Protection of Forest and Biodiversity through protected area network* : SAI India

Protection of Forest and Biodiversity through protected area network* : SAI India


1. Background

Forests play an important role in environmental and economic sustainability. They provide numerous goods and services and maintain life support systems essential for life on earth. Human activities, both directly and indirectly, are responsible for the current high rates of biodiversity and habitat loss. Forests are home to many species of flora and fauna, many of which are rare, endangered and at risk.

There are various acts enacted by the Governments to arrest the threats to forest and wildlife and to protect forests and biodiversity. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, introduced for protection of wild animals, birds and plants, provides for establishment of four types of Protected Areas (PAs) viz, National Parks (NPs), Wildlife Sanctuaries (WLS), Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves. In West Bengal (a province of India), there are 21 Protected Areas which include 6National Parks and 15 Wild Life Sanctuary. The Forest Department is responsible for the management of forests and wildlife in West Bengal. Each PA is headed by a Protected Area Manager who works under the Forest Department.

Changes in land use, indiscriminate removal of timber, fuel wood, fodder and other forest produce, forest fire and encroachment are contributing to forest degradation, habitat loss, species disappearance and deforestation. It was in this context that this audit was taken up.

2. Scope and methodology of audit

To assess the Department’s efforts made during 2011-16 for protection of forests and biodiversity through the PA Network, SAI India carried out a Performance Audit between February to June 2016 based on standard audit guidelines. The methodology involved joint site inspections with departmental officials, taking photographs and holding discussions with departmental officials, apart from the examination of records of divisions of all 21 Protected Areas.

3. Audit objectives

The Performance Audit sought to assess whether:

  • Adequate measures were undertaken for setting up, strengthening and enhancing the Protected Area networks for conservation of forests and biodiversity of the State;
  • PA Network was managed in a manner to enhance conservation of wildlife and their habitats; and
  • Necessary infrastructure and institutional mechanisms were provided for in an effective manner for protection of forests and biodiversity in PAs.

4.  Audit criteria

The criteria for this audit were derived from Indian Wildlife Protection Act (WPA), 1972 and Rules there under; National Wildlife Action Plan (NWAP), 2002-16; Guidelines issued by National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA); Management Plans (MPs) of Protected Areas/ Tiger conservation Plans (TCP) of Tiger Reserves; Orders of the Supreme Court of India, guidelines/ orders issued by the GoI/ GoWB/Wildlife Institute of India (WII)[1], International Union for Conservation of Nature[2] (IUCN) etc.

5. Audit findings

Measures taken for setting up, strengthening and enhancing the Protected Area networks for conservation of forests and biodiversity of the State

5.1      Creation and expansion of PA network in the State

It was seen that West Bengal has 4692 sq. km of forests under PA network which was 39.50 % of the State’s total forest area (11879 sq. km) and 5.28 %of the total geographical area (88752 sq km). This was less than the national target of 10 % specified in National Wildlife Action Plan-2002-16 (NWAP)

5.2      Representation of all bio-geographic zones and forest types

(a)      The State has four bio-geographic zones[3]. It was observed that despite recommendations of NWAP regarding coverage of PAs in all bio-geographical zones, there was no PA in the Deccan Peninsula Chhotanagpur zone of the State. This area contained 38 % of recorded forest area of the State. Further, the State has a coastal length of 280 km in the northern part of Bay of Bengal which supports unique marine biodiversity; however, no Marine National Park/Sanctuary had been created in this area.

(b)      It was further observed that out of 10 types of forest in the State, Northern Tropical Dry Deciduous forest type (4527 sq. km, 38 % of total forest area) was found in five districts[4]. However, only two[5] small Wildlife Sanctuary (WLS) (2.17 sq. km) were created in these districts.

5.3      Creation of Conservation Reserves

Wildlife Protection Act 1972 stipulates that State Government may declare creation of Conservation Reserves for the purposes of protecting landscapes, seascapes, flora and fauna, their habitat areas adjacent to PAs and those areas which link one PA to another.

It was seen that no Conservation Reserves had been formed in the State as of December 2016.

(a)      As per Zoological Survey of India’s[6] report on wetlands in 2013, Santragachi Jheel (lake) was one of the most important urban wetlands of West Bengal. The report observed that migratory birds[7] visited this lake and it was getting polluted due to dumping of waste materials and sewage inlets by local people. However, this area was yet to be protected by the end of audit.

