges and sacred groves (including

34

State

Priority Site
Mawswami) Khasi Hills (including Shillong Peak NP) Rongrenigiri Siju caves Tura Nokrek range (includes NP)

Reason for selection as priority

Xmas Bush frog Xmas Bush frog, Tawny breasted Wren Babbler Kashmir cave bat Kashmir cave bat Garo Hills Bush frog, Northern frog -

Corridor

Nagaland Sikkim

Itanki National park Maratlongiri and Dhansiri Khangchendzonha NP Maenam WS Sikkim and WB Bengal

Important for conservation of landscape KKL species Important for conservation of landscape KSC species IUCN red listed plants, especially Rhododendrons Wooly flying Squirell KSC KSC

Key: WLS Wildlife Sanctuary, NP National Park.

35

Appendix C. Important bird areas of northeast India

Arunachal Pradesh
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Chaglagaum-Denning-Walong Chayang Tajo-Khenewa-Bameng DEring Memorial Wildlife Sanctuary Dibang Reserve Forest and adjacent areas Dibang Wildlife Sanctuary Ditchu Reserve Forest Eaglenest and Sessa Sanctuaries Itanagar Wildlife Sanctuary Kane Wildlife Sanctuary Koloriang-Sarli-Damin Magu Thingbu Manabum and Tengapani Reserve Forests Mechuka-Monigong-Jorgging Mehao Wildlife Sanctuary Mouling National Park Nacho-Limeking-Taksing-Majha Nafra-Lada area Namdapha-Kamlang Namsangmukh-Borduria Pakhui or Pakke Wildlife Sanctuary Papum Reserve Forest Sangti Valley Shergaon, Mandla-Phudung and Kalaktang Taley Valley Wildlife Sanctuary The Chapories of Lohit Reserve Thungri-Changlang-Poshingla Complex Yardi-Rabe Supse Wildlife Sanctuary Zemithang-Nelya

36

Assam
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Amchang Hills Barail Range Barnadi Wildlife Sanctuary Bauwwa Beel Behali Reserve Forest Bherjan-Borajan-Podumoni Bordoibam-Bilmukh Bird Sanctuary Bordoloni-Sampora Chakrasila Complex Chandubi Lake and adjoining areas Deobali Jalah Dhansiri Reserve Forest Dibru-Saikhowa Complex Dipor Beel Bird Sanctuary Dum Duma-Dangori-Kumsong Reserve Forests East and North Karbi Anglong Wildlife Sanctuaries Garampani, Nambor and Doigrung Gibbon Sanctuary Habang Inner Line, Kathakal and Barak Reserve Forests Jamjing and Sengajan Jatinga Jengdia Beel and Satgaon Jhanjimukh-Kokilamukh Kaziranga National Park Kurabari-Dalani Langting-Mupa Reserve Forest Laokhowa and Burachapori Sanctuaries Lumding-Marat Longri Majuli Manas National Park Nameri National Park

37

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

Orang National Park Pabho Reserve Forest Pobitora Wildlife Sanctuary Pani-Dihing Bird Sanctuary Ripu and Chirang Reserve Forest Sibsagar Tanks Son Beel Sonai-Rupai Wildlife Sanctuary Subansiri Tamaranga-Dalani-Bhairab Complex Tirap-Burihidihing Upper Dihing (East) Complex Upper Dihing (West) Complex Urpod Beel

Manipur
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Nago or Anko Hills Bunning Wildlife Sanctuary Dzuku Valley Jiri-Makru Wildlife Sanctuary Kailam Wildlife Sanctuary Loktak Lake and Keibul Lamjao National Park Shiroi Community Forest Yangoupokpi-Lokchao Wildlife Sanctuary Zeilad Lake Sanctuary

Meghalaya
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Balpakram Complex Mawphlang Sacred Grove Nokrek National Park Nongkhyllem Wildlife Sanctuary Norpuh Reserve Forests Riat Khwan-Umiam Saipung

38

8. 9.

Upper Shillong Cherapunjee: cliffs, gorges and sacred groves

Mizoram
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Blue Mountain (Phawngpui) National Park Dampa Tiger Reserve Lengteng Wildlife Sanctuary Murlen National Park Ngengpui Wildlife Sanctuary Palak Lake

Nagaland
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Fakim Wildlife Sanctuary and Saramati area Intanki National Park Khonoma Nature Conservation and Tragopan Sanctuary Mount Paona Mount Zanibu Mount Ziphu Pfutsero-Chizami Pulibadze Wildlife Sanctuary Satoi Range

Sikkim
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Barsey Rhododendron Sanctuary Dombang Valley-Lachung-Lema-Tsungthang Fambong Lho Wildlife Sanctuary-Himalayan Zoological Park-Ratey Chu Reserve Forest Khangchendzonga National Park and Biosphere Reserve Kyongnosla Alpine Sanctuary-Tsomgo-Tamze-Chola Complex Lhonak Valley Lowland forests of South Sikkim Maenam Wildlife Sanctuary-Tendong Reserve Forest Pangolakha Wildlife Sanctuary-Zuluk-Bedang Tsho-Nathula Complex Tsho-Lhamo Plateau-Lashar-Sebu La-Yumesamdong Complex Yumtan-Shingba Rhododendron Wildlife Sanctuary

39

Tripura
1. 2. Gumti Wildlife Sanctuary Trishna Wildlife Sanctuary

40

Appendix D. Sites prioritized by Biodiversity Conservation Prioritization project

The Biodiversity Conservation Prioritization project of WWF-India (19972000) was the first exercise of its kind that attempted identifying priority sites and species on the basis of their biological and socioeconomic values and developing strategies for their conservation at a national scale. The wetlands, grasslands, and forest patches that were prioritized in northeast India were:

A. Priority wetlands (Samant 2000)

Arunachal Pradesh: Wetlands of Mehao, Lali and Namdapha. While the former two emerged as low priority, wetlands in Namdapha were placed in a category of high ecological and socioeconomic potential but having poor data availability. Assam: Beels of Assam, Dibru floodplain, Dipore floodplain, wetlands of Manas, Sareawar beel, Sonai Rupai, Kaziranga, Laolkahowa and Orang. All emerged as low priority wetlands; Dipore and Manas featured amongst the wetlands with high ecological and socioeconomic potential but poor data availability. Manipur: Wetlands Ikop, Keibul Lemjao, Kharung, Loktak and Phumlen were prioritized. Loktak, since being given Ramsar status, emerges as a wetland of very high priority, and all others were placed in the data-deficient category. Sikkim: All wetlands in Sikkim emerged as low priority.

B. Grasslands
Rahmani (2000) and Choudhury (2000) attempted identifying grasslands of high biological diversity and socioeconomic significance. Assam Priority 1: Kaziranga, Manas, Orang, Pabitora, Bornadi, Dibru Saikhowa Priority 2: Lowkhowa, Burachapori, Sadiya plains in Tinsukia Priority 3: Jamjing and Bordalini in Dhemaji and Lakhimpur, Kochmora in Sonitpur, Pani-Dihang in Sibsagar and Nameri in Sonitpur Arunachal Pradesh Priority 1: DEring WLS Priority 2: Dibang valley Priority 3: Namdapha in Changlang, Deopani and Kerim in Debang valley, Chapories of Lohit River, grasslands between Sesseri and Sibia Rivers

C. Forests
The Biodiversity Conservation Prioritization project attempted identifying priority locations in only three northeastern states: Meghalaya and the lower and middle hills of Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura. Sixteen locations were prioritized in Meghalaya as shown in the map that follows (Roy 2000). The locations prioritized by Gupta (2000) have been included in the states biodiversity conservation and action plan.

