unesco- iucn enhancing our heritage project

UNESCO- IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage Project: Monitoring and Managing for Success in Natural World Heritage Sites

Final Management Effectiveness Evaluation Report Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, India

October 2007

2

Table of Content

Project Background 1 How the Evaluation was carried out 2 The Project Workbook and Tool Kits 3

Section 1: Introduction 4-8

Section 2: Context and Planning Assessment 9-13 Tool 1: Identifying Site Values and Management Objectives 11 Tool 2: Identifying Threats 18 Tool 3: Relationships with Stakeholders/Partners 26 Tool 4: Review of National Context 33 Section 3: Planning 34-48 Tool 5: Assessment of Management Planning 35 Tool 6: Design Assessment 42 Section 4: Inputs and Process Assessment 49-51 Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs 51 Section 5: Assessment of Management Process 52-71 Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes 53 Section 6: Outputs 72-75 Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation 73 Tool 10: Assessment of Work/Site Output Indicators 74 Section 7: Outcomes 76-87 Tool 11: Assessing the Outcomes of Management – Ecological Integrity 76 Tool 12: Assessing the Outcomes of Management – Achievement of Principal Objectives 87

3

List of Boxes

Box 1: Major Historical Events in Keoladeo National Park 6

Box 2: IUCN-WCPA framework for Management Effectiveness Evaluation 8

Box 3: Raptor conservation in Keoladeo National Park 13-15

Box 4: Hydrology and water scarcity of Keoladeo National Park 21

Box 5: Water Management in Keoladeo National Park 22-23

Box 6: Satellite wetlands for non breeding water birds 45-47

Box 7 Managing invasive alien species – Prosopis juliflora 48

Box 8: Capacity building for effective tourism management 68

Box 9: Monitoring heronry in Keoladeo National Park: A biological indicator of wetland health 86

List of Annexures

Annexure-I: Raptor species of the Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur (*denotes new record) (1984-2007) 88-89

Annexure-II: Waterfowls and other water dependent birds recorded in the Satellite wetlands during 2005-2007 (# denotes birds sighted in KNP)

90-93

Annexure-III: Waterfowl species of the Keoladeo National Park (1983-2007) (**denotes stragglers) 94

List of Figure

Figure 1: Location Map of Keoladeo National Park, Rajasthan 5

4

Project Background Enhancing Our Heritage: Managing and Monitoring for Success in Natural World Heritage Sites is an UNESCO – IUCN project funded by the

United Nations Foundation (UNF). The six year project (2002-2007) is being implemented in nine world heritage sites located in Africa, South

Asia and Latin America. The three project sites in South Asia are Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, Kaziranga National Park, Assam and

Chitwan National Park, Nepal. The Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun has been selected as a Regional Partner Institution to provide technical

backstopping for project implementation in South Asia.

The principal objectives of the project are to promote the development of monitoring and evaluation systems and to facilitate adaptive

management. Based on the lessons learnt, the project aims to enhance the periodic reporting process for the World Heritage Sites.

An initial management effectiveness evaluation as per the project methodology was carried out in Keoladeo National Park in the year 2002-03

and the findings and recommendations were presented in the World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa in September, 2003. Based on

the recommendations made in this report, capacity building and monitoring initiatives were taken up in the sites between 2003 and 2007. The

final management effectiveness evaluation was carried out from February, 2007 to October, 2007 and the results are presented in this report.

5

How the Evaluation was carried out A number of stakeholder consultations and smaller meetings were held during the course of evaluation between February ’07 to October ’07. The core team comprised of the following: Site Managers : Mr. Sunayan Sharma Mr. Kalicharan Verma WII Scientist and Coordinators : Dr. V.B. Mathur Mr. B.C. Choudhury Civil Society/ Educational Institute Representative : Ms. Ritu Singh

Ms. Seema Bhatt Dr. Dhirendra Deverashi

Project Associates : Dr. Ashok Verma Dr. Ashish David WII UNESCO Project Leader : Mr. P.R. Sinha Notes on the layout of the Report For each of the six elements of the IUCN-WCPA framework viz. Context, Planning, Inputs, Process, Outputs and Outcomes the results of the final management effectiveness evaluation are presented in separate sub-sections. Key management issues and monitoring interventions are presented in 9 Boxes.

6

The Project Workbook and Tool Kits The project workbook and worksheets were appropriately modified by the EoH Project Team, based on the lessons learnt during the project

implementation across nine sites. The final Management Effectiveness Evaluation is based on these documents, which are available at project

website http://www.enhancingheritage.net/docs_public.asp.

http://www.enhancingheritage.net/docs_public.asp

7

Section 1: Introduction

Keoladeo National Park (27º7’6’N- 27º12’2”N and 77º29’5”E- 77º33’9”E) located in the civil district Bharatpur in the State of Rajasthan (Figure 1) is a wetland of international importance famous as wintering ground of Palaearctic migrant waterfowl and for its large congregation of non-migratory resident breeding birds. It has been the only wintering ground for central population of the endangered Siberian Crane. It comprises unique mosaic of habitats, that include physiognomic types of forest, woodland, scrub woodland, savanna woodland, tree savanna, low grasslands with scattered trees and scrub, and plantations. These physiognomic types were developed by modification of a natural depression wetland into a duck shooting reserve at the end of 19th century; intensively managed to support large congregation of migratory waterfowl. The Imperial Gazetteer of India (1909) notes that Bharatpur was established as a fort city surrounded by marshes which not only protected it from enemies but were home to wild cattle and received unusually large number of water bird in winters. Paleobotanical studies trace a 26,000 year history when this area was a large open water lake which subsequently went through four dry phases finally to become a marsh land (Sharma et. al., 2007). Keoladeo National Park’s flora consists of 375 species of angiosperms of which 90 species are wetland species. The fauna includes more than 350 species of birds, 27 species of mammals, 13 species of reptiles, 7 amphibians and 43 fishes. Macro invertebrates too abound in the park. The wetlands of Keoladeo National Park support the largest heronry in the region as well as largest congregation of cranes. As the park lies on the Central Asian Flyway of the Asia Pacific Global Migratory Flyway, it is a staging / wintering ground for a huge number of migratory waterfowl that breed in the Palaearctic region. The grasslands of the PA are an important roosting site for Marsh Harrier (Circus aeruginosus), the park is also wintering area of globally threatened Greater Spotted Eagle (Aquila clanga) and Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca).

Although the PA is better known for its migratory waterfowl, it is also the most significant heronry sites in north India. 15 species of herons, cormorants, egrets and storks breed in the heronry of Keoladeo National Park. The Lesser Spotted Eagle (Aquila hastata), a threatened species, is a breeding resident. Three species of vultures, now threatened, viz. White-rumped Vulture (Gyps bengalensis), Indian Vulture (Gyps indicus) and Red-headed Vulture (Sarcogyps calvus) are found in the PA.