(b)      As per the Conservation Action Plan (2010-2020) prepared by Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change[8] (MOEF&CC in November 2010), the State should consult experts for preparation of Status Report of Gangetic Dolphin and accordingly identify river stretches that support breeding populations of the Gangetic Dolphin by declaring those areas as Protected/Conservation areas. However, no action was seen taken by the State Government in this regard.

5.4      Protection measures for conservation of endangered species

Protected Areas are the cornerstone of efforts to conserve biodiversity and environment. PAs face many challenges to their integrity and were under pressure from internal and external threats. It was observed that the Department had not taken sufficient measures for protection of biodiversity by strengthening the network of PAs as discussed below:

(a)      Creation of corridors to link one PA to another:According to NWAP, States had to identify wildlife corridors between important PAs, harbouring endangered and long-range species. Wildlife Institute of India[9]had identified 19 such corridors in the state. It was seen that 8 out 14 identified elephant corridors in North Bengal link 5 PAs[10] and are adjacent to each other. However, as of December 2016, none of these corridors were yet to be legally protected. Audit observed that obstruction of natural migratory path of elephants resulted in many conflicts with humans. Thus, as a result of lack of legal protection[11], the Government was unable to put in place a mechanism to regulate land use, land diversion, prevention of encroachment etc., in these identified elephant corridors.

(b)      Destruction of Jorepokhari WLS: Himalyan Salamander is a unique and rare tailed threatened amphibian species found in the Darjeeling Hills. The Jorepokheri Salamander Sanctuary (4.05 ha area), the only Sanctuary for conservation of the Himalayan Salamander, was notified in March 1985. It was observed that forest officials visited the Sanctuary in June 2012 and reported that there was no sign of salamander anymore in the Sanctuary site. This was due to the two natural ponds of the Sanctuary being concretized and the construction of a picnic spot with a black top road & tourist lodges being constructed within the Sanctuary.

(c)       Creation of Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) around PAs: According to Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2002, land falling within 10 km of boundaries of NPs and WLSs should be identified by the State Government and would be notified as Eco Sensitive Zones (ESZs)[12]. The basic aim of creation of ESZs was to regulate certain activities around NPs/WLSs like saw mills, hotels etc., and to minimize the negative impacts of such activities on the fragile ecosystem encompassing the PAs. It was found that the Forest Department had not earmarked areas for declaration of ESZs due to which unregulated activity continued in and around the PAs.

(d)      Identification of inviolate areas in PAs: National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-16) aimed to bring 10% of the landmass under the PA network, of which at least 50 % should be inviolate. This was considered necessary to retain the pristine status without any management intervention except protection and monitoring of biodiversity.

  • Audit observed that in 6 PAs, inviolate habitats (wilderness zone) were less than 50% of the total area of PAs.
  • No area within Sajanekhali WLS (362 sq km) was identified and declared as inviolate. Entire area under this WLS, which falls in the buffer area of Sundarban Tiger Reserve (STR), was included in the tourism zone to meet the objectives of promoting tourism and allied activities, provide a source of recreation to the local population etc. As a result, over the years, tourism activities in Sajnekhali had multiplied manifold with mushrooming of new lodges, resorts, hotels which led to problems like waste disposal, water pollution, overcrowding of tourist places etc. Despite this sanctuary’s enormous ecological importance due to presence of tigers, estuarine crocodiles, mangroves etc. tourism in this area posed a threat to these endangered species.
  1. Management of Protected Area network

As per National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-16), each PA should have its own Management Plan (MP) by 2002, based on sound scientific and ecological data for effective management of PAs. Tiger Conservation Plan (TCP) for proper management of a tiger reserve was also to be prepared for PAs which had population of tigers. MPs/TCPs guided the ecologically sound management of any PA. In West Bengal out of 21 PAs, 4 PAs were to be managed by Tiger Conservation Plan of concerned tiger reserve. For remaining 17 PAs where MPs were to be prepared, 13 PAs had approved MPs and 4 PAs did not have approved MPs.

6.1      Institutional mechanism

It was seen that no independent planning cell had been set up for preparation of MPs, in violation of criteria. The task of preparing the MPs was entrusted to Park Managers in addition to their regular duty of protection and conservation. As a result, the work of preparation of MPs was hampered.