41

42

The following areas (see map) are of conservation significance in the middle and lower hills of the state of Arunachal Pradesh (Haridasan 2000): 1. 2. 3. 4. Doimara and vicinity, located in the West Kameng district of Arunachal Pradesh Pe Per and vicinity, near Kimin, situated amidst the tropical semievergreen forest belt in Papum Pare and Lower Subansiri districts Tropical wet evergreen forests at Deomali, Namsangmukh, Namsai, Tengapani, Madhupan and vicinity, located in Lohit and Tirap districts Demwee-Sewak pass-Tiding, situated in Lohit District, along the Tezu-Hayuliang road

Singh and others (2000) in the same exercise suggested protected areas in Chumbi valley (area between Sikkim and Tibet), and temperate, subalpine and alpine habitats at the junction of India, Tibet and Myanmar in Arunachal Pradesh. Rodgers and Panwar (2000), who also jointly authored the report Planning a Protected Area Network for India (see section 3.2 of this report), recommended creation of Tolung and Dzongri wildlife sanctuaries and Lado, Tawang and Walong wildlife sanctuaries in Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh. Gupta (2000) identified 30 conservation areas in the state of Tripura. Barring Haijala in the South district, all the conservation areas are located in the 18 different reserve forests.

43

D. Priority species 44

Rana and Chatterjee (2000) and Sastry and Chatterjee (2000) provided a list of priority medicinal plants and wild relatives of crop plants for the Northeastern Region. The Biodiversity Conservation Prioritization project also made an attempt to collate information on many other elements of biodiversity, including invertebrates, amphibians, and fishes, for which information was scanty. The conservation assessment and management prioritization (CAMP) methodology was followed, which attempted developing taxon data sheets for assigning IUCN conservation criteria using a body of subject experts. Species were identified as critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, threatened, near threatened, extinct, or data deficient.

45

Appendix E. Biodiversity characterization at landscape level in northeast India

by the Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (IIRS) and Department of Space, Government of India, using satellite remote sensing and Geographic Information Systems Priority sites identified by IIRS: Arunachal Pradesh: Tropical forests are recognized for their biodiversity richness and uniqueness. Rich forests occur in Namdapha National Park and the border areas of West Kameng, East Siang and Lohit districts. Alpine pastures and temperate conifer areas also indicate high richness. Assam: The river valleys support a number of species associations, for example Dipterocarpus macrocarpus, Shorea assamica, and Mesua ferrea in the Assam valley, and Mesua ferrea, Dipterocarpus turbinatus, and Palaquium polyanthum in the Barak valley. Manipur: The highest biological richness in Manipur is reported in Chingpi in Churachandrapur, Dzuku and Maram in Senapati, the Tegnopaul area in Chandel and the northern inaccessible hills of Tamenglong district. Meghalaya: Important bio-rich sites in Meghalaya are the Nokrek and Balpakram National Parks. Mizoram: Areas with high biological richness have been mapped in the report. Nagaland: The biological richness map indicates high biodiversity in high-altitude, inaccessible hill areas, including Tuensang, Phek, Mon and Kohima. Sikkim: Areas of high biological richness occur in the inaccessible mountains, in the transition zone between broadleaved hill forest and east Himalayan wet temperate forest, and along river courses in Sikkim. Some of the locations showing high biological richness were: East Sikkim: Pangthang, Rumtek, Rongli, Nathula North Sikkim: Namprikdang mountains nearby Mangan South Sikkim: Rabangla area West Sikkim: Dentam and Barsey. It is pertinent to mention here that the states of the Northeastern Region have their respective remote sensing centers. It will be useful to compile and collate information available through these centers. Information is generated using GIS techniques by institutes and organizations outside the state, such as the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and the Nature and Wildlife Institute of India.

46

Appendix F. Global ecoregions of WWF in northeast India

An ecoregion can be defined as A large area of land or water that contains a geographically distinct assemblage of natural communities that share a large majority of their species and ecological dynamics, share similar environmental conditions and interact ecologically in ways that are critical for their long term persistence (Wikramanayake and others 2002). The WWF identifies the following ecoregions in the Northeastern Region: Brahmaputra valley semievergreen forests lie along the alluvial plains of the Brahmaputra River. Despite a long history of habitat loss and degradation the ecoregion still harbors impressive biodiversity in small fragments of habitat that lie scattered throughout. Most of the ecoregion lies within the eastern state of Assam but small sections extend into the neighboring states of Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland and into the southern states of Bhutan. The Northeastern Region represents the area where the northward-migrating Deccan peninsula first made contact with the Eurasian continent during the Tertiary period and is a gateway of species exchanges between the Indian and Malayan faunas (Rodgers and Panwar 1988). The wide Brahmaputra River is a biogeographic barrier for several species. The golden langur (Semnopithecus geei), hispid hare (Caprolagus hispidus) and pygmy hog (Sus salvanius) are limited to the north bank of this river, whereas the hoolock gibbon (Hylobates hoolock) and stump-tailed macaque (Macaca arctoides) are limited to the south bank. Most of the ecoregions original semievergreen forests have been converted to grasslands by centuries of fire, and small patches of semievergreen forests remain only along the border of the Indian states of Assam and Meghalaya. Biodiversity features of this region include Indias largest elephant (Elephas maximus), the worlds largest population of the greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), and the tiger (Panthera tigris). The ecoregion overlaps with a high-priority area (level 1 Tiger Conservation Unit) that extends north to include the subtropical and temperate forests of the Himalayan foothills. Other threatened mammals include swamp deer (Cervus duvauceli), gaur (Bos gaurus), clouded leopard (Pardofelis nebulosa), capped langur (Trachypithecus pileatus), Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) and sloth bear (Melursus ursinus). The Brahmaputra also harbors the Gangetic dolphin (Platanista gangetica). The bird fauna is richer, with more than 850 species. The ecoregion overlaps with BirdLife Internationals endemic bird area, the Assam plains, which contain three restricted-range bird species. Endemic and near-endemic bird species include the Manipur bush quail (Perdicula manipurensis) and the marsh babbler (Pellorneum palustre). The eastern Himalaya broadleaved forests are globally outstanding for both species richness and endemism, especially as regards flora. The forest contains several localized areas of floral richness and endemism, including floral hotspots that are especially rich in rhododendrons and oak. The 125 mammal species known to occur here include four species that are endemic to the region. Three of the species are shared with adjacent ecoregions but the Namdapha flying squirrel is a strict endemic whose range distribution is limited to the broadleaved forest. The golden langur is limited to the broadleaved forests to the north of the Brahmaputra. Despite being shared between this ecoregion and the adjacent Himalayan subtropical forests the golden langur has a limited range distribution. Other threatened species include tiger, red panda (Ailurus fulgens), takin (Budorcas taxicolor), serow (Nemorhedus sumatraensis), vespertilionid bats, Assamese macaque (Macaca assamensis), stump-tailed macaque, wild dog (Cuon alpinus), clouded leopard, and Irrawaddy squirrel (Callosciurus pygerythrus). The red panda is reduced to patches of mature fir forests with a bamboo understorey.