8

Figure 1 Location Map of Keoladeo National Park, Rajasthan

9

Box 1: Major Historical Events in Keoladeo National Park

1726-1763 Ajan Bandh was constructed by Maharaja Suraj Mal, the then ruler of the princely state of Bharatpur on the river Gambhir.

1850-1899 The present area of natural depression inside the park was converted into a protected deer shooting site.

1899 Prince Harbhanji of Morvi state in Gujarat was appointed as an administrator for Bharatpur State. He was responsible for converting this depression into a duckshoot reserve by getting bandhs and dykes constructed in order to increase the water holding capacity of the area.

1901 The reserve area was flooded for the first time and a regular water distribution system was devised. The inundation resulted in production of a lot of aquatic vegetation, which attracted a very large number of migratory birds.

1902 The artificially created duckshoot reserve was formally inaugurated by the then Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon when a duck shoot was organised in his honour on 2nd December, 1902.

1919 Boundaries of the duck shooting reserve were clearly demarcated.

1925 The Forest Act of Bharatpur was passed, and the erstwhile Shikar department brought under the Forest Department.

1938 A shooting party headed by the then Viceroy of India, Lord Linlilthgow shot a maximum of 4,273 birds on 12th November as shown in shooting record inscribed on the pillar near Keoladeo temple.

1956 Keoladeo Ghana was notified as a Protected Area and a bird sanctuary. Hunting rights remained with the Maharaja of Bharatpur, his guests, and a few state guests till 1972.

1967 Keoladeo Ghana was declared as a Reserved Forest under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953.

1972 Ruler’s hunting rights withdrawn.

1977-81 A masonry wall was constructed all around the park.

1981 Keoladeo Ghana was declared as a Ramsar site under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance.

1981 Keoladeo Ghana Sanctuary was upgraded to a National Park. Cattle grazing inside the park was banned.

1985 The park was declared as World Heritage site under the World Heritage Convention.

10

The park is totally enclosed by a masonry wall immediately outside of which are agricultural fields and human settlements. There is no buffer zone. Keoladeo National Park is recognized as wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention and a World Heritage site. It has a long history of intensive management as it was once part of the erstwhile Bharatpur state and was developed as a duck shooting reserve.

The unique ecosystem of Keoladeo National Park developed probably over a century and has been intensively managed to provide habitat for both migratory waterfowl as well as the resident land and water birds. The objectives of management of KNP are:

1. To maintain the ecological seral stages of the ecosystem for avifaunal diversity in particular and others in general

2. To provide an enriching wilderness experience and visitor satisfaction through conservation education and wildlife interpretation programme

3. To provide site specific, ecofriendly package of measures to reduce dependence of local communities on protected area resources and to provide alternate livelihood options.

Keoladeo National Park requires sustained and intensive management interventions for maintaining its ecological characteristics. It is management practice to maintain different water levels in different blocks of the park to provide habitat to wide variety of waterfowls. Interventions against various invasive alien species are taken up from time to time. Water hyacinth (Eicchornia crassipes) has been controlled in the past and presently several measures are being taken up to eradicate prolific growth of Prosopis juliflora in the wetlands as well as woodlands. Since Keoladeo National Park depends on water resources much beyond its boundaries and water allocation to the park has become an issue of concern in the recent past, several options for alternative augmentation of water are being deliberated and implemented.

Keoladeo National Park – World heritage site Keoladeo National Park was declared a world heritage site in the year 1985 based on (then) criteria iv which, under the revised UNESCO criteria this is criteria (x): to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.

11

Keoladeo National Park is the only area in the region that has such a high number of local migratory birds- herons, storks etc. that breed in large number and indeed the only area to provide conducive environment for these species to breed. It is also the only area to host significant numbers of globally threatened Greater Spotted Eagle and other migratory raptor species. It is the most important roosting ground for large number of migrating harrier species as well. The Lesser Spotted Eagle, a threatened species, is a breeding resident.

Management Effectiveness Assessment Management effectiveness evaluation aims to help managers improve conservation and management practices. As part of the global UNESCO-IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage (EoH) project ‘Monitoring and Managing for Success in World and Managing for Success in World Natural Heritage Sites’, the Keoladeo National Park was included as one of three pilot sites in South Asia. The other two sites are Kaziranga National Park, Assam and Chitwan National Park, Nepal. An Initial Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) as per the IUCN MEE Framework (see Box 1) was carried out in 2002-2003 and the findings were presented in the World Park Congress in Durban in 2003.

During the project implementation phase, the Project Workbook and Toolkit was revised and the Final Management Effectiveness is based on the revised version.

The Assessment Process The final Management Effectiveness Evaluation in Keoladeo National Park has been conducted through a series of stakeholders’ consultations

organized between February, 2007 and October, 2007. The results of the evaluation are presented in the subsequent sections.

Box 2. IUCN-WCPA framework for

Management Effectiveness Evaluation

12

Section 2: Context and Planning Assessment The context assessment helps identify site values and threats and the context within which management occurs. This section identifies the

values that make the site significant and provide a focus for management. It helps to identify linkages between the management objectives and the site values identified, and therefore, to identify gaps if any. Subsequently an assessment of current and potential threats is carried out.

Planning assessment includes management planning – legal framework and tenure of site, design aspects of the PA. Design aspects include

assessment of size and shape, connectivity, boundaries, inclusion of key habitats and adjacent land uses affect on ecological integrity,

community well-being and site management.

Values of Keoladeo National Park

Biodiversity values: The world heritage values of Keoladeo National Park include its biodiversity values, its mosaic of habitats that supports a

massive congregation of over 140 species of waterfowls. It has been the only area for Central population of Siberian Cranes to winter, it is the

only area in the region that supports 35 species of Raptors, including the largest population of globally threatened Greater Spotted Eagle. It is

the most important heronry sites in North India. The grasslands of Keoladeo National Park are an important roosting site for a number of

migratory harrier species, particularly, Eurasian Marsh Harrier.

Other natural values: As the wetlands of Keoladeo National Park were modified to support larger species diversity, the area has been

intensively managed for over a hundred years. The water management system is unique that include a system of ‘dykes and sluice gates’ and

fills the wetland in a sequential manner. As this is the only area in this semi arid landscape where the water is retained for a long period of time,

it acts as an important site for groundwater recharge, that benefits surrounding villagers by providing water for agriculture. Traditionally, the

area has been dependent on ground water for irrigation, ‘well’ irrigation being the most common system of irrigation.

13

Cultural values: the name ‘Keoladeo’ comes from the temple of Lord Siva who is also known as ‘keval ek dev’ or ‘the only Lord’. The temple is

situated in the park.