6.2      Preparation of Management Plans

(a) The Forest Directorate had not set any timelines for preparation of MPs. There was significant gap between expiry of a MP and approval of new MP of 5 PAs[13] (gap period ranged from two years to seven years). As a result, management of these PAs was done on ad-hoc basis during these interim periods.

(b) Management Plan (MP) of Ramnabagan WLS expired on 31 March 2012. After a lapse of 2 years, the concerned DFO submitted (April 2014) the draft MP of the WLS for the period from 2013-14 to 2022-23 to the department which was yet to be approved (December 2016).

(c) West Sunderban WLS was created in September 2013. Despite lapse of almost three years (September 2013 to July 2016), MP for the new WLS had not been prepared by the Division.

(d) It was also seen that MP of Chintamanikar WLS which lapsed in March 2015 was also not prepared as an experienced person having sufficient knowledge of Sundarban was required for preparation of the MPs.

6.3      Mid-term review/appraisal of the MP

The manual of Wildlife Institute of India, 1995 emphasized mid-term-review of MPs. MPs themselves also contained provisions for their periodic review.

(a) The present MP of Jaldapara NP (2007-08 to 2016-17) was approved (September 2010) when it was a WLS; it was subsequently declared as a NP in 2012. Audit observed that the work of revision of MP commenced in March 2013 but was not completed till May 2016 due to the lack of dedicated manpower

(b) About 5 sq. km of non-forest land was added to Gorumara NP on the eastern side of the park by means of compensatory afforestation scheme. Audit observed that despite addition of such land into the NP, the MP was not revised to include this area for management prescription for conservation measures.

(c) In February 2012, a part of forest land of Kalimpong Forest Division was included into the Neora Valley NP for better and holistic management of the ecosystem as this area was rich in biodiversity. Accordingly, area of Neora Valley NP increased (January 2013) to almost double. The added area faced the risk of illegal felling and criminal activities. However, its MP had not been reviewed and modified till December 2016 thereby impacting the holistic management of the entire area.

6.4      Preparation of Tiger Conservation Plan (TCP)

As per the order of  Supreme Court of India(October 2012), each tiger reserve was required to submit a TCP inclusive of a tourism sub-plan by April 2013.It was seen that the preparation of the first draft of TCP of Buxa Tiger Reserve (BTR) commenced as early as in the year 2010-11, but was approved only in November 2016. The delay in preparation of the TCP was observed to be due to non-finalisation of core and buffer zones of BTR. As such, BTR had been functioning without any TCP since 2010-11 and was being run in an ad-hoc manner without considering long term perspective which is essential for management of tiger reserve. This needs to be seen in light of the fact that the population of tigers in BTR has disappeared over the years and no tigers were seen in the last census (January 2015).

6.5      Improvement of habitat of PAs

(a)      Removal of human and biotic pressure: NWAP 2002-16 stated that voluntary relocation and rehabilitation of villages out of PAs needed to be done on a voluntary basis or by persuasion from high conservation value segments of PAs e.g. pristine/old-growth areas or the core segments of NPs.

  • It was observed that 15 forest villages[14] existed in the core zone of BTR. Since these villages existed in the core zone, BTR was required to carry out relocation of people living in these villages. However, it was seen thatno Memorandum of Understanding had been signed with villagers opting for relocation till date and no village for core area of BTR had been relocated as of December 2016.
  • Further, it was also observed that, till March 2016, despite the existence of 18 forest villages in these PAs, no steps have been taken to relocate forest villages from the other five PAs[15] due to absence of any relocation schemes/package.

(b)      Eco-tourism in and around PAs: In recent years, increased numbers of tourists and proliferation of tourist facilities had led to overuse, disturbance and serious management problems for PA managers. NWAP envisaged preparation of Tourism Management Plan, conduct of surveys of accommodation and tourist facilities within the PAs and fixing a ceiling on the number of tourists/ tourist vehicles permitted to enter the PA. As per Guidelines for Eco-tourism in and around PAs (June 2011) issued by MoEFCC, States were required to develop a State-level Eco-tourism Strategy and prepare eco-tourism plan as part of the MP for each PA by 31 December 2011. It was observed that the ecotourism policy/strategy was yet to be approved by the Department. It was also seen that, till May 2016, no separate Ecotourism Plans had been prepared/finalised for seven PAs[16], as such these did not form part of MPs of these PAs.