47

The bird assemblage includes several threatened species, including rufous-necked hornbill (Aceros nipalensis), Sclaters monal (Lophophorus impejanus), Blyths tragopan (Tragopan blythii), white-bellied heron (Ardea insignis) and Wards trogon (Harpactes wardi), which can be considered as indicators of habitat integrity. The eastern Himalaya subalpine coniferous forests represent the transition from the forested ecoregions of the Himalayas to treeless alpine meadows. Several Himalayan birds and mammals exhibit altitudinal seasonal migrations and depend on contiguous habitats that permit these movements. The ecoregion represents the belt of the conifer forest between Kali Gandaki River in Nepal and into the state of Arunachal Pradesh in India. The ecoregion lies within the ecozone between the Indo-Malayan and Palearctic zoogeographic zones. Although not endemic species, the red panda and the Himalayan musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster) are characteristic of the mature fir forests of the ecoregion. The red pandas are usually limited to bamboo forests between 3,000 and 4,000 meters where precipitation is high. Two hundred birds species are known from this region, of which six are considered endemic. Four species are shared with the adjacent ecoregions and two are known only from the subalpine coniferous forests in the northeastern part of Arunachal Pradesh (Grimmet and others 1998). Mizoram-Manipur Kachin rainforest has the highest bird species richness of all ecoregions within the Indo-Pacific region. The biological distinctiveness is globally outstanding. This large ecoregion represents the semievergreen submontane rainforest that extends from the mid ranges of the Arakan Yoma and Chin Hills north into the Chittagong Hills of Bangladesh, the Mizo and Naga Hills of the Indo-Myanmar border, and into the northern hills of Myanmar. It divides the Brahmaputra and Irrawaddy valleys, through which Asias largest rivers flow. The semievergreen forests are characterized by several species of dipterocarps, including Dipterocarpus alatus, D. turbinatus and D. griffithii. The region includes two near-endemic species: the bat Pipistrellus joffrei and the murid rodent Hadromys humei. The lower forests in Nagaland harbor two primates: the stump-tailed macaque and the pig-tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina). The forests of Manipur may still harbor the critically endangered Elds deer or thamin (Cervus eldii) (Corbett and Hill 1986). The region also includes threatened species, including the red panda, Asian elephant, clouded leopard (Pardofelis nebulosa), gaur, goral (Nemorhaedus goral), large Indian civet (Viverra zibetha), Assamese macaque, capped langur, hoolock gibbon, stripe-backed weasel (Mustela strigidorsa) and smooth-coated otter (Lutrogale perspicillata). Indo-Myanmar pine forests are biologically distinctive and regionally outstanding. This ecoregion is one of only four tropical or subtropical conifer forest ecoregions in the Indo-Pacific region. Though not rich in biodiversity they contain species unique to these ecosystems. These forests are found in the north-south Burmese-Java arc. The arc is formed by the parallel-folded mountain ranges that culminate in the Himalayas in the north. Further south are the Manipur and Chin Hills. The outer southwestern fringe of mountain ranges forming the arc is formed by the Aracan Yomas, the southern continuation of the folded mountain ranges branching off the Himalayas. The uniqueness lies in the association of pines with dipterocarps.

48

Appendix G. Existing and proposed network of protected areas in northeast India

State Arunachal Pradesh Existing Protected Area
Pakhui WLS Itanagar WLS Mouling NP DEring WLS Namdapha NP Dibang WLS Eaglenest WLS Itanagar WLS Kamlang WLS Kane WLS Mehao WLS Sessa Orchid WLS Tale Valley WLS Yordi-Rabe Supse WLS Kaziranga NP Manas NP Orang NP Garampani WLS Laokhowa WLS Dibru-Saikhowa NP Nameri NP Barnadi WLS Bherjan-Borajan-Podumoni WLS Bordoibam-Bilmukh WLS Burachapori WLS Chakrashila WLS Deepor Beel WLS East Karbi Anglong WLS Garampani WLS Gibbon WLS Karbi Anglong WLS Laokhowa WLS Nambar Daigrong WLS Pabitora WLS Pani-Dihing WLS Sonai-Rupai WLS Keibul-Lamjao NP Kailam WLS Yangoupokpi-Lokchao WLS Zeilad WLS Balphakram NP Nokrek Ridge NP Siju WLS Baghmara WLS Nongkhyllem WLS

Proposed Protected Area

Tawang WLS Tawang NP Kalaktang WLS Lado WLS Lado NP Palin WLS Karsinganala WLS Raneghat WLS Walong WLS Walong NP Tirap Evergreen NP

Assam

Ripu-Chirang WLS Karwa WLS Hollongapar WLS Desangmukh WLS Zamzing WLS Poba WLS Digboi WLS Tinkhopani NP Dhansiri-Kaki WLS Dhansiri-Kaki NP Barail WLS Inner-Line Forest WLS Barak WLS

Manipur

Dzuko WLS Dzuko NP Siroi WLS; Siroi NP Imphal Botanic garden WLS Taret Lakhao WLS Tura Arabella NP Rongrengri WLS Nongkhlaw NP Shillong Peak NP Mawsmai WLS Garampani WLS Saipung Link WLS Rengdil WLS

Meghalaya

Mizoram

Murlen NP

49

State

Existing Protected Area

Phawngpui Blue Mountain NP Dampa WLS Khawnglung WLS Lengteng WLS Ngengpui WLS

Proposed Protected Area

Twai WLS Palak WLS

Nagaland

Intanki WLS Pulicbadze WLS Fakim WLS Rangapahar WLS Kangchendzonga NP Maenam WLS Fambong WLS Singba WLS Kyongnosla WLS Barley Rhododendron WLS Trishna WLS Charilam WLS Gumti WLS Rowa WLS Sepahijala WLS

Intanki NP & WLS Kisa WLS Dzuko-Pulicbadze WLS Shiloi WLS Macaque WLS Dzongri WLS Tolung WLS Nimphu WLS Kitam WLS Pangola NP Central Catchment WLS

Sikkim

Tripura

Key: WLS Wildlife Sanctuary; NP National Park.

50

Appendix H. Essential elements of the state biodiversity strategy and action plans
India is a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity and has a commitment to prepare a National Biodiversity Action Plan. Each of the states in India has prepared an action plan that feeds into the national plan. Although many of the states have officially launched their respective state biodiversity strategy and action plans, the official endorsement by the Ministry of Environment and Forests is yet to come. Nevertheless the respective state biodiversity conservation action plans presented an opportunity to compile the existing information and highlight the biodiversity status of the states. Unlike the Biodiversity Conservation Prioritization project, which attempted identification of biodiversity-rich sites under different ecosystems (forests, rangelands, and grasslands), the state biodiversity strategy and action plans were developed individually for the states. The subsequent paragraphs provide a gist of the draft biodiversity strategy action plans for the northeastern states. They include a summary of the biodiversity-significant sites, species requiring conservation attention, threats, and key concerns.

Arunachal Pradesh

It is estimated that over 5,000 species of flowering plants occur in this territory (of both vascular and nonvascular origin). Of these, 238 are endemic to the state. The vegetation (including forests) is classified into several major categories: tropical, subtropical, temperate, subalpine and alpine vegetation, secondary forests, and aquatic vegetation. Each comprises subtypes, primarily based on altitude and climatic factors. The state is rich in its agrobiodiversity and has been a center of origin for a number of crop plant species. Orchids have been termed the jewels of Arunachal Pradesh. The state houses 500 species of the 1,000 that are estimated to occur in India. Many medicinal plants are found in the state. Of 16 primates in the world, 7 are found in Arunachal Pradesh. The state has an amazingly rich avifauna, with over 650 bird species. The states tribes exercise traditional rights over land, water, and forest within their jurisdiction. Each tribe as a community exercises control over the natural resources within the area they have traditionally inhabited, using resources sustainably for shelter, cultivation, food, and numerous other day-to-day purposes. Problems resulting in biodiversity loss reported are: o Deforestation o o o o o o o o Jhum cultivation Tea plantations Timber felling, though this has decreased following the T. N. Godavarman case Forest fires Unscientific methods of harvesting Hunting Soil erosion Encroachment problems

51

Urbanization.

