International Journal of Environment, Ecology,

Family and Urban Studies (IJEEFUS)

ISSN(P): 2250-0065; ISSN(E): 2321-0109
Vol. 6, Issue 5, Oct 2016, 65-74
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

DEGRADING FRINGE OF LAOKHOWA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY

(LWS) OF ASSAM, INDIA; A GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
DEWAJIT BORA1 & PRADIP SHARMA2
1

Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Samaguri College, Nagaon, Assam, India

Associate Professor, Department of Geography, Cotton College, Guwahati, Assam, India

ABSTRACT
Degradation of forests generally starts from the fringe areas. The fringe areas of almost all the forests in India
are also problem-prone to a great extent. Hence safeguard of the forest fringe is extremely important to restrict forest
degradation, preservation of biodiversity, reduce man-animal conflicts and to preserve the livelihood support of the forest
dependent population. In most cases the slackness in enforcing forest acts and rules, undesirable economic activities and
lack of awareness in conservation activities, forests have been degrades. The present study deals with the study on the
degradation of Laokhowa Reserved forest in the recent past based on the satellite data analysis of different years using
GIS and primary information collected from the field.

encroachment, tree felling and over exploitation of the forest resources which resulting the degradation of the forest
environment, depletion of biodiversity and increase man-animal conflicts. An attempt has been made here to highlight
the nature and intensity of the problems and provide possible solutions to keep the Wildlife Sanctuary healthy and useful
for forest dependent people.
KEYWORDS: Forest Fringe, Forest Degradation, Livelihood Support, Man-Animal Conflict

Original Article

The degradation of the Laokhowa forest fringe has been observed mainly due to human activities particularly

Received: Sep 07, 2016; Accepted: Oct 03, 2016; Published: Oct 05, 2016; Paper Id.: IJEEFUSOCT20168

INTRODUCTION
Located in the southern bank of the river Brahmaputra, the Laokhowa Wild Life Sanctuary (LWLS) is
basically a flood plain covered by short and tall grasses, wetlands and marshes, riverine forests and small channels,
locally known as Suti, Jaan and Nola. The Sanctuary has an extension from 260 2736 N to 260 3112 N
and 920 42 E to 920 45 36 E and covers an area of 70.13 sq. km (Figure 1). The Sanctuary is situated at the
extreme north of centrally located Nagaon District. It is a part of Laokhowa- Burhachapori ecosystem and is
bounded by Kaziranga National Park in the east, Brahmaputra, Kochmara Reserve Forest and Orang National Park
in the west, Burhachapori WLS in the north and Laterijan, a small river in the south. The terrain of the LWLS is
similar to that of Kaziranga. In the sanctuary area around 35 percent is covered by grassland, 30 percent by water
bodies and the remaining areas by plantation and naturally grown trees.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