Economic Values: Keoladeo National Park, being part of the Golden Triangle (Delhi-Agra-Jaipur) very popular with both domestic as well as

foreign tourists, is a very well visited place. This results in generation of revenue for both local communities and the State Government. It also

provides livelihood opportunities for local communities.

Educational values: Keoladeo National Park has been termed an ‘living research laboratory’, it is very important for creating conservation

awareness, for carrying out ecological research and in carrying out research related to management practices.

14

Worksheet 1a for Tool 1: Identifying major site values

List the major site values Is this a World Heritage value? Information sources used for determining the values

Biodiversity Values

1. Internationally important wetland site, wintering area for massive congregation of over 140 species of water fowls.

2. The only wintering area for the

Central population of Siberian Cranes globally

3. One of the most important heronry sites in Northern India

4. Supporting about 41 species of Raptors, including the largest population of globally threatened Greater Spotted Eagle

5. Last remaining natural patch of yamunna floodplain grasslands

6. Largest patch of Mitragyna parvifolia in the semi arid bio-geographical zone

7. 43 species of fish are found in the wetlands

8. Ethnomedicinal plants 9. A large population of Pythons is living

in the park

1. Yes, it is a mosaic of diverse habitats that supports migratory species and acts as a staging ground for a number of important species

2. Yes. 3. Yes, Seasonal breeding and

nesting site 4. Yes, it is important wintering

ground for Greater spotted eagle and other migratory raptor species

5. Yes, the grasslands are an important roosting ground for large number of migratory harriers, particularly Eurasian marsh harriers (see Box 3)

World Heritage Convention proposal, Management Plan and Initial Assessment Report of EoH project BNHS Final Report Verma, 2002 Vijayan, 1988

15


Other Natural Values

1. Being a natural depression has a great value for groundwater recharge, enhancing ecosystem services

2. Water management system is unique.

No

World Heritage Convention proposal, Management Plan and Initial Assessment Report of EoH project

Cultural Values

1. Part of the ‘golden triangle’ forming an easily accessible national and international tourism destination

2. Keoladeo temple and Kadamkunj are

historical monument situated in the park.

3. Keoladeo Temple is well visited and

is of religious significance to local communities.

No Department of Tourism

Economic Values

1. Tourism generating revenue for both local communities, state government and others

2. NTFP resources 3. Direct employment opportunities, in

form of labour with the forest department and with the tourism sector

No Chopra, Kent, records from KNP

16


Educational Values

1. Exceptionally important for creating awareness for people ranging from local, national and international. An interpretation centre is functional providing good facility for the purpose.

2. ‘Living research laboratory’; Ideal place to understand dynamics of wetlands and grasslands, studies of ecology and behaviour of birds especially wintering ecology, effectiveness of management practices, etc.

Department of Forest, Rajasthan Various Ph D thesis and other studies conducted at KNP

Other Social Values

1. Recreation and religious significance of three temples, particularly Keoladeo temple.

2. Ecodevelopment activities for the socio-economic improvement of the villagers around the park, providing tangible and non tangible benefits.

3. Value of Khus (Vetiveria zozanoides) is a traditional value; as before declaration of the area as a national park, the khus grass was extracted for its aromatic oil and Bharatpur was well known for production of ‘khus’.

17

Box 3: Raptor conservation in Keoladeo National Park

Raptors, the top predatory birds comprising hawks, eagles, vultures, falcons – diurnally active and owls – mostly nocturnal are essential component of the ecosystem. As top predators, they are key to our understanding and conservation of various ecosystems they inhabit such as forest, grassland and wetland. Changes in their status can reflect changes in the availability of their prey species, including population declines of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects. Changes in raptor status also can be indicator of more subtle and detrimental environmental changes such as chemical contamination and the occurrence of toxic levels of heavy metals like mercury and lead. Consequently, determining and monitoring the population status of raptors are necessary steps in the wise management of our natural resources. The area needed to sustain a genetically viable population of raptors often extends to several square kilometers and therefore their conservation can indirectly contribute to conservation of many other threatened floral and faunal species. Being flagship species they have the potential to influence public and elicit their support for wildlife conservation.

Of the world’s 508 raptor species, about 20% raptors are found in India (i.e. 65 diurnal and 30 nocturnal species). About 30% of raptors found in India are migratory. Located on the Global Migratory Flyway, the Keoladeo National Park both a Ramsar and World heritage site, attract a large number of raptors species especially migratory in the winters. A total of 41 species have been recorded in the park (BNHS Annual Report 1991, Annexure-I). The Park is known for supporting the greatest diversity of harriers in the country and is also believed to be the largest communal roost of Eurasian Marsh Harriers in India (Verma 2002). It provides wintering grounds to many globally threatened raptors especially Greater Spotted Eagle.

A total of 26 raptor species were recorded during 1999-2000 in the Park (Verma 2000). A 15% decline was observed in the species richness during 2005-2006 (N= 22 species). The species which were missing included Besra Sparrowhawk, Long-legged Buzzard, Pallid harrier, and Red-headed Falcon. The decline was also in the numbers too. However, a new species of grassland dependent raptor i.e. Common Buzzard was recorded for the first time from the park in 2006-2007.

contd…

Globally threatened Greater Spotted Eagle is most commonly sighted migratory raptor of

Keoladeo National Park during winters. (Photo credit: Ansar Khan)

18

Globally threatened raptors As per BirdLife International, an international bird conservation organization India’s 12 raptor species are listed as globally threatened. About 58% (N = 7 species) of these have been reported from the Keoladeo National Park; White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis, Indian Vulture Gyps indicus (Critically Endangered), Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga, Indian Spotted Eagle Aquila hastata, Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca, Pallas's Fish-eagle Haliaeetus leucoryphus (Vulnerable), Cinereous Vulture, Red-headed Vulture Sarcogyps calvus, Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus, White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla, and Grey-headed Fish-eagle Ichthyophaga ichthyaetus, Red-headed Vulture (Near-threatened). The Cinereous Vulture Aegypius monachus Laggar Falcon Falco jugger in 1984-87 and the Grey-headed Fish-eagle in 2005 both Near-threatened species have been also recorded occasionally from the park. There was no decline noted in the number of globally threatened species recorded during 1999-2000 and 2005-2006 (i.e. Lesser Spotted Eagle, White-rumped Vulture, Indian Vulture, King Vulture, Pallid Harrier, Greater Spotted Eagle, and Imperial Eagle). However a significant difference was recorded in their relative aDamance which was probably due to drought conditions prevailed in the park just prior to 2005.

The King Vulture, Egyptian Vulture and Indian Lesser Spotted – the globally threatened raptors are breeding resident of the park. However, once breeding in hundreds the White-rumped Vultures have not attempted breeding in the park for the last 7 years.