Priority conservation sites. The conservation sites have been identified on the basis of biodiversity richness, habitat of rare and endangered species, economic importance of plants and animals, and ecological situation. The following are the conservation priority sites as identified by the state biodiversity strategy and action plan.

Doimara. The site is located in West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh. This reserve forest patch extends from the foothills in the east, adjoining the orchid sanctuary. The area is a source of many valuable forest products, but due to exploitation of timber, cane, bamboo, and jigat bark the site has become vulnerable. The widening of the road leading from Missamari to Tenga poses challenges for biodiversity conservation. The forest types include tropical riparian forest, semievergreen forest, tropical evergreen forest, and subtropical forest. These forests provide refuge to some rare and endangered plants, such as Hodgsonia macrocarpa and Entada purseatha. Shikar Hills. This mountain landscape clothed with pristine forests is located in West Siang District. It extends from Kaying in the southeast to Yapin in the northwest. The forests are comparatively undisturbed due to the difficult terrain. However, it is a favored spot for hunting and trapping animals. The forest types include subtropical broadleaved forests, temperate broadleaved forests, temperate mixed conifer forests, and bamboo breaks. Rare species include Calamus inermis and Livistona jenkinsiana. Chessa. The forests extending from Chessa to Kankar Nallah fall within the Drupong Reserve. The forests are of tropical semievergreen type, though evergreen types of vegetation are also found. This forest is also a shelter for rare species of plants, including Entada purseatha and Dipteris wallichii. Tengapani-Madhuban-Wakro. This location is in Lohit District on the south bank of the Brahmaputra. The Kamlang Wildlife Sanctuary and Namdapha National Park are nearby. The vegetation is broadly of tropical wet evergreen type dominated by dipterocarps, for example Dipterocarpus retusus and Shorea assamica. This site is a rich source of nontimber forest products, including wild edibles and crop relatives. These forests are perhaps some of the most highly endangered in the state. They are a habitat for the hoolock gibbon, tiger, and elephant. Various rare plants found here include Sapria himalayana, Cyathea spp., and Angiopteris evecta. Demwee-Sewapass-Tidding. This site is located in Lohit District, about 10 kilometers east of Tezu. The major vegetation type is tropical semievergreen. By and large the forests are undisturbed, though there is evidence of human pressures. Timber, bamboo, cane, and medicinal plants are some of the economic products from these forests. The diversity of oak, bamboos, and canes is remarkable. Schizostachyum fuchsianum is a unique poisonous bamboo found here. Albizia arunachalensis is a rare tree species. The place is also known for its wildlife. Likabali-Garu-Gensi. The site, located in West Siang District, is rich in tropical and subtropical forests. Rare species of cane are found, and a new species of bamboo, Schizostachyum arunachalensis, has been reported. There is a need to protect this rich biodiversity area from external pressure. Dichu-Melinja-Hotspring. The wide range of vegetation in this remote area of Lohit District includes subtropical pine forests, temperate broadleaved, temperate conifer, and alpine forests. Some of the unique plants found here are Picea spinulosa, Abies densa, Abies

52

spectabilis, and Larix spp. This is the habitat of takin, ghoral, bhoral, red panda, and musk deer. Mithumna-Mailang. This is a very important conservation priority site, with its temperate flora including many rare plants, particularly epiphytes. A unique feature is the presence of Amentotaxus assamicus, a rare gymnosperm newly reported in India. The area is under pressure from increasing jhum cultivation in the surrounding area. Mayodia. This site is located near Roing, a hill ridge with temperate and subtropical vegetation. Temperate elements include oak, magnolia, fir, and tsuga. Of particular importance are Coptis teeta and Taxus baccata. The area is also known for such animals as mishmi, takin, serow, and ghoral, and for pheasants and other birds. Mandla-Phudung. This temperate plant area is located in West Kameng District. Conifers, magnolias, and rhododendrons are a special feature of the vegetation. Taxus baccata was formerly found here but has disappeared from the district. Nagula-PTSO. This site, located in Tawang District in the extreme north, has mostly conifer trees, rhododendron shrubs, and alpine meadows. There are some prominent high-altitude lakes. Interesting plants include Ponerorchis spp., Boeschniakia, and Sassaurea obvellata. Many high-altitude medicinal plants are found, such as Frittillaria cirrhorsa, Aconitum, and Rheum. This unique location requires immediate attention for conservation. Chander-Thungri. Located in West Kameng District near Munna camp, this temperate zone has divergent vegetation types, including temperate broadleaved forests, temperate conifer forests, temperate bamboo breaks, temperate grassland, and rhododendron shrubs. Yak are reared in the region and utilize the vegetation for forage and grazing. A large number of medicinal plants are collected from this site.

Assam

The terrestrial natural ecosystems of Assam are mainly forest ecosystems covering both the hills and the plains. There is also a grassland ecosystem dominated by grasses and forests, mainly of secondary nature. The state has as many as 3,513 freshwater wetlands. Assam is dominated by two river plains: the Brahmaputra plains (56,480 square kilometers), drained by the Brahmaputra River and its 43 tributaries; and the Barak plains (6,962 square kilometers), drained by the Barak River and its tributaries. In the floodplains of these rivers there are a large number of beels, swamps, and marshes known by various names, including jalah, doloni, hola, and pitoni. These water bodies are of varying shape, size, and depth, with abundant flora and fauna. The wetlands provide the best habitats for migratory birds, which visit the aquatic bodies in large numbers. The vegetation of Assam is primarily of tropical type, with areas of evergreen, semievergreen, and deciduous forests, and grasslands. Stretches of riparian forest found along the riverbanks are ecologically very important. Due to incomplete reporting, particularly from such areas as the North Cachar Hills (including the Barail ranges), parts of Tinsukia District (containing patches of tropical rainforest), and parts of Kokrajhar District, the exact number of species in Assam still remains uncertain. However, the available records and enumeration lists suggest that there are 3,017 species of flowering plants (Baishya 1999). Obviously, with more exploration in future, the number of known species will increase.