(c)       Diversion of forest land for eco-tourism: Eco-tourism is a non-forestry activity under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. As such, permissions for diversion of forest land for construction of eco-tourism facilities were required to be taken from MOEFCC before undertaking construction work. Scrutiny of records of BTR revealed that Forest Department initiated the construction of 9 camping facilities for eco-tourism purposes at five locations[17] without permission from the competent authority for diversion of forest land for construction of these facilities.

 (d) Introduction of species/species translocation for effective species Management:

Introduction of Rhino in Gorumara and Jaldapara: As per rhino Census (2015), there were 49 rhinos and 204 rhinos in Gorumara NP and Jaldapara NP respectively.  The male-female sex ratio of rhinos was approx. 1:1 in both these NPs which was much less than the standard sex ratio of 1: 3 as prescribed by the MP. Forgene pool uplifting, avoiding inbreeding depression and to maintain appropriate sex ratio, MPs of Jaldaparaand GorumaraNP prescribed the introduction of female rhinos brought from natural conditions across India and not from any zoo. However, it was observed that the re-introduction of rhinos in these PAs was not done as of December 2016.

  • Re-introduction of Tiger in Gorumara NP

Tiger had been extinct from Gorumara NP since late 80’s. Since implementation of the 1st MP of Gorumara NP, herbivore population, especially that of gaurs, increased very rapidly. As such, the MP prescribed for the re-introduction of minimum three females and one sub-adult male tiger in Gorumara with a view to bring biological control over threatening population of gaurs. It was seen that no such re-introduction project had been taken up as of December 2016.

(e)      Man-animal conflict and compassionate payment

Conflicts usually arise out of straying of wild animals into habitations, this results in killing of wild animals or death/injury of human beings and loss of crop/cattle/houses. The department stated (December 2016) that it had taken many steps to check straying of animals and reduce conflicts.  Scrutiny of documents, however, revealed that these steps were not effective as depicted below:

  • During 2011-12 to 2014-15, 210 cases of wild animals[18] straying were reported in which 339 persons were killed by elephants and other animals and 908 persons were injured.
  • Due to straying of wild animals from their natural habitats, 226 wild animals were killed in various accidents.
  • In retaliatory killings by the affected people, 8 leopards and 10 elephants were killed during 2011-15.
  • 19.29 crore was paid during 2011-15 towards compensation for injury and loss of human life, livestock killed, hut and crop damage etc., caused by wild animals.

(f)        Improvement of degraded forest land in PAs

  • As per divisional records, BTR had 5550 ha of blank and degraded area (February 2013). It was observed that during 2013-16, only 426 ha of land were rejuvenated through the plantation of trees and grasslands and soil conservation for providing adequate cover to wildlife and availability of fodder. BTR failed to improve 5124 ha of old degraded land (March 2016).
  • Approximately 101 ha blank area, free from encroachment, exists in RachillaChawk in Neora Valley NP which was once covered by forests. MP of Neora Valley prescribed for plantation in five ha every year in this blank area. Audit, however, observed that during the period 2011-12 to 2015-16, against the target of 25 ha, plantation was done in only four ha.
  • As per the MP (2011-12 to 2021-22) of Chapramari WLS, there were 200 ha degraded and blank area, free from encroachment, against which plantation was done in only 20 ha during 2011-12 to 2015-16.

(g)       Maintenance/creation of grasslands

Jaldapara and Gorumara[19] NP in North Bengal are famous for one-horned rhinos. As per MP, a limiting factor for conservation of rhinos in these two NPs was inadequate grassland habitat for this species. As per MP, the two National Parks were required to expand the area under grassland as well as to maintain existing grassland. In this regard, audit observed the following:

  • Against the aggregate annual target of maintenance of grasslands[20] prescribed in MPs of Gorumara and Jaldapara NP of 740 ha, achievement was less than 25% during the period 2011-12 to 2015-16.
  • During 2011-12 to 2015-16, achievement in respect of planting of fresh fodder grass in Gorumara and Jaldapara NPs was only 17% of the annual targets.
  • No fodder plantation was taken up in 2012-13 and 2014-15 in these NPs.