Conservation of raptors The conservation of raptors presents unique problems because these birds are at the top of a food chain where they often exist in low densities. Significant causes of raptor population decline include total loss, degradation and fragmentation of their habitats, and the associated decrease in quantity and quality of hunting areas, nesting sites and food supplies. Intensive agriculture is rapidly eliminating the grasslands, hedges, woodlands, orchards and fallow fields, where passerine birds, rodents, insects and other favoured prey used to thrive. The drainage of wetlands, which has accelerated in recent decades, has been an important cause of the decline of harriers everywhere. The increasing use of pesticides and other chemicals especially in the agricultural lands is also taking a heavy toll on the raptor population.

In order to facilitate the identification of Harriers and contribute to their conservation a field guide ‘Harriers in India’ was produced as part of the UNESCO-EoH Project activity.

http://www.rdb.or.id/detailbird.php?id=303


















19

Worksheet 1b for Tool 1: Documenting management objectives and their relationship to site values

Principal Management Objectives Major values that are related to this objective To maintain the ecological seral stages of the this ecosystem for avifaunal diversity in

particular and others in general All biodiversity values and natural values

To provide an enhancing wilderness experience and visitor satisfaction through

conservation education and wildlife interpretation programmes

Educational, recreational and social values

To provide site specific, eco-friendly package of measures to reduce dependence of

local communities on PA resources and provide alternate livelihood options Economic and social values

Identifying Threats Several threats have been identified of these, most concerning ones include, scarcity of water, invasive alien species, and invasion/overgrowth

of Vetiveria in wetlands and grasslands.

Scarcity of water: Keoladeo National Park essentially depends on a dam immediately upstream to its South- the Ajan Dam. Ajan Dam in turn

receives water from two ephemeral rivers- Gambhir and Banganga. Since water from both the rivers has been harnessed, quantum of water to

Keoladeo National Park has been decreasing and has reached threatening proportion after construction of Panchana Dam on river Gambhir in

year 2003. Lack of optimum amount of water leads to many problems in the park; invasion of Prosopis juliflora in the wetlands, failure of

heronry, fewer waterfowl wintering in the wetlands, etc. and ingression of woodland into wetland if the situation persists. The forest department

has been deliberating upon several options to mitigate the situation. Some of these measures are now in place (see Box 4).

Invasive alien species: Water hyacinth (Eicchornia crassipes) has been a problem in the past and was brought under control through manual

removal. Prosopis juliflora was introduced initially, but has now become a weed and spread across the park in both wetland as well as

terrestrial areas through natural dispersion.

20

Other weeds: Paspalum distichum although a native species has now become a weed due its overgrowth in the wetlands. Due to this other

hydrophytes do not grow resulting in change in characteristics of wetland ecosystem. Its thick mat prevents regeneration and utilization of other

aquatic plant species by avi-fauna. Some of the Paspalum distichum grass used to get effectively removed and open water areas created with

the system of grass permits issued to villagers, thus, controlling accumulation of excess biomass in the wetland. Now, as the system of grass

removal does not exist it is imperative to remove this grass manually. Since it is fodder species most preferred as buffalo feed, it could be used

as a resource shared with the villagers of surrounding villages.

Invasion of Vetiveria into wetlands: As the water levels have been low during past few years, Vetiveria has established itself in the shallower

parts of wetland blocks. This could be a treated as it affects the characteristics of wetland ecosystem and increases the accumulation of

biomass in the wetland areas.

Feral Cattle and dogs: Feral cattle compete for resources with herbivores of the park, and dogs are increasingly becoming a threat as they

hunt particularly on the young ones of herbivores.

Worksheet for Tool 2: Identifying Threats

Threats to Biodiversity Values

List Threats

Is it a Current or Potential Threat?

Identify major sources of threat

Impact of threat Management response

Extent Severity Action Urgency of action

21

Scarcity of water

Current

Source(s)

Water infra-structure development in the watershed leading to diversion of water away from Keoladeo National Park (See Box 4)

11 sq. km of wetland area High Short term and long term measures have been identified. Short term measures have been implemented also (see Box 5)

Very urgent

Disruption in the supply of water from the traditional major water resource

Failure of heronries, drastic decline in migratory avifauna, degradation in groundwater quality

High

Bore well as short term measure to fight drought conditions

Very urgent

Siltation and Eutrophication

Current

Source(s)

Silt brought in from the watershed as a result of degradation in the water shed. Accumulation of biomass in the wetland is leading to eutrophication

Eutrophication of the area, alongwith siltation it leads to reduced water holding capacity of the wetlands

High

Invasive sp. Prosopis juliflora, Eicchornia species., Paspalum species Clarias fish (mangoor fish)

Current

Source(s)

P. juliflora introduced initially under afforestation programme which later spread across by natural dispersion

All habitat types High Mitigation plan is being executed by Forest Dept. Paspalum- removal in Aug-September

Very urgent

Eicchornia species. : seed inflow with water Paspalum species. Interruption in traditional grazing practice by buffaloes leading to overgrowth

Wetland areas Wetland areas

High High

Manual removal This fish is dangerous for biodiversity of KNP.

2006-07 is dry, therefore action was not required

Threats to Other Natural Values

List Threats





Feral Cattle Dog

Current Source(s) Introduction by villagers

Woodland (grassland and wetlands)

High Regulated harvesting of grass

Urgent

22

Invasion by Vetiveria into wetlands

Current Source(s)

Lower water level provides ground for its establishment

Wetland Medium - Marginal

Invasion of woodland into grassland

Current Source(s) Disruption in traditional practice

of grass utilisation

Throughout grassland High Check mgmt plan for grassland mgmt actions

Urgent

Illegal resource use

Current

Source(s) Resource dependency due to lack of alternate livelihood

Throughout KNP High Protection strategy Regular practice

Expanding tourism Current Source(s) Part of ‘golden tourism triangle’

and easily accessible

Tourist zone High Regulation of tourist movement by “rickshaw safari”

Urgent

Interpretation Centre should be camouflaged with environment

Current

Source(s)

Tourist zone Low Not urgent

23

Threats to Cultural, Economic, Educational and Other Social Values

List Threats





Fire Current

Source(s) Accidental

Woodland and grassland

High Removal of Vetiveria and Desmostachya in April and onwards

Urgent

Poaching Current

Source(s)

Illegal poaching by certain nomads and local individuals

Throughout the PA Not very severe but average. Severe at specific time in April.

Patrols and regular protection

Regular actions are being taken

24

Box 4: Hydrology and water scarcity of Keoladeo National Park Hydrology of the region determines the functions and values of a wetland complex. Hydrology also plays a key role in determining ecosystem health and structure. Semi-arid monsoonal depression wetlands, as Keoladeo National Park (KNP), are typically dependent on watershed conditions and rainfall for water. KNP receives water through surface runoff and/or surface water channels and usually water outflows only as evapo-transpiration and groundwater infiltration.