53

Assam is rich in bamboo diversity; 10 genera and 42 species can be found. Of the total 50 Red Data Book species belonging to 20 families in the northeastern states, Assam houses 45 species belonging to 19 families. Reports from the Botanical Survey of India indicate that 102 species of flora belonging to 75 genera are endemic to the state. About 193 species of mammals and more than 958 species and subspecies of birds have so far been reported from Assam (Choudhury 2000). The state possesses 16 important wildlife areas, which house nearly 44 types of endangered and rare species of mammals and 14 types of reptiles and amphibia. The hoolock gibbon and golden langur are endemic to Assam. Assam holds the entire known world population of the pygmy hog, 75 percent of the world population of the Indian rhinoceros and wild water buffalo, and a sizeable population of Asian elephants and tigers. The diversified habitat and occurrence of various ecological associations have significantly enriched the avian diversity in Assam, with more than 900 avian species belonging to 302 genera and 68 families. Assam harbors 17 endemic species (Saikia and Kakati 2000) belonging to three families. The endemic species found in Assam are the Manipur bush quail (Perdicula manipurensis), marsh babbler (Pellorneum palustre), snowy-throated babbler (Stachyris oglei), beautiful sibia (Helerophasia pulchella), black-breasted parrotbill (Paradoxornis flavirostris), Blyths tragopan (Tragopan blythii), chestnut-breasted partridge (Arborophila mandellii), grey sibia (Heterophasia gracilus), rusty-bellied shortwing (Brachypteryx hyperythra), tawny-breasted wren babbler (Spelacornis longicaudatus), white-naped yuhinia (Yuhinia bakeri), yellowvented warbler (Phylloscopus canator), streak-throated barwing (Actinodura waldeni), chestnut-backed laughing thrush (Garrulax nuchalis), wedge-billed wren babbler (Sphenocichea humei), and brown-capped laughing thrush (Garrulax virgatus). Assam is exceptionally rich in citrus and banana germ plasm. It is considered by many to be the creator center for the citrus flora of India. Another unique feature of the state is the occurrence of aquatic fruits, such as the makhana or gorgon fruit (Eurale ferox). According to the Assam Remote Sensing Application Center, and the Space Research Center, Ahmedabad, 1,367 wetlands out of 3,513 in Assam are under severe threat due to invasion of aquatic weeds and developmental activities. Many wetlands of the state are in a process of eutrophication, indicating total unproductivity of the water bodies due to both natural and human factors. The extensive growth of water hyacinth (Eichhornia cressipes), one of the most cumbersome aquatic weeds of this region, is becoming a constant threat to the productive wetlands. Ipomea sp., an introduced species, is also causing concern due to its impact on native species. Other causes of degradation of aquatic bodies and obstructing the growth of aquatic plants are overfishing, excessive collection of fodder and food items, overgrazing in the fringe areas, agricultural and industrial activities, and large-scale encroachment for construction. Collection of aquatic plants or their propagules for commercial purposes is another cause of the decrease of population of many aquatic plant species.

Manipur

Types of forest range from tropical to subalpine. Though small in area, the forests of Manipur represent all types of forest in the northern hemisphere except that in the

54

tundra. Manipur is located at the confluence of two tectonic plates (the Burmese and Indian). The region has been recognized as a Vavilovian center of origin for a variety of angiospermic plants. It has also been much enriched by the considerable inflow and outflow of flora and fauna between the Southeast Asian countries and the Indian subcontinent through this region. The region is a living museum of tribes speaking 31 different dialects. The culture of Manipur is an amalgamation of the multiple tribal cultures thriving in this region. The state has 29 scheduled tribes occupying the hills, while the Meiteis constitute the major group of people in the valley districts. The state witnesses a situation of legal pluralism in regard to land law. The Manipur Land Reforms and Land Revenue Act, passed in 1960, lays out three aspects of land reforms tenancy, ceiling on smallholdings, and survey and land records. The act is enforced only in the plains districts, which cover only about one-tenth of the total state area. The hill districts remain under the jurisdiction of customary laws. Problems related to biodiversity, as identified in the state biodiversity strategy and action plan, include: Loss of habitat: The lakes in the state are on the verge of considerable loss due to erosion of catchment areas, siltation, and eutrophication, all major contributing factors in the loss of wetland habitat. Encroachment is a threat to the existence of the wetlands of Manipur. An increase in the number of phoomdi dwellers, shallowing and infilling of lake boundaries by earth for settlement purposes, and encroachment for farming, are common practice. These factors accentuate the problem of wetland management. There is a wide information gap pertaining to biodiversity management and conservation between the Government or concerned authority and the public. Government measures to tackle illegal hunting, poaching, and destruction of habitat (including chemical poisoning), or to conserve specific biodiversity areas, are seen as either irrelevant to local commitments or unnecessary hindrances to their activities. The various provisions and implications of the Indian Wildlife Act (1972), the Manipur Rules (1974), the Forest Conservation Act (1980), and the Environment Protection Act (1986) fail to reach every corner of the state, and seem applicable only to urban and suburban populations. The people of remote areas, particularly in the hills, have little knowledge of rules and regulations to protect wildlife. SBSAP Manipur (2005) has recommended conservation of the following areas: Forests at source of the Barak River (Senapati, Tamenglong, and Churachandpur District) Forests of Siroi in Ukhrul Forests of the Khong-Tenepu Dzoku valley (Senapati District) Kailam range (Churachandpur District) Yangoupokpi Lokchao Sanctuary (Chandel District) Dipterocarpus forests of Chandel District Forests around Zeliad Lake (Tamenglong District)

Meghalaya

The geographic position of Meghalaya favors immigration and introduction of different species. The state is considered to be the center of origin for citrus.

55

More than 35 percent of Indian mammal species are found in the state. The presence of sacred groves provides examples of traditional ways of forest management. Due to temperature and climatic differences, the state is a storehouse of various exotic and endangered species. Plant species such as Nepenthes khasiana (pitcher plant), orchid species such as Vanda, Paphiopedilum, and Cymbydium, and trees such as Taxus baccata are being exploited as ornamental items or for medicine. To sustain their livelihoods numerous flower vendors are seen selling endemic floral species, including orchids, in the city of Shillong. As a consequence of this overcollection and exploitation of ornamental and medicinal species, disturbance of their habitat, and deforestation, there is a danger of biodiversity loss in the state. Though known as containing the wettest place in the world (Cherrapunjee), the state suffers from the problem of water scarcity. Problems resulting in biodiversity loss reported are: Loss of forest cover due to deforestation Mining and quarrying Jhumming Charcoal making Limestone and coal processing Fuelwood and timber extraction Construction of reservoirs and dams Pollution of water bodies.

Mizoram
The foothills and valleys have tropical forest, while the mid-altitudes have a subtropical moist climate, and the upper reaches a temperate climate. The rock system is weak and unstable, and prone to frequent seismic action. Soils vary from sandy loam and clayey loam to clay, generally mature but leached due to the steep gradient and heavy rainfall. Soils are porous with poor water-holding capacity and are deficient in potash, phosphorus, nitrogen, and even humus; excessive leaching makes them acidic to neutral. Traditional slash-and-burn shifting cultivation (jhum) is practiced by a large number of people, resulting in the destruction of forest cover and soil erosion. Timber and bamboo are among the important forest products. Flora and fauna: No comprehensive, systematic survey and documentation of the flora of Mizoram has yet been carried out. There are many unauthorized settlements, both in reserved forests and unclassified forests, which need to be regularized. Loss of biodiversity has a number of causes: Habitat loss, hunting, overexploitation of resources, introduction of exotic species in river ecosystems, poisoning, and other factors including progressive disempowerment of local communities, population growth, and destabilization of Mizo traditional management systems, have all contributed to biodiversity loss. An element of the loss, which has remained largely undetected or severely understudied, is the decline of subspecies and varieties. This silent erosion is not necessarily due to anthropogenic factors, but often due to complex and less understood environmental

56

factors. Thus, for conservation measures to be implemented effectively, it is imperative to have a basic understanding of the flora and fauna of the state, beginning with status surveys.