66

Dewajit Bora & Pradip Sharma

Figure 1: Location of Laokhowa Wildlife Sanctuary

Influenced by the sub- tropical monsoonal climate, the region represents a unique combination of grasslands,
wetlands and riverine forest of the Brahmaputra Valley ecosystem (Bhagabati, et. al, 2001 and Champion and Seth 1968).
It was declared as a Game Reserve in 1907 because of the presence of endangered Indian One Horned Rhinoceros
(Rhinoceros Unicornis). In 1972, the Government of Assam declared Laokhowa as a Wildlife Sanctuary to protect the
Rhinoceros and Wild Water Buffalo. Unfortunately from 1980 to 1993, 692 rhinos were poached in India, of which only in
Laokhowa Wildlife Sanctuary, 41 rhinos were killed, virtually the entire rhino population of the sanctuary (Menon 1996).
Protection of the rhinos is really a difficult task almost in all the rhino habitats of Assam (Soud and Talukdar 2011). At
present Laokhowa WLS is under the Nagaon Wildlife Division and governed by the Department of Environment and
Forest, Govt. of Assam.
The southern boundary of the Laokhowa WLS i.e the areas falls south of the Laterijan (a small river) is thickly
populated. The sanctuary is separated by Laokhowa Suti (a small river) from Burhachapori WLS to the north where human
habitation is sparse. The southern fringe area from Laokhowa in the east to Sutirpar in the west has mixed population
belong to Bodo (Kachari), Tiwa (Laloong), Nepali, Bengali, Bihari, suspected Muslim people from Bangladesh and
Assamese non tribes. There are two types of villages; revenue village and forest village in the fringe areas of the Sanctuary.
Forest villages are situated to the north of Laterijan inside the Sanctuary area while the revenue villages are situated on the
southern bank of Laterijan located mostly in the fringe areas. Most of the forest villages are represented by the tribal
people belong to Bodo (Kachari) and Tiwa (Laloong) communities. Population density is generally very high in the
Muslim dominated areas compared to other communities.
The forest act recognizes the rights of ownership, community rights and the rights to hold and live in the forest
lands (Banerjee and Madhurima, 2013). The revenue villages of the south bank of Laterijan, are- Laokhowa, Borunguri,
Nombori, 13th mile, Salpara, Pub Singimari, Pashim Singimari, Pub Amrakanda, Pashim Amrakanda, Pub Putaljar, Pashim
Putaljar, Pam Kaliadinga, Garajan, Kathalguri, Laloong Gaon, Kachari Gaon, Dhakai Basti, Chitalmari, Chenimari, Dhing
Impact Factor (JCC): 3.7216

NAAS Rating: 3.63

Degrading Fringe of Laokhowa Wildlife Sanctuary

(LWS) of Assam, India; A Geographical Analysis

67

Bari Pathar, Dhing Bari Chapori, Saltala, Gangaram Ghat and Sutirpar. Some other revenue villages situated to the north
eastern part crossing the Laokhowa Suti near Burhachapari WLS are No 5 Bhagamukh, No 6 Bhagamukh, No 7
Bhagamukh and Bhurbandha.
In both the forest and revenue villages of the Sanctuary the growth rate of population become very high in the
recent years and consequently encroachment of the forest land increased manifold. Economic activities particularly the
agricultural activities have intensified in the villages. Exploitation of forest resources particularly valuable mature and
immature trees increased at very high rate. All these activities in the fringe villages are directly and indirectly affecting the
natural ecosystem of the Sanctuary. These issues in this study highlighted based on the primary and secondary data
analysis.
Objectives
The main objectives of the study is

To look into the socio- economic activities of the people residing in the fringe areas with special emphasis to the
forest villagers

To examine the causes of depletion of the forest area, and

To understand the effect of forest degradation on the fringe population as well as on the forest ecosystem

METHODOLOGY
The study has been done on the basis of both primary and secondary data. Primary data have been collected by
interacting with the fringe villagers and other stakeholders. Discussions were made with the village heads (Gaonburha),
president and secretary of the Eco Development Committees (EDCs), members of the Salpara Bongaon Forest Right
Committee, members of Laokhowa- Burhachapori Conservation Society (LBCS), cattle and buffalo ranchers, local
youths, forest guards, foresters and bit- officers to understand the issues related to the degradation of the forests and its
consequence. Analysis of satellite imageries of 1999 and 2013 have been analysed using GIS to evaluate the LULC
changes, which establishes the effect of human induced factors in forest degradation in the Sanctuary particularly in the
fringe areas.
Historical Background of the Forest Villages
The Forest Villages (FV) was created as a part of forest management under the Colonial Government in the early
part of the last century. Initially British were the destroyer of the Indian forests (Babu 2014). But later on under the British
Rule conservation process was initiated and the forest department developed some colonies of labours required in forestry
work in the peripheral areas are later on known as Forest Villages. The Department planned to set up such villages to meet
the needs of labour in the forest management and forest resource exploitation. For this, a system called Taungya
(Taungya is a Burmese word means Hill Cultivation) was introduced under which, some amount of land given to the
labours for their livelihood support against which they had to render physical labour in forest management activities. It is
worth mentioning that in India, Taungya system was introduced by Dr. Brandis in 1890. The beneficiaries had to work in
forest plantation, repairing of roads inside the forest area for three to four days in a year. Moreover, the beneficiaries had
been made responsible for any damage to the forests. In brief the Taungya system consists of-