Keoladeo National Park is situated in a depression in the plains of Bharatpur. Drainage of the region, which is, KNP’s watershed, spreads over two river basins- viz. Banganga and Gambhir, which are seasonal rivers. Bharatpur region is a flat plain sloping towards east. In the north, west and south it is bound by hills of various branches of northern Aravalli ranges. These ranges are discontinuous and rain/flood waters drain into the plains of Bharatpur. In the north, water from Alwar region is drained by the Ruparail River, in west from Jaipur by the Banganga River and from south / southwest by the Gambhir River. The Ruparail was dammed at Sikri as early as 1840 and is inconsequential to drainage of Bharatpur today. The waters of Banganga and Gambhir were diverted to Ajan Bund, immediately upstream of KNP, and is the source of water to the PA. The Banganga has not contributed significantly to water supply in past 20 years. Gambhir has remained the only source but after addition of holding capacity to Panchana Dam in the headwaters of this river, the water scarcity at KNP has reached a threatening magnitude. Enormity of the situation is reflected in the diminishing numbers of migratory waterfowl, failure of heronry, overgrowth of Prosopis juliflora in the wetland area.

A study (2003-06) was taken up to look into the water crisis, catchment health and to calculate water requirements of KNP keeping in mind both management and ecosystem requirements. This study was partly funded by the Enhancing our Heritage Project. The study also looked into hydrological functions of the PA and found that the wetland contributes significantly to groundwater recharge, maintaining a high water table. As the villages around the PA are dependent on pumped groundwater water for irrigation this is an important ecosystem service provided by the PA to local communities. Further, an analysis of water distribution clearly indicates that if water is received in the dam, a good percentage is released to the KNP.

This distribution varies from 136% of the water received to 30% of the water received in the Ajan Dam. The higher values indicate that volume of water in behind Ajan dam is contributed by both flows from Gambhir River as well as runoff from its local catchment. This suggests that if water is present in the Ajan Dam then water needs of Keoladeo National Park are secure. But, here the issue of getting water to the Ajan Dam, for which the primary source is Panchana Dam and Jaggar Tal. River Gambhir has three medium dams- Panchana, Baretha and Jaggar. All these are in the head waters and impound 100% river flows of Panchan, Kakund and Jaggar river respectively, which are tributaries of river Gambhir. As such the flow in the river can be ascertained only when water is released from these dams.

25

Box 5: Water Management in Keoladeo National Park

Keoladeo National Park has been dependent on traditional sources of water, viz., river Gambhir (through Ajan Dam). However, the availability of water to the KNP from the river has over the past few years has diminished on account of competing requirement for irrigated agriculture. The water regime has been extensively intervened to divert water for irrigation. As the watershed is inhabited by subsistence farmers the needs of farmers cannot be ignored. The conflict now is with upstream farmers, in the command area of Panchana Dam, residing in 35 villages. As against these, there are 388 villages downstream of Panchana Dam that have been directly or indirectly adversely affected due to cessation of water flow in river Gambhir. The issue is highly politicised as well, because of which, release of water from Panchana Dam every year is subject to demonstrations, meetings and will of the government machinery both administrators as well as politicians. In such a situation sourcing of water from this dam has become both difficult and predictable.

An optimum quantity (about 18 million cubic metres [MCM]) of water is considered necessary for conserving the ecological characteristics of Keoladeo National Park. The forest department has been exploring several options. The problem is a) to source enough water for the park so as to ensure complete inundation and b) ensure ecological integrity of the Park.

Some of the options suggested are:

a) Chambal-Dhaulpur-Bharatpur Drinking Water Project: It is a drinking water supply project with some surplus water, 8.77 MCM water available till 2010, thereafter 1.77 MCM. Presently, the project is on hold and is unlikely that the said 8.77 MCM water would be available by the time it is completed

b) Dedicated Pipeline- Chambal Project: The details are still being worked out.

c) Chiksana Canal Floodwater Utilisation Proposal: The proposal seeks to utilise the rainwater runoff of Ajan Bund that is usually lost through this canal. It can provide about 0.36 MCM water daily during the monsoon months.

d) Emergency Groundwater Utilisation Plan: The proposal is to drill 11 deep borewells in the park and construct a large deep water body inside the park in terrestrial area to store water from ajan bund/ pipelines. This would augment about 2.83 MCM water and is under implementation.

e) Yammuna Water Irrigation Project from Gurgaon canal: The details are still being worked out.

f) Goverdhan Drain Proposal: This option, after much deliberation, was realised to be a feasible option. The Irrigation Department has under taken the task of making a detailed project report to be approved by the State Government. The Government has agreed in principle to the project which would provide 15.57 MCM water to Keoladeo National Park. This quantum is almost equivalent to the water requirements of Keoladeo National Park, as the difference in quantity with the requirement (18MCM) is fulfilled by rainfall.

contd…

26

Chiksana Canal Project This Project was conceived to provide additional and timely supply of water to Keoladeo National Park. Under the present water distribution arrangement, water is released to the PA from the Ajan bund through a particular sluice called ‘dakan mori’. From this point water is released only once a level of 8 feet has been achieved in the dam. Chiksana canal runs through the PA about 3 km away from the wetland. This is a flood control canal and carries water through lower end of the dam. To utilise the flood water that otherwise flows through the park, an open earthen canal- 3 km in length has been built inside the park in WII. Exit sluice gates of Chiksana canal have been closed and additional sluices opened to allow water in the new channel. The technical and financial support for the project has been provided by the Irrigation Department and the project was completed before the monsoon of 2007. However, since the monsoon failed during 2007, this system did not prove beneficial during the current year, but is expected to provide relief in subsequent years when the region would receive normal monsoon.

27

Engagement of stakeholders/ partners Keoladeo National Park although a small site, owing to its design has a large interface with local communities, other beneficiaries as well as

tourists. As it lacks a buffer zone, the impact of local communities is direct and immediate. Being well visited it provides several benefits and

therefore a number of stakeholders have interest in the park.

Local communities/ villagers of surrounding areas: This group forms the most important stakeholder of the park as they are dependent on

park for livelihoods and other benefits. Traditionally the villagers were cattle herders, dependent on the grasslands and wetlands, then, known

as ‘rundh’ (grazing land). The area which used to be private property of the ruler of Bharatpur was grazing grounds for his cattle, refuge for feral

cattle and was open for villagers to be used as grazing grounds on nominal payment. As the area was designated a National Park, grazing of

cattle and buffalo was prohibited, forcing the villagers to stall feed their animals. This also resulted in conflict between the park management

and the villagers, who understand that the use of park’s resources are their traditional rights. As it is imperative for maintenance of ecological

characteristics of the area, PA management extracts extra biomass from the wetland that in turn meets the fodder requirement of the villagers.

The villagers are thus and important category of stakeholder.

Residents of Bharatpur city: The residents get benefited from the park by way of employment as guides, rickshaw-pullers and in the tourism

sector. Others use the park is for morning walks deriving health benefits from it.