Nagaland
Nagaland has the northernmost tropical forest formation on earth, and its forests are classified as northern tropical wet evergreen forests, northern tropical semievergreen forests, northern subtropical broadleaved wet hill forests, northern montane wet temperate forests, and temperate forests. Bulbophyllum rothchildianum, endemic to India, which was last reported in 1895, was rediscovered in 1992 in two locations in Nagaland: Longsa and Chare (NEPED 2006). Despite the fact that Nagaland is a small state, it possesses a wide variety of forest types, from evergreen to temperate. No comprehensive inventory of the flora and fauna of Nagaland is available. Nagaland is a storehouse of traditional and indigenous ecological knowledge. More than fifteen major tribes inhabit the state, each having its own distinct dialect, culture, food habits, lifestyle, customs, and rituals. These characteristics make Nagaland one of the richest treasures of indigenous ecological knowledge in the Indian subcontinent. Threats to biodiversity are due to: Intensification of agriculture Shifting cultivation Privatization of forests Deforestation Urbanization Introduction of exotic species Hunting and poaching Forest fires Hydel projects: the Doyanag and Lokimero projects are bound to cause adverse impacts on the biodiversity of Nagaland Overexploitation of medicinal plants Use of pesticides Lack of awareness. A Biodiversity Board has been recently created for the state.

Tripura

The land use is in a state of constant change, according to the needs and aspirations of the people. Forestry is the dominant land use, followed by agriculture, though over the years the proportion of forests has decreased while that of agriculture has increased. In the 19th century land under agricultural use was less than 10 percent but by the end of the 20th century it had expanded to 27 percent of the area of the state. Aquatic ecosystems, including the Raima and Sarma Rivers, are affected by increasing siltation, which accentuates the lost of diversity year after year. The rights and concessions of forest products among the local people (whose sustenance depends on collecting food, fodder, and fuel) are not properly addressed in a spirit of public participation. As a result, unscrupulous practices are encouraged, promoting unregulated removal of forest produce.

57

Plantations are encouraged on a wide scale. However, there is a large gap between potential and actual productivity, and the generally poor actual productivity in natural forests is due to anthropogenic stress. This is a matter of concern as rising demand and poor productivity lead to a vicious cycle of low productivity, resource degradation over a wider area, and further reductions in productivity. Fourteen percent of the species found in Tripura are endemic. Phayres leaf monkey (locally known as chashma banar) has a very restricted distribution in India, and is found in Tripura. Tripura has quite a high level of agrobiodiversity, with 47 indigenous types of rice. Tripura has five biotypes of maize, and is a secondary center of origin for maize. The Jampui Hills are considered to be the center of origin of Citrus macroptera, the fruits of which are used by the local people for home consumption and medicinal purposes. Causes of biodiversity loss are: Forest degradation Shifting cultivation Influx of people from Bangladesh Grazing Forest fires Smuggling of forest and other products Presence of weeds and introduction of exotic species Inbreeding practices amongst the local cattle breeds Plantations leading to monoculture Use of chemical fertilizers Hunting Developmental projects without any proper environmental impact study Lack of awareness Lack of coordination amongst institutions.

Sikkim
Sikkim exhibits great variations in altitude within short distances, with heights ranging from around 3,000 meters to 8,598 meters. Elevation plays a prime role in fashioning the ecoregions of the state. The lowland forests of Sikkim are home to several endangered species of birds. Lantana and eupatorium are major weeds in the region. Forest fires and illegal feeling of trees are major problems. Problems leading to biodiversity loss are: Deforestation Hunting and poaching Chemical fertilizers Pollution Garbage problem Change in food habits Introduction of exotic species in agriculture Defense activity in forested area, as situated near China Impact of tourism Lack of effective policing.

58

59

Appendix I. Wetlands of northeast India

Archana Chatterjee, Freshwater Conservation Program, WWF-India
Wetlands are the land transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface and the land is covered by shallow water. The term groups together a wide range of habitats that share a number of common features, the most important of which is continuous, seasonal, or periodic standing water or saturated soils. The Ramsar Convention defined wetlands as "areas of marsh, peat land or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six meters". Wetlands all over the world are threatened directly due to reclamation for development activities, reduction in function due to pollution, water demand, change in hydrologic regime, overexploitation of wetland resources and also due to underlying causes such as market failure, information failure. and intervention failure (Shine and de Klemm 1999). In this scenario, fundamental knowledge on location, characteristics, functions, values, threats, and assessments of status of wetlands are prerequisite for developing sustainable conservation programs for wetlands. The northeastern states of India harbor some of the most spectacular and biologically rich wetlands of India. Some of these wetlands have been explored but most of them are still unknown. With increasing human impact and prevalent underlying causes these wetlands are under increasing pressure. With increasing infrastructure development and other pressures in the region, there is a danger of losing this natural heritage, the species it supports, the ecosystem services it provides, and the spiritual and cultural ties the local population have with these wetlands. A short account of wetlands in the northeastern states of India Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura is provided below:

Arunachal Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh has 806 wetlands of the size 2.5 hectares and above, with an area of about 560 square kilometers. Arunachal has three endangered and 14 vulnerable fish species, two each of endangered and vulnerable and five near-threatened species of freshwater turtle, and seven threatened and one near-threatened species of bird. A SACON study surveyed 18 wetlands and prioritized eight of these for designation as Ramsar sites. WWF-India national consultation on high-altitude wetlands prioritized the following wetlands from Tawang District: PT Tso, Oriangdukpu, Sangetsar, and Paradise Lake. Further field surveys by the WWF-India team recorded that most of the water bodies (lakes, marshes, etc.) found in high-altitude area of West Kameng and Tawang Districts are considered as sacred by the Monpa Buddhist community settled in the area. Important among these is the Bangajang Lake complex comprising around 1012 lakes in Tawang district, and the stretch Gurchok to Gurjang in West Kameng District hosting some 67 good wetlands. Sangti marshes is an important wintering site for the highly endangered black-necked crane.

Assam
60

Assam, the sentinel of the east, hosts around 3,500 freshwater wetlands of the size 2.25 hectares and above, covering 1,012 square kilometers. Most of these wetlands are in the floodplains of the Brahmaputra and Barak rivers and their tributaries. These wetlands are in the form of beels, swamps, and marshes hosting a rich array of flora and fauna. Two species of endemic aquatic plants, two critically endangered, seven endangered, and 26 vulnerable species of fish, five near threatened and six vulnerable species of freshwater turtle, and 133 species of bird have been recorded from the 35 major wetlands in Assam. The SACON study prioritized 75 wetlands, 25 of these being potential candidates for designation as Ramsar sites. One of them, Deepor Beel, has already been designated as a Ramsar site.

Manipur
Manipur is home to the paradise flower or Shiroy lily (Lilium macklinae), which is not found anywhere else in the world, and has the only habitat for the sangai, the dancing deer in the famous wetland Keibul Lamjao National Park. The state has 155 wetlands of 2.5 hectares and above covering a total area of 529 square kilometers. Manipur has seven endangered and 15 vulnerable species of fish, one endangered, two vulnerable, and three near-threatened species of freshwater turtle, and three threatened and two near-threatened species of bird. Six wetlands were prioritized, of which Loktak Lake is already a Ramsar site. The others are Pumlen pat, Ikop pat, Kharung pat, Zeilad Lake complex, and Waithou Lake.

Meghalaya
Meghalaya has 98 wetlands of the size 2.25 hectares and above, covering a total area of 22.21 square kilometers. There are four endangered and 14 vulnerable species of fish, eight species of freshwater turtle, two of which are endangered, and two near-threatened species of bird. About 47 species of wetland bird have been recorded. Three wetlands have been prioritized as potential Ramsar sites, namely Birbah Lake, Umiam Lake, and the Tasek Lake complex. Some other important wetlands on the priority list are Chidampong and Bolgisim, Kopilli reservoir, Umtru Lake, and Kyrdemkullai Lake.