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

68

Dewajit Bora & Pradip Sharma

Land preparation for tree plantation

Growing agricultural crops for one to three years along with tree plantation

Moving on to another area to repeat the cycle

In the study area, the Forest Department developed some forest villages in the year 1953 under the Taungya

system from Belguri village to Rupahi area. These villages are Laokhowa, Borunguri, Chunchahar, Nalkata, Kaliadinga,
Lalung Gaon and Haldhiasuti (Table 1). But the inhabitants of these villages claim that their ancestors have been residing
in the area since 1940. One elderly person (Purna Balari, President- Eco Development Committee, Chunchahar FVSingimari) claimed that their fore-fathers had settled in the area during the year 1913.
These people once actively engaged in plantation in the fringe areas and had planted a large number of valuable
trees particularly in the Singimari and Chunchahar areas, which were later became good forest; popularly known as
1925 Bagan and 1950 Bagan. They also rendered their physical labour to the forest department for four to five days in
a year in maintaining the roads, clearing of forest area for planting trees, protecting the plants from weeds and cattle etc.
Table 1: Forest Villages (FV) with or without Taungya System and Dominant Community of the Villages
Sl. No

Village

1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
2
3
4
5
6
7

FV- without Taungya

FVT- with Taungya

Singimari (Cluster)
FV
Pasgharia
FV
Dahgharia
FV
Salpara
FV
Bagariati
FV
Dagaon
Laokhowa
FVT
Borunguri
FVT
Chunchahar
FVT
Nalkata
FVT
Kaliadinga
FVT.
Laloong Gaon
FVT
Haldhia Suti
8
FVT
(Sutirpar)
* According to the oldest person of the villages

Year of
Establishment

Community of the
Village

1913*

Bodo (Kachari)

1940- 43* 1953**

Do
Do
Do
Do
Do

Tiwa (Laloong)
Bodo (Kachari)
Bodo (Kachari)
Bodo (Kachari)
Tiwa (Laloong)
Tiwa (Laloong)
Dodo (Kachari)
Tiwa (Laloong)

Do

** As per Govt. documents

Livelihood of the Fringe Community
Forest provides a good source of income and services to the people (Edusha 2011). Their livelihood is critically
linked to the forest environment for a variety of forest products for food, fodder, agriculture, hunting and fishing and
collection of non- timber forest products (Saharia and Deka 2011). Tribal people and forest is inseparable. In the study area
the people depend upon the forest products like fruits, flowers, roots and leaves for food and medicines. People also used
to collect fire woods, fodder for domestic cattle, bamboo, thatch, reeds and canes for making huts and other household
materials. Gradually people started to collect such forest products in a massive and unsustainable way and sale in the
nearby markets for making more profit. Once subsistence livelihood support were become the profit making business to the
villagers, which cause destruction of forests and over exploitation of forest resources.