(h)       Removal of invasive species and weeds

It was seen that the MPs of Jaldapara and Gorumara NP had identified weeds and climbers[21] as acute problems in these parks. The MP of Neora Valley NP also identified thick undergrowth of malling bamboo[22] restricting the movement of big mammals and leading to poor natural regeneration of oak and other trees. These invasive species and weeds invade the grasslands, particularly during rainy season, and require regular removal. Consequently, MPs of these NPs included targets for removal of these species for proper habitat management. Achievement regarding removal of invasive species was less than 20 %.

(i)        Prevention of forest fires

Forest fires adversely affected habitat quality of PAs, caused loss of biodiversity, harmed micro flora and fauna of the habitat, depleted fodder resources for herbivores etc. As per MPs, for restricting the spread of fire, fire lines created in the forest areas were to be cleaned twice a year, during the months of November-December and March. Audit observed that in three[23] wildlife divisions containing nine PAs, 1467.89 km of fire lines were existing. During 2011-12 to 2015-16, only 35% of targeted fire lines were cleaned.

  1. Availability of resources/institutional mechanism for protection of forests/biodiversity

Protection of unique biodiversity was the aim of setting up and management of PAs. To achieve this end, adequate funds and manpower along with institutional mechanisms needed to be made available to all the PAs for their effective management.

7.1      Infrastructure for patrolling in Protected Areas

During 2011-12 to 2015-16, 26 wild animals were poached in the state which included eight elephants, seven rhinos, three gaurs, one leopard and seven other animals due to shortage of trained manpower and lack of night time patrolling as the causes. Audit further observed that, during 2011-12 to 2014-15, 1334 cases and 20577 cases of illicit felling of tree occurred in 3 PAs of Darjeeling Wildlife Division and BTR respectively.

  • Inadequate patrolling staff

Audit noticed shortages in staff engaged in patrolling to combat poaching and illicit felling of trees. For posts like forest guards, vacancy was as high as 80 %. Due to shortage of forest guards, patrolling was done by Casual Daily Labourer without giving them any formal training and there was no recruitment policy/ selection procedure/ physical criteria for their selection for patrolling purposes.

  • Arms, equipment and vehicles for patrolling

There were shortage of vehicles, arms, boats, Radio Transmitter (RT) sets, elephants etc., necessary for patrolling in PAs.

  • In five PAs[24], there were shortage of vehicles and RT sets. In four PAs[25], there was shortage of arms/guns.
  • In three PAs[26], there were only 16 GPS sets against the requirement of 32.
  • Shortage of 11 elephants and 5 ponies for patrolling were observed in BTR and Singhalila NP respectively.
  • STR is a maze of estuaries, river channels, and creeks where patrolling is done by boats. However, there was shortage of patrolling boats.
  1. Conclusions

India’s conservation planning is based on the philosophy of identifying and protecting representative wild habitats across all the ecosystems through the creation and maintenance of Protected Area network. In this regard, the Department did not take adequate steps for creation and expansion of PA network to achieve the target of covering 10 percent of geographical area under PA network. All the bio-geographic zones were not represented in the PA network. Identified elephant corridors were not notified which resulted in obstruction of natural migratory path of elephants, causing man-animal conflicts. Critical Wildlife Habitats were not declared, and requisite inviolate spaces were not provided, which would adversely affect the conservation/ protection of biodiversity. Management of PAs were found to be inefficient in many respects. Steps taken to reduce biotic pressure on wild life were found inadequate as the Department had failed to relocate forest villages from the PAs, create Eco-Sensitive Zones around PAs and regulate eco-tourism in and around PAs. Instances were noticed of non-submission of UCs, and non-preparation of APOs which resulted in short/ non-receipt of central funds, affecting protection and conservation work in these PAs. Shortage of patrolling staff as well as equipment constrained the conservation efforts. Institutional measures to conserve biodiversity and forests were not in place which compounded the lackadaisical approach of the department in conservation and protection of biodiversity in the Protected Areas.