Mizoram
The state does not have large wetlands, the total area of wetlands of the size 2.25 hectares and above being only 1.5 square kilometers. Mizoram has four endangered and 11 vulnerable species of fish, two endangered, three near-threatened, and one vulnerable species of turtle, and one each of threatened and near-threatened species of bird. Three wetlands, namely Palak dil, Mampui dil, and Tam dil, have been prioritized for designation as wetlands of national and international importance.

Nagaland
Wetlands cover around 9.16 square kilometers area in this narrow, rugged, mountainous state. Four endangered and 18 vulnerable species of fish, one each of endangered and near-threatened species of freshwater turtle, and one threatened species of bird are reported. Three wetlands, namely Shilloi Lake, Doyang reservoir, and Dzudu Lake, have been prioritized by SACON.

Sikkim

61

Sikkim has 160 wetlands of the size 2.25 hectares and above, covering 19.85 square kilometers. These support four endangered and 15 vulnerable species of fish, three species of freshwater turtle, one of which is vulnerable and one near threatened, and two threatened species of bird. The SACON study has prioritized four wetlands, namely Thepley Tso, Khechiperi, Batangcho, and Tsomgo Lake. At a national consultation of WWF-India, the following wetlands were prioritized:

West District Lake complex (Phutso Karpo, Tso Domdo, Khecheopalri) Tsomgo-Kupup-Snathang complex Khangehung Tso-Tso Lhamo-Suru Dongmar-Gyam Tsona complex

Tripura
408 wetlands of 2.25 hectares and above covering an area of 98.95 hectares have been recorded. Tripura has two endangered and 12 vulnerable species of fish, and one near-threatened species of bird. Dumbur Lake and Rudrasagar Lake have been prioritized, of which Rudrasagar is already designated a Ramsar site. Trishna wetlands, Sattar Mias Haor, Batapura Lake, and College Tilla Lake have been recommended for designation as community reserves.

62

Appendix J. Case studies

Case study 1. The village councils of Arunachal Pradesh
Different tribal communities of Arunachal Pradesh have their own village council, for example the mnagma of the Mompa, the blu of the Sherdukpen, and the kebang of the Adi. The state is considered a legal pluralist test, as both customary laws enforced by the village council and statutory laws framed by the state and central government govern different spheres of life. At present most issues and disputes are solved by the village council and hardly any cases are referred to the local government judiciary system. The Arunachal Pradesh Protection of Customary Laws Bill of 1994 seeks to provide for the protection of customary rights and laws and social practices followed by the tribal communities of Arunachal Pradesh. The bill further provides protection of customary rights, including ownership and transfer of land with its resources and the properties thereon, enjoyed by the indigenous people of Arunachal Pradesh. The traditional village councils are efficient in managing the natural resources within their jurisdiction in a sustainable manner. All villagers have to seek permission from the village councils for extraction of any resources from such areas. The system of governance has been evolving with time, as required by circumstance. In the past, when most forest resources were plentiful, there were very few rules to ensure sustainable and equitable sharing of resources. However, as among the Sherdukpen community, the village council has framed specific rules on extraction of chirata by putting a ban on extraction before the month of October to ensure sustainable utilization of grazing areas. However, after independence, introduction of the gaonbura system appointed by the district administration, and the recent panchayati raj system, resulted in a situation where the village communities face dual governance traditional as well as modern. Lack of understanding of the statuary laws complicates matters further. For example, the traditional system of demarcation of the forests practiced by the Mompa, and their system of sharing forest resources amongst different communities, were lost once administrative boundaries were made in their traditional forests. The traditional village councils are still revered by the villagers and can serve as important vehicles for conservation. A better understanding of the systems is needed, and an attempt to synergize the traditional and the modern.

Case study 2. Role of autonomous councils in biodiversity conservation

Sonali Ghosh2
Autonomous district councils and regional councils in the Northeast have been constituted under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which means that they have legislative, administrative, and financial powers over 40 subjects, including forests. The councils were constituted to bring about social and economic change in tribal areas and carry forward the central governments agenda for peace and development in this remote and little-known region.

Sonali Ghosh is a forest officer serving in Assam and is currently writing a book on Manas.

63

The councils can make laws for allotment and use of land (other than reserved forests) for purposes of agriculture, grazing, and other residential and nonresidential purposes; use of water resources for agriculture; and for regulation of shifting cultivation within the autonomous districts. Presently northeast India has 16 district councils three in Assam, three in Meghalaya, three in Mizoram, one in Tripura, and six in Manipur. Interestingly Nagaland does not have any autonomous district councils to date. With a plethora of customary laws, different types of land ownership status, and several modes of administrative control, the issue of biodiversity conservation in these councils is complex and not well understood. There is a need to use the latest satellite imagery to indicate levels of healthy forest cover. The rate of change in this cover, subsistence hunting, and extraction of forest produce such as bamboo through permits need to be analyzed and documented. From my experience of working in Assam and Mizoram, the councils have understood the need to protect and preserve the biodiversity in their areas because it is one of the only major natural resources that they have. For instance, Bodoland Territorial Areas District in lower Assam extends over 8,970 square kilometers and covers important protected areas such as the Manas Tiger Reserve, Orang National Park, Barnadi and Chakrashilla Wildlife Sanctuaries, and several other reserve forests. Forests and wildlife still come under the purview of the state and the Centre respectively but since its inception on 7 December 2003 the Bodoland Territorial Areas District has made sincere efforts to document and revive the conservation measures in these areas. They are also being projected as future ecotourism destinations. The centenary celebration of Manas in December 2005 was one such effort that brought into focus the need to rejuvenate a depleted landscape. Ingenious methods of conservation have already been initiated in Manas, such as formation of a conservation volunteer corps whose members are mainly ex-poachers. Several local youth organizations are also working full time to protect Manas by creating awareness and environment consciousness. All these are steps in the right direction, especially when earlier initiatives have failed. The district council is patronizing these efforts but the current political instability and the priority given to agriculture and development over forests and conservation are some of the causes of concern. The councils deserve a chance and also the right encouragement and direction. With a little help from the Centre and the state, and support for land reforms and codification of customary laws, the district councils can perhaps be the best model of self-governance and biodiversity conservation.