Rickshawpullers and Guides: They are actively involved in providing transportation and interpretative services of tourists within the national

park. They form an important group in disseminating information and creating awareness for conservation of Keoladeo National Park. They are

dependent on the park for their livelihoods. They have been trained by the PA management in communication skills and in identifying fauna of

the park. During off season they participate in habitat management activities. These two groups are fairly organised among themselves.

Research community: The scientific community has played an important role in understanding the ecology and wetland dynamics of the

national park. Extensive documentation in form of scientific papers, articles, theses etc. is available on various aspects of the ecology of the

28

park. Some of the gaps that were identified during initial assessment of this project have been addressed as well. Through the present project

effort has also been made to understand the hydrology of the park and its role in recharging groundwater of the area.

Tourists: Tourist provide economic benefit to the area as whole. The benefits in form of direct revenues comes to the State government and

indirectly to the local communities through the tourism industry, which provides livelihood support to a large number of people. Tourists in turn

gain rewarding wilderness experience from the park. PA management is involved in running interpretation programmes at the interpretation

center established with the help of WWF-India.

Hoteliers/ tourism industry: This sustains the economy of Bharatpur, a town which has limited employment opportunites for youth as it does

not have any other sector providing employment in a significant manner. This sector is well organised, provides employment to the local

communities, and is helpful to PA in tourism management.

Farmers in catchment area: As the activities of the farmers upstream in the watershed have a direct influence on Keoladeo National Park,

they are now identified as important stakeholders of the park. Since the intervention on river course directly benefits this group and adversely

affects Keoladeo National Park a conflicting situation has arisen.

District administration and other departments: PA management has to work in close coordination with the district administration and other

government departments like the irrigation department, agriculture department, and fisheries department whose policies and programmes have

a direct bearing on the ecology of Keoladeo National Park. Since allocation of water to Keoladeo National Park is now an issue, PA

management has to actively intervene in the decision making process, the authority of which is with the district administration.

29

Worksheet 3a for Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholders/Partners

Name of Stakeholder

Stakeholder 1: Stakeholder 2: Stakeholder 3: Stakeholder 4: Stakeholder 5: Stakeholder 6: Stakeholder 7: Stakeholder 8: Local community/ Villagers of surrounding areas

Residents of Bharatpur City

Rickshaw pullers, Naturalists/ Guides

Research community

Tourists Hoteliers

Farmers in catchment area and beneficiaries of Pachana canal

Fishery, Irrigation, Soil Conservation, Agriculture Departments and other line agencies e.g. District adm.

Und

erst

andi

ng S

take

hold

ers

Main issues associated with this stakeholder

Resource dependency (legally and illegally)

Utilizing the Park for morning walk. Lack of feeling of ownership

Consistent supportive approach of Forest Dept. (no off season prospects)

Issue with co-operation and information sharing (sustenance of traditional ecological features of habitat, opportunity to conduct research, mutual sharing of information).

Rewarding experience, value for money

Direct economic dependence for sustenance

Water of Gambhir River

Policies on common resources

Economic dependency

Tourism and employment by Forest Department

None Very High

None None High Those living in the periphery of the park have high resource dependency

None

List negative impacts of stakeholders on site

Illegal grazing, Wood and grass extraction, human wildlife conflicts

1. Due to high influx of morning walkers the level of disturbance to wildlife is high 2. Due to lack of involvement they do not stand in support of KNP

None (cursory knowledge and therefore they need trainings)

Discontinuity in involvement leading to limited knowledge sharing.

Disturbance and pollution-littering, garbage, noise

Pollution- garbage construction in the vicinity of the park (500m area)

Park has been deprived of traditional source of water, use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers degrading water quality

Conflict in goals in policies, watershed management, promotion of pesticides and fisheries degrading and depleting water resource

Comment [RS1]: In the header row, is it possible to put the names of the stakeholders instead of stakeholder 1,2,3,… (this comment is for the row above)

30

Name of Stakeholder




Research community

Tourists Hoteliers



List negative impacts of site management on stakeholders

Denial of access to resources, inadequate alternative livelihood strategies

- None (non responsive/ non caring and non participating)

1. Inadequate engagement of research community by the park management and inadequate utilization of research findings in the management of PA. 2.Inconsistent approach or lack of policy on granting permission for research leading to lukewarm response from scientific community

Water scarcity in the park which ruins holidays of uninformed tourists

In case of water scarcity in the park there is immense loss of income

Competition for water and other natural resources

Difficulties in prioritization due to lack of coordination among various departments

31

Name of Stakeholder




Research community

Tourists Hoteliers



List positive impacts of stakeholders on site

Good work force when needed, at times helpful in partial maintenance of wetland habitat. For example-fire, anti-poaching and during weed removal

No significant impact.

Source of information regarding wildlife sightings, fires, wildlife crimes, helpful in census, fighting fire, controlling vandalism, increasing awareness of the park to the public

Scientific inputs for better management

Source of revenue, international recognition, helpful pressure group, consensus building, economic growth of area lowers dependence on forest resources

Provide various basic services to tourists

They work as casual labourers

Helpful in water management Irrigation Department has provided funds for construction of Chiksana canal. Vetnary. Department- helped analyse droppings for parasites, in collection of samples, treatment of sick animals and Innoculated cattle against foot and mouth disease around KNP The municipality has - constructed toilets at main gates of Keoladeo National Park

List positive impacts of site management on stakeholders

Providing employment, capacity building, Helpful in maintaining watertable.

No significant impact. Pride and recognition, a place for recreation, better prospects of enterprise and employment.

Skill upgradation, capacity building, better opportunities. Livelihood generation and economic benefits to some extent

Infrastructure support; knowledge, information inputs to research work. Opportunity to test hypotheses, capacity building

Wilderness experience, organized services at reasonable cost.

Opportunity to invest in tourism sector as an entrepreneur

Providing opportunities for earning particularly for landless villagers

-

Willingness/ capacity of stakeholders to engage with site management

Partial

High High

High Considerable High Low Low

32

Name of Stakeholder




Research community

Tourists Hoteliers



Willingness/ capacity of site management to engage with stakeholders

Limited. Villagers want that park should hold meeting with them atleast once a month and for all villages once a year.

Partial Considerable High Considerable Limited Limited High

Political/ Social influence

Considerable. Villagers want Honorary Wardens should be from any of these peripheral villages

Considerable Low Limited None Limited High Low

Organisation of stakeholders

Stakeholders organisations are formed as and when required.

Unorganised Organized

Research sector is informally organized

Not organized Not organized but influential

organized These are govt. organizations.

Ass

essm

ent o

f St

akeh

olde

r En

gage

men

t What opportunities do stakeholders have to contribute to management?

No formal mechanism.