Impact Factor (JCC): 3.7216

NAAS Rating: 3.63

Degrading Fringe of Laokhowa Wildlife Sanctuary

(LWS) of Assam, India; A Geographical Analysis

69

Crop cultivation with livestock is the main occupation of the fringe community. Rice is the dominant crop though
they produce jute, oil seeds and vegetables. In the dry season, vegetables are extensively cultivated by the Muslim and
Bengali farmers where they use very high amount of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides in an unscientific way.
The residue of these chemicals are ultimately flow down to the Sanctuary area following the natural slope and cause great
threat to the flora and fauna of the Sanctuary. During the flood time, the pollutants spread over the core of the sanctuary
also. Moreover, farmers have increasingly use hybrid variety of seeds. But the competition between hybrid and local
variety cause gradual destruction of the local species.
Ranching of buffalos and cattle in the fringe of the Sanctuary has been increased manifold in the recent years.
According to the local people there are more than 80 farms of cattle and buffalo in the fringe areas of the Sanctuary which
are operating illegally. The farms that are running by the ranchers are locally known as Garu Khuty and Mohor Khuty.
Rearing of pig, local fowl and duck are also increasing as livelihood support. Grasslands generally used by the wild
animals during flood time were occupied by the ranchers.
Infrastructure Development
Forest villagers have long been deprived of various governmental development schemes for want of adequate land
documents. Besides, the situation in the forest fringe communities is compounded by poor accessibility, small size of land
and the disperse nature. In such situation social amenities become more expensive and uneconomical. Hence they are
lacking of basic amenities like good roads, electricity, health and water supply. Electrification in the forest villages has
done recently, i.e. during 2013- 14 under the Rajib Gandhi Graimya Vaidyotikaran Abhijan.
In between 1950- 60, some primary and middle schools were established in the area, which plays an important
role in imparting education. Primary health centres and water supply facilities were established after 2000 AD, but they are
running in a poor condition and fail to meet the needs of the villagers. A few market centres were developed in the
Laokhowa, Singimari, Salpara, Garajan, Kaliadinga, Sutirpar, Rupahi and Juria in course of time.

Figure 2: LULC in 1999 in the Laokhowa WLS and its Fringe

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

70

Dewajit Bora & Pradip Sharma

Figure 3: LULC in 2013 in the Laokhowa WLS and its Fringe

Table 2: LULC of Laokhowa WLS in 1999
Classes
Tree Cover
Grassland
Cropland
Settlement
Water Bodies
Total

Area in
Sq Km
21.686
7.277
8.959
11.484
8.267
57.673

Percentage
37.601
12.617
15.534
19.912
14.334
99.998

Table 3: LULC of Laokhowa WLS in 2013

Classes
Tree Cover
Grassland
Cropland
Settlement
Water Bodies
Total

Area in Sq Km
15.455
19.059
5.087
14.13
3.973
57.709

Percentage
26.78
33.026
8.814
24.484
6.884
99.988

Encroachment within and the Fringe Areas of the Sanctuary

In the land use and land cover (LULC) maps of 1999 and 2013, it has been observed that the tree cover area has
been reduced from 37.6 percent to 26.8 percent (Figure 2 & Figure 3). For the removal of tree cover the grassland area has
been increased as seen in the maps (Table 2 & Table 3). But the animal population decreased in spite of increase of
grassland due to poaching. Moreover, some of the grasslands are being converted to croplands. Human settlement figure in
the Sanctuary has been significantly increased. As a result Laokhowa WLS has been degraded substantially due to large
scale encroachment. Encouraged by politicians, a large tract of land inside the WLS was encroached upon by some people
from the forest villages and mainly by the suspected illegal migrants from Bangladesh.
In between 1979 to 2000 AD, the political situation of Assam was very unstable and sensitive. The forest cover of
the fringe areas of Laokhowa, particularly between Laterijan and the embankment running from east to west through the
southern fringe of Laokhowa WLS was destroyed during this period. Within a very short span of time people cleared the
forest land for agricultural use. The worst affected areas are Dandua, Singimari, Salpara, Chunchahar, Nalkata and Lalung
Impact Factor (JCC): 3.7216

NAAS Rating: 3.63

Degrading Fringe of Laokhowa Wildlife Sanctuary

(LWS) of Assam, India; A Geographical Analysis

71

Gaon. During the field study, it is found that people of the forest villages occupied more than the allotted land. Each family
occupied 7 to 10 bighas of forest land in addition to the land officially allotted to them.
Laokhowa is endowed with some wetlands viz. Haldhia Suti, Mora Suti, Laokhowa Suti, Laterijan, Sarulani,
Khalihamari, Mowamari, Udmari etc. These water bodies support more than 200 verities of migratory and endemic birds
along with fish fauna, reptiles and amphibians. But some of these wetlands have also been encroached by the rapidly
growing population. In the recent years Khalihamari, Sarulani, Laterijan, Mowamari and Udmari wetlands were worst
affected due to encroachment. Some forest villagers developed artificial fisheries within the sanctuary and near the
southern part of the embankment at Singimari- Chunchahar area.