  1. Recommendations

The Department may consider the following:

  • Expansion of the PA network to all bio-geographic regions, marine areas and setting up the Ganga Dolphin reserve.
  • Notification of identified elephant corridors to minimise man animal conflict.
  • Demarcation of requisite inviolate spaces to minimise effect on conservation/protection of biodiversity in and around the PAs.
  • Finalisation of State Eco-tourism Strategy to regulate eco-tourism in and around PAs.
  • Enhancement of patrolling activities through modern methods, keeping in view the international borders.
  • Restriction on the extreme ingress of eco-tourists in and around the PAs by applying strict checking and control over the movement of tourists.

[1]An Autonomous Institution of the MoEF (Ministry of Environment & Forests), it is an internationally acclaimed Institution, which offers training programs, academic courses and advisories in wildlife research and management.

[2]Created in 1948, IUCN is now the world’s largest and most diverse environmental network, harnessing knowledge, resources and reach of more than 1,300 Member organisations and some 16,000 experts. It is a leading provider of conservation data, assessments and analysis. India is also a member.

[3]2C Central Himalayas, 6B-Deccan Penninsula-Chhotanagpur 7B-Lower Gangetic Plain and 8B-East Coast

[4]Bankura, Purulia, Midnapur, Birbhum, Burdwan.

[5]Ballavpur WLS in Birbhum District and Ramnabagan WLS in Burdwan District

[6] Established on 1st July, 1916, it  promotes survey, exploration and research leading to the advancement in our knowledge of various aspects of exceptionally rich faunal life across India

[7]Saras crane from North America and Australia, Gadwall, Northern Pintail, Northern Shoveler, Garganey from North of the Himalayas and many other local migratory birds such as cotton pygmy goose, Comb duck etc.

[8] Nodal ministry at the federal level for protection and conservation of the environment.

[9]Established in 1982, Wildlife Institute of India (WII) is an internationally acclaimed Institution, which offers training program, academic courses and advisory in wildlife research and management. The Institute is actively engaged in research across the breadth of the country on biodiversity related issues.

[10]Mahananda WLS, Gorumara NP, Chapramari WLS, Jaldapara NP and Buxa Tiger Reserve

[11]Legal protection can be given under various laws appropriate for the state e.g. declaring corridors land as conservation /community reserve under Wild Life Protection Act-1972, restricting certain activities such as: land use pattern, regulation of traffic, maintenance of the ecological status of the corridors etc.

[12]MoEF in its guidelines of February 2011 for creation of ESZ stated that the purpose of creation eco-sensitive zones around NPs and sanctuaries is to create a kind of shock absorber for the PAs. These would also serve as transition zone from areas of high protection to areas requiring lesser protection

[13]Mahananda WLS, Neora Valley WLS, Senchal WLS, Bethuadahari WLS and Singhalila NP

[14]Raimatang, Adma, Chunabhati, Santrabari, Lepchakhawa, Bhutiabasty, Newlands, Kumargram, Sankosh, Pampubasti, Gangutia, 28th Mile and 29th Mile

[15]Two forest villages in Jaldapara NP, two in Gorumara NP, six in Senchal WLS, seven in Mahananda WLS, one in Singhalila NP

[16]Mahananda WLS/ Senchal WLS/ Singhalila NP/Jaldapara NP / Neora Valley NP/ Chapramari NP/Raiganj WLS

[17]Jayanti (6 cottages), Nimati (3 cottages), Buxaduar (3 cottages), Silbunglow (3 cottages) and Raimatang (3 cottages)

[18]Tigers (80 cases), rhinos (41 cases), leopard (21 cases) and Gaurs (68 cases)

[19]In Gorumara NP, grassland available as forage for rhino was only 7.50 sq. km which was 9.44 % of the total area. In Jaldapara NP, grassland available for foraging for rhino was 30.55 sq. km (14.11 % of total area).

[20]through cutback of older fodder grass and over wood removal.

[21]Leea spp. Cassia tora, Mikania spp., Eupatorium spp., Lantana camara and Clerodendronbengalensis.

[22] An invasive species of bamboo.

[23]Gorumara Wildlife Division, Jaldapara Wildlife Division and Darjeeling Wildlife Division

[24]Mahananda WLS, Senchal WLS, Gorumara NP, Neora Valley NP and Chapramari

[25]Mahananda WLS, Senchal WLS, Singhlila NP, and Neora Valley NP

[26]Gorumara NP, Neora Valley NP and Chapramari WLS





Leave a Reply