No formal mechanism as yet

Informal contribution -Very little at this point of time but can be increased on willingness on both sides

Significant, particularly for management planning although limited by lack of formal mechanism for involvement

They can provide suggestions for improvement of services and can register complaints

Help in educating the tourists about park ethics and conservation awareness

Providing labour

Considerable as detailed above.

33

Name of Stakeholder




Research community

Tourists Hoteliers



What is the level of engagement of the stakeholder?

Limited

Very limited Fair Fair Marginal Limited No engagement

Fair

Sum

mar

y Describe the overall adequacy of stakeholder engagement

The present policy framework does not provide much scope for involvement of villagers in decision making process, however, their suggestions are considered on merit basis.

The present policy framework does not provide much scope for involvement of the stakeholder in decision making process

Adequate, but may be involved formally at some level of decision making, planning or implementation

The stakeholder contributes towards informed decision- making through knowledge sharing

Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Needs formalization and better coordination with the park management

Rat

ing

Rate the overall adequacy of stakeholder engagement, as either very good; good; fair or poor

Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair

34

Worksheet 3b for Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholders/Partners - Summary Table

Major Values Stakeholder

1 Stakeholder

2 Stakeholder

3 Stakeholder

4 Stakeholder

5 Stakeholder

6 Stakeholder

7 Stakeholder

8

Overall Stakeholder

Engagement for major values

Name of stakeholder

Villager Residents Rikshaw-puller

Scientific Community

Tourists Hoteliers Farmers Line agencies

Overall Engagement of the Stakeholder

Fair Poor Fair Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Fair, since the previous assessment was carried out efforts in engaging stakeholders has improved significantly.

Note: Since Keoladeo National Park is small in size, the involvement and impact of stakeholders is fairly uniform across the identified values of

the park. For this reason stakeholder engagement assessment was carried out in a holistic manner rather than dealing with each value

individually.

35

Review of National Context India has enacted several legislations to deal with the conservation of biodiversity and management of wildlife and protected areas. The Indian

Wildlife (Protection) Act was enacted in 1972 and has been amended by the Indian Parliament from time to time in response to the changing

scenario of conservation at the field and country level. India has also enacted the Biodiversity Act in 2002 and has also formulated the National

Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016). India now has four categories of Protected Areas viz., National Park, Wildlife Sanctuary, Conservation

Reserve and Community Reserve. The process of gazettment of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries has been clearly outlined in the

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

India now has a network of Protected Areas comprising 96 National Parks and 510 Wildlife Sanctuaries covering 4.77% of the geographical

area of the country. India has also developed a “Biogeographical Classification of India” which provides a framework for establishment of

Protected Areas on a biogeographically representative basis. At the apex level, there is a National Board of Wildlife (NBWL) which is chaired by

the Prime Minister of India and has adequate representation from Government Agencies and Civil Society representatives. Similarly, at the

state level there are State Wildlife Advisory Boards chaired by the Chief Ministers, which provide the necessary policy guidance on wildlife

matters.

The Government of India as well as the State Governments are committed to conserve the rich biological heritage of the country. A countrywide

effort is now on to involve stakeholders particularly local communities in the conservation and management of wildlife and protected areas in

the country. Several non governmental and civil society institutions and individuals are now working together with the PA management and are

also operating their own programmes for conservation of biodiversity.

36

Worksheet for Tool 4: Review of National Context

Criteria Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations/Comments World Heritage Site and protected area legislation

Keoladeo NP is a duly gazetted PA under the provisions of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. There are no rights and concessions available inside the park.

Conservation within broader government policy

Government of India has initiated a process of identifying gaps and of MEE for national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. This would strengthen biodiversity conservation in the country.

International conservation conventions and treaties

India is a signatory to all International Conservation convention and treaties.

Government support for the World Heritage site

Government’s commitment to Keoladeo National Park as WH site is strong. Recently the Ministry of Environment and Forests through WII and ATREE formulated a proposal and secured funding for four WH sites in India. This 4-year project ‘World Heritage Biodiversity Programme (WHBP)’ funded by United Nations Foundation (UNF) and its partners has become operational from August, 2007.

37

Section 3: Planning

Worksheet 5a for Tool 5: Management Planning Information Sheet

Name of plan Level of approval

of the plan (L,G,A, S/A,D)*

Year of preparation, likely completion or most recent review

Year specified for next review

of plan Comments

Management plan

G 2002-06 2008 The plan has been prepared considering to the present habitat conditions and management requirement for the park. The duration of the plan has been extended by one more year vide Rajasthan Forest Department order No. F(4)Dev/CWLW/9564-68 dated 26/09/2007. KNP is also receiving funds from ‘Tajmahal Trapezium Zone’ plan for funding certain identified activities.

L= plan has force of law (usually has been approved by the Parliament or legal instrument)

G= plan has been approved at the government level but is not a legal instrument

A= plan has been approved at Head of Agency level

S/A= plan has been approved at a senior level within the Agency

D= plan is a draft and has not been formally approved.

Adequacy of Management Plan:

• Although the management objectives are clearly stated and desired future conditions are reasonably articulated and implied through the objectives, it is not explicitly the reference point for decision making, It however, serves as guidance for addressing various management issues.

• Wetland dynamics is severely affected by scarcity of water leading to overgrowth of weeds in wetland areas. Management interventions are largely reactive in nature.

• Though stakeholders were not actively involved with plan preparation, PA managers have a good understanding of their needs and these have been addressed in the chapter on ‘Ecodevelopment’.

• Although the plan lists research priorities and also states the areas that require regular monitoring and monitoring methodologies and protocols have been developed, but are not part of the management plan. These could be included in the plan during the upcoming review.

38

Worksheet 5b for Tool 5: Adequacy of Primary Planning Document

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps Decision making framework 1. Does the plan establish a clear understanding of the desired future for the site? (i.e. describes the desired outcomes of management in terms that provides a guide to management and decision making by site managers)

Desired future is explicitly articulated as a decision making reference point

VG G Since, the desired future of the PA is reasonably articulated, it is envisaged that this MEE process will help in both explicitly articulating the desired future and also making it a decision making reference point.

Desired future is reasonably articulated

G

Desired future is not clearly articulated but is implied or can be inferred from plan objectives

F

Plan focuses more on present issues and actions and doesn’t indicate a desired future for the site

P

2. Does the plan express the desired future for the site so that it can assist management of new issues and opportunities that arise during the life of the plan?

Desired future is expressed in a way that provides clear guidance for addressing new issues and opportunities

VG VG New issues and opportunities are identified and management intervention taken up as and when required, particularly if the threats and stresses put the desired future in jeopardy.

Desired future is expressed in a way that gives some guidance for addressing new issues and opportunities

G

Desired future is not clearly articulated and provides only limited guidance for addressing new threats and opportunities

F

The plan focuses more on present issues and actions and doesn’t indicate any desired future for the site

P

39

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps 3. Does the plan provide for a process of monitoring, review and adjustment during the life of the plan?