FINDINGS
Analyzing the above facts, the causes of the degradation the Sanctuary could be highlighted, under three broad
categories i.e. socio-economic, demographic and socio-political, and administrative and management. Initially the
degradation was started from the fringe areas through the activities of the local people. But in course of time the
degradation was spread over entire sanctuary; the factors have been briefly mentioned below:

Socio- Economic Factors

Rapid felling of trees for timber and over exploitation of NTFPs

Conversion of grasslands as well as woody forests for extension of agricultural activities

Infrastructure development within the forest land like construction of roads, electricity, dwelling houses,
schools, playgrounds etc.

Increase of motor vehicles entered in the Sanctuary area for different purposes.

Large herd of cattle and buffalo ranching within the sanctuary for milk and other dairy products.

Excessive and unscientific use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides for agriculture inside the
Sanctuary area

Introduction of hybrid seeds to grow more food

Demographic and Socio- Political

Influx of suspected immigrants from Bangladesh as well as from other parts of the state

Very high rate of population growth among the Muslim community of the fringe areas and increased
destruction in the sanctuary for extension of croplands.

Political instigation to settle more landless families in forest fringe to create vote bank

Administrative and Management

Slackness in enforcing existing laws and timely action against encroachment.

Lack of manpower and appropriate weapons for forest guards to combat animal poachers.

Inadequate infrastructure to protect animals from poachers and to safeguard other forest resources

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

72

Dewajit Bora & Pradip Sharma

Lack of cooperation between the Forest Department and local people, lack of awareness among fringe
population and weak role of the NGOs involved in protection activities

Failure in achieving the objectives of Joint Forest Management (JFM), Eco Development Committee (EDC),
Local Protection Squad (LPS)

Besides these, there are some indirect causes responsible for depletion of forests and creation of problems in
fringe areas, which are:

Extreme poverty, which compels the people to exploit the forest resources

Undervaluing the forests due to illiteracy and unawareness

Competition among fringe villagers to occupy more forest land, and

Corrupt practices encouraged by the politicians

Effects of Forest Degradation in Laokhowa WLS

The southern fringe of the Sanctuary close to Laterijan is now completely turned into a crop land with human
habitation and thereby squeezed habitats of wild animals. Till 1985, Laokhowa was the homeland of 60 one horned rhinos.
But now not a single rhino had seen in the Sanctuary though the habitat is still favourable for the animal species
(Nath 2013). Rhino population is wiped out not due to the drastic loss of habitat, but mainly for poaching. Bengal Florican,
locally known as Ulu Mora, a Schedule- I species bird declared by the Wild Life (Protection) Act, India was found in the
Laokhowa- Burhachapori WLS. But the bird disappeared from the sanctuary as its grassland habitat has been degrading
since 1980 by overgrazing, crop cultivation and human intervention in various ways. Fortunately, the Bengal Florican has
again been seen in the Sanctuary by the members of Laokhowa- Burhachapori Conservation Society- (LBCS) who has
been actively engaged in revival and conservation of wild lives in the area since 2009. Moreover, the sanctuary supports
some endangered species of birds like Adjutant Storks (Bortokola/ Hargila), Vultures (Shagun), Large Whistling Teal
(Bor Shorali), Ruddy Shelduck (Chakoi- Chakowa) etc whose habitat is also declining in the recent years.
The Forest department recorded the presence of eight tigers in 1997 whose number was increased up to eleven in
the year of 2000. But due to loss of habitats and increased human activity inside the forest, their number has reduced in the
recent past on one hand and they started to come out from the Sanctuary resulting human- tiger conflicts. Past record
shows that tigers were killed by villagers at Singia (Samaguri) in Nov. 1999, Lalighat (Moirabari) on 6th march 2000,
Hatipukhuri (Garajan) on 1st Jan. 2001, Lailuri (Laokhowa) on 13th Jan. 2002, and Nagbandha (Habiborangabari) on 23
Oct. 2010.
Elephant population has also been declined and very often they come out to the neighbour villages in search of
food. They use to destroy houses, crop fields and even sometimes kill people. The number of Asiatic Water Buffalo also
decreasing in the Sanctuary due to habitat destruction and they have been suffering from inter breeding and competition
with the domestic one.
Now fuel wood is very scarce in the fringe areas, for which villagers have to collect it from the market at a very
high price. Similarly NTFPs, upon which once local people depend on, are reducing vigorously due to unsustainable
collection.