Case study 3. Impact of ban on grazing in the Barsey Rhododendron Sanctuary, Sikkim
The Barsey Rhododendron Sanctuary lies in the southwest corner of the state of Sikkim, spreading over 104 square kilometers, with an altitudinal range of 2,200 to 4,100 meters. During 2000, high-impact pastoralism was practiced by 288 households in this sanctuary. They owned 5,370 cows, 370 buffaloes, 506 yaks, and 135 sheep that grazed within the sanctuary throughout

64

the year. The livestock density was 61 livestock per square kilometer, and the cattle shed density 4.5 per square kilometer. Due to trampling by the cattle, 576 hectares of land was made barren. Collection of close to 42,000 pole-sized timbers, 22 metric tons of firewood, and 26 metric tons of fodder was noted from the sanctuary every year. This amount of biomass collection led to degradation of the forest and catchments of the hill streams. In addition the grazing, made illegal by the Wildlife (Protection) Act of India, 1972, was also causing a great deal of ecological damage in the sanctuary. In order to tackle this, the state Forest Department, along with NGOs such as the Mountain Institute and members of the eco-development committees, started phasing out the cattle and sheep and their herders from the sanctuary. By 2005, 276 of these herders (272 cow herders, 1 yak herder and 3 sheep herders) had been phased out from this profession. Of the 12 herders still remaining, 10 are yak herders and 2 are cow herders. Of the total 6,324 livestock units grazing within the sanctuary in the year 2000, there has been a 93 percent reduction, and by 2005 only 463 livestock units remained. The livestock density has been reduced by 96 percent from 61 livestock per square kilometer in 2000 to 4.45 livestock per square kilometer in 2005. Similarly, the cattle shed density has also been reduced by 96 percent from 5.54 cattle sheds per square kilometer in 2000 to 0.23 cattle sheds per square kilometer in 2005. As the figures indicate a cattle sanctuary has been now slowly converted into a safe haven for wildlife. There was a 93 percent reduction in the intensity of livestock grazing within the sanctuary between 2000 and 2005. The positive impacts on the wildlife habitats of the sanctuary include improved natural regeneration of the forests, more biomass availability, rejuvenation of the springs, and an increase in wildlife populations. There has been revival of many mountain springs, which currently meet the drinking water needs for many villages adjoining the sanctuary.

65

Appendix K. NGOs working on biodiversity conservation in northeast India

State Arunachal Pradesh Name OJU WELFARE ASSOCIATION Contact Address P.O. NAHARLAGUN, PIN-791110 Ph: 91-360-44453, 44784 Areas Wasteland Development, Livestock Development, Agriculture Development, Afforestation Community based activities, Environment related activities

FUTURE GENERATION OF ARUNACHAL

POST BOX 151, VIVEK BUILDING, VIVEK VIHAR, PIN 791110 Ph: 91-360-243-844 E-mail: kanno@future.org http://www.future.org STATE FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, ITANAGAR Ph: 91-09436059798 BLUE HILL, JYOTINAGAR, GUWAHATI, PIN 781 021 Ph: 91-361-2657506 E-mail: dolphin_foundation@yahoo.com DHAKUAKHANA, LAKHIMPUR. PIN 787 055 Ph: 91-3752-254905 E-mail : debojit.p@rediffmail.com

NORTH EAST INDIA BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION. Assam DOLPHIN FOUNDATION

Biodiversity related activities

Biodiversity Conservation conducted survey (census) on River Dolphin; Grassland Conservation Program. Working on Bats, and Awareness program on Conservation.

MEGAMIX NATURE CLUB

AARANYAK

EVERGREEN, SAMANWOY PATH (SURVEY), Wildlife Conservation, Promoting Community-based conservation, PO: BELTOLA, GUWAHATI Scientific and Policy research on PIN 781 028 conservation Ph: 91-361-2228418 E-mail: aaranyak@vsnl.net, www.aaranyak.org 2-D, NIRVANA ENCLAVE, BASHISTHAPUR BYLANE No. 3, GUWAHATI. PIN 781 028 Ph: 91-361-223-1312/1412, 91-94350-16247/16248 E-mail: ecosystems@sify.com, mail@ecosystems-india.org www.ecosystems-india.org P.O. BOX 21, NORTH LAKHIMPUR PIN- 787 001 Ph: 91-3752-242882 PERTABGHUR TEA ESTATE, P.O. CHARIALI, DISTT. SONITPUR. PIN 784 176 GOSHEN HOUSE OFFICERS COLONY, SANJENTHONG, IMPHAL -795 001 Ph: 224927 DUILUAN NAMTHAN, WAIRANGBA-PART II, DISTT.TAMENGLONG 795 014 Carried study on Assam Haathi Project; Awareness Initiative on Conservation in Manas National Park.

ECOSYSTEMS-INDIA

GREEN HERITAGE

Scientific research on Wildlife Conservation; Study on Indigenous and Forest dwelling tribes. Biodiversity Conservation Tribal Development, Afforestation

ASSAM VALLEY WILDLIFE SOCIETY Manipur CHASED AVENUE TRIBAL WOMEN DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION DUILON JOINT FARMING MULTIPURPOSE COOPERARATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED FOREST REPLENISHING SOCIETY

Social Forestry

WINO BAZAAR, UKHRUL 795 142 Ph: 03870-222674

Soil Conservation, Social Forestry, Tribal Development

66

State Meghalaya

Name MOTHER EARTH

Contact Address TRIPURA CASTLE, TRIPURA CASTLE ROAD, SHILLONG -799 003 Ph: O364-223345 C-54, PHULMAWI RUN, TUIKUAL NORTH, AIZAWL PIN 796 001 Ph: 91-389-2316744 E-mail: cep_mizo@lycos.com A-88/1, TUIKUAL SOUTH, AIZAWL PIN- 796 001. Ph: 91-389-324483 POST BOX 117, WOODLAND, NAHARBARI, DIMAPUR C/O PARA MEDICAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, KOHIMA. Ph: 0370-21385, 21738

Areas Wildlife Trade Control, Animal Rights, Eco-Development

IFAD Mizoram CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (CEP) Biodiversity Conservation.

ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION GROUP Nagaland ASSOCIATION OF TRIBAL WELFARE DEVELOPMENT(ATWD) NAGALAND INSTITUTE OF HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL WELFARE Sikkim PARYAVARAN SAMRAKSHAN SAMITEE SIKKIM DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION (SF)

Protection of endangered species of flora and fauna. Social Forestry, Agro Forestry, Tribal Development Forest Conservation, Wildlife Protection Hornbill And Tragopan

DALAPCHAND BUSTY, P.O. DALPCHAND, VIA Biodiversity Conservation RONGLI BAZAR, DISTT. EAST SIKKIM PIN 737 131 TASHI KHAR, CHUNGYAL COMPLEX, M. G. MARG, GANGTOK, SIKKIM. PIN - 737101 MR. KARMA TAKAPA Ph: 03592-220960 DEVELOPMENT AREA, NEAR NEPALI SAHITYA PARISHAD, GANGTOK. PIN - 737101 MR. SANDEEP TAMBE Ph: 03592-227942 YUKSOM, WEST SIKKIM MR. P. G. BHUTIA Mobile: 9434241087 SINDRABONG, WEST SIKKIM MR. NIMA T. BHUTIA Ph: 03592-227942 DZONGU, NORTH SIK MR. MIKA LEPCHA Mobile: 9434061387 BIKMAT, SOUTH SIKKIM MR. GOKUL RAI 9434027154 Participatory projects with communities

THE MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE INDIA

Livelihoods initiatives and capacity building of CBOs

KHANGCHENDZONGA CONSERVATION COMMITTEE SINDRABONG KHANGCHANDZONGA ECOTOURISM SOCIETY MUTANCHI LOM AAL SHEZU

Livelihoods initiatives at the village level, capacity building of the ecotourism service providers Alternative livelihoods for herders

Sustainable development for tribals in Dzongu area Agriculture and horticulture development in villages Improvement of health services and capacity building of villa

SIKKIM PARYAVARAN SAMRAKSHAN SANGHA

SAHASS (SAHAYATA SANGH OF RONGLI, EAST SIKKIM SIKKIM) MR. PURAN GURUNG 9832078839

67

Appendix L. Northeastern Region: State Maps of biodiversity priority areas

Arunachal Pradesh

Assam
68

69

Manipur

70

Meghalaya

71

Mizoram

72

Nagaland

73

Sikkim

74

Tripura

75