Impact Factor (JCC): 3.7216

NAAS Rating: 3.63

Degrading Fringe of Laokhowa Wildlife Sanctuary

(LWS) of Assam, India; A Geographical Analysis

73

CONCLUSIONS
In most of the fringe areas of the Sanctuary the Empty Forest Syndrome has been observed. Anthropogenic
activities are the prime cause for creating such situation. Forest degradation is very high during last three decades mainly
for increase of population pressure. The sanctuary was easily accessible to the people for weak administration, official
corruption and political instigation. Poachers and other miscreants easily enter the forest mainly through the river
Brahmaputra. Necessary infrastructures and well equipped manpower also very less to protect the Sanctuary. The original
forest villagers settled by the government are still emotionally attached to the forest and they are in favour of the forest
protection. But suspected Muslim immigrants occupied the land of the Sanctuary are act as the main destroyer of the forest.
The attitude of some of the youths is not in favour of protection rather they are interested in exploiting more resources
from forest to increase earning.
However, some steps have taken recently by the Nagaon Wildlife Division (Assam) with the help of
Laokhowa Burhachapori Conservation Society (LBCS) and other organizations like WWF, Green Peace etc. to revive the
habitat. Eco Development Committees (EDC) and Local Protection Squads (LPS) have been formed which are engaged in
awareness exercises and conservation of wildlife. But most of the EDCs are inactive. Even some local youths of the forest
villages do not know the objectives of EDCs and their role in conserving the forest. Large scale a forestation, frequent
holding of awareness campaign for conservation, creation of alternative livelihood support, steps for population control
among the fringe community and enforcement of protection laws are of umpteen needs at this moment to save the
Sanctuary. Active participation of fringe communities in forest protection is also an urgent need to stop poaching. Revival
of rhino habitat in Laokhowa WLS has to be given top priority by all concern.
REFERENCES
1.

Babu, V. S., (2014), Clearing the Forest: Colonialism and Deforestation in Nagaland,

2.

Northeast India, IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science Volume 19, Issue 6, Ver. V (Jun. 2014), PP 14-16

3.

Benarjee, A., Madhurima, C. (2013). Forest Degradation and Livelihood of local Communities of India: A human right
approach; Human Rights, Department of Anthropology, University of Calcutta, India pp 30-39

4.

Bhagabati, A. K., Bora, A. K. and Kar, B. K., (2001). Geography of Assam, Rajesh Publication, New Delhi- 110002, pp. 52- 67

5.

Champion H G and Seth S K (1968) A Revised Survey of the Forest Types of India, Govt. of India publication, New Delhi, 1-7

6.

Edusha, S.E. (2011). The impact of forest reserves on livelihoods of Fringe Communities in Ghana, Journal of Science and
Technology, Vol- 31, No 1 (2011) pp 10

7.

Menon, V., (1996), Under siege: Poaching and Protection of Greater One-horned Rhinoceros in India, TRAFFIC
International, Cambridge, UK; pp1-114

8.

Nath, S. K., (2013), Concern and conservation perspective in Laokhowa Wildlife Sanctuary of Nagaon district, Assam, India,
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2, Issue 11, 6295-99

9.

Saharia, S. & Deka D, (2011), Community Versus Forest: A case study of selected forest fringe areas of undivided Darrang
District, Assam, Landscape: A collection of Geoenvironmental Studies, Abhijit Publications, New Delhi, pp 99-107

10. Soud R and Talukdar (2011) Contemporary Crisis of Rhinoceros in Assam: A Critical Review, Asian Journal of Conservation
Biology, July Vol. 2 No. 1, 82-83

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org