Plan provides a clear, explicit and appropriate process for monitoring, review and adjustment

VG G Monitoring of some indicators of ecological health are in place, however, after the initial assessment was carried out certain gaps were identified and monitoring of new parameters was put in place.

Provisions for monitoring, review and adjustment of the plan are present but are incomplete, unclear or inappropriate in some minor respects

G

Need for monitoring, review and adjustment is recognised but is not dealt with in sufficient detail

F

Plan does not address the need for monitoring, review and adjustment

P

Planning context 4. Does the plan provide an adequate and appropriate policy environment for management of the World Heritage site?

Policy requirements for the site are identified and adequate and appropriate policies are established with clear linkages to the desired future for the site

VG G Policy requirements for the site are identified and policies are largely adequate and appropriate although there are gaps. One of the gaps identified is lack of specific wetland policy at the State level. WWF-India, a conservation NGO, and a stakeholder is working closely with the Forest Department to address this issue.

Policy requirements for the site are identified and policies are largely adequate and appropriate although there are gaps

G

Policies in the plan are inadequate or incomplete in many respects

F

Plan either doesn’t establish policies for the area or the policies are inadequate or inappropriate in major respects

P

40

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps 5. Is the plan integrated/linked to other significant national/regional/sectoral plans that influence management of the World Heritage site?

Relevant national, regional and sectoral plans that affect the site are identified and specific mechanisms are included to provide for integration or linkage now and in the future

VG G The ‘water crisis’ in KNP has re-iterated the need for integrated management planning in the regional context. This would be taken up at the time of revision of the existing plan in 2008.

Relevant national, regional and sectoral plans that affect the site are identified, their influence on the site is taken into account but there is little attempt at integration

G

Some relevant national, regional and sectoral plans are identified but there is no attempt at integration

F

No account is taken of other plans affecting the site

P

Plan Content 6. Is the plan based on an adequate and relevant information base?

The information base for the plan is up to date and adequate in scope and depth and is matched to the major decisions, policies and issues addressed in the plan

VG VG Although the present information base is adequate, in the light of present water crisis situation, it has become necessary to study the changing scenario. The information base is adequate in scope

and depth but maybe a little out dated and/or contain irrelevant information (i.e. a broad compilation of data rather than matching information to the decisions, policies and issues addressed in the plan)

G

The information base is out of date and/or has inadequacies in scope or depth so that some issues, decisions or policies cannot be placed into context

F

Very little information relevant to plan decisions is presented

P

41

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps 7. Have the values for the site been identified in the plan and linked to the management objectives and desired outcomes for the site?

The site values have been clearly identified and linked to well defined management objectives and desired outcomes for the site.

VG G The values have now been identified and explicitly articulated in this document, this would help in linking management objectives to values in the upcoming review of the management plan in 2008.

The site values have been reasonably identified and linked to management objectives and desired outcomes for the site.

G

The site values have not been clearly identified or linked to management objectives and desired outcomes for the site.

F

The site values have not been identified. P

8. Does the plan address the primary issues facing management of the World Heritage Area within the context of the desired future of the site?

Plan identifies primary issues for the site and deals with them within the context of the desired future for the site (i.e. plan is outcome rather than issues driven)

VG VG

Plan identifies primary issues for the site but tends to deal with them in isolation or out of context of the desired future for the site

G

Some significant issues for the site are not addressed in the plan or the issues are not adequately addressed

F

Many significant issues are not addressed or are inadequately dealt with in the plan

P

9. Are the objectives and actions specified in the plan represented as adequate and appropriate response to the issues?

Objectives and actions are adequate and appropriate for all issues

VG VG

Objectives and actions are adequate and appropriate for most issues

G

Objectives and actions are frequently inadequate or inappropriate

F

Objectives and actions in the plan do not represent an adequate or appropriate response to the primary issues

P

42

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps 10. “Were local and indigenous communities living in or around the WHS involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the management of the WHS?

Local and indigenous communities living in or around the WHS were meaningfully and fully involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the WHS

VG The policy framework in place does not allow for local and indigenous communities to be directly involved in development of the management plan. However, the issues and impacts of communities are considered while developing the plan, especially the Annual Plan of Operations (APO).

Local and indigenous communities living in or around the WHS were fairly meaningfully and partly involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the WHS

G

Local and indigenous communities living in or around the WHS were only minimally involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the WHS

F

Local and indigenous communities living in or around the WHS were not involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the WHS

P

43

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps 11. Does the plan take account of the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities living in or around the World Heritage site?

Plan identifies the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities and has taken these into account in decision making

VG VG

Plan identifies the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities but it is not apparent that these have been into account in decision making

G

There is limited attention given to the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities and little account taken of these in decision making

F

No apparent attention has been given to the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities

P

12. Does the plan take account of the needs and interests of other stakeholders involved in the World Heritage site?

Plan identifies the needs and interests of other stakeholders and has taken these into account in decision making

VG G

Plan identifies the needs and interests of other stakeholders but it is not apparent that these have been into account in decision making

G

There is limited attention given to the needs and interests of other stakeholders and little account taken of these in decision making

F

No apparent attention has been given to the needs and interests of other stakeholders

P

44

Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps 13. Does the plan provide adequate direction on management actions that should be undertaken in the World Heritage site?

Management actions specified in the plan can be clearly understood and provide a useful basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

VG VG

Management actions specified in the plan can generally be clearly understood and provide an adequate basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

G

Management actions are sometimes unclear or lacking in specificity making it difficult to use the plan as a basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

F

Management actions are unclear or lacking in specificity making it very difficult to use the plan as a basis for developing operational plans such as work programmes and budgets

P

14. Does the plan identify the priorities amongst strategies and actions in a way that facilitates work programming and allocation of resources?

Clear priorities are indicated within the plan in a way that supports work programming and allocation of resources

VG VG

Priorities are generally indicated making their use for work programming and resource allocation adequate most of the time

G

Priorities are not clearly indicated but may be inferred for work programming and resource allocation

F

There is no indication of priorities in the plan so that the plan cannot be used for work programming and resource allocation

P

45

Design Assessment Keoladeo National Park, although small in size has many habitat types that support high biodiversity of the area. The mosaic of habitats has

been developed through management interventions over a long period of time. Water management is unique to this site, in maintaining different

water levels in different blocks of the wetland. But, as it is dependent on external source of water the conflict over water distribution in its

watershed is gaining ground. It now becomes imperative to adapt landscape level approach for conservation of the area. Several satellite

wetlands in the region become part of larger ecological landscape and provide feeding and foraging grounds for the avifauna that primarily

inhabits Keoladeo National Park. Being small in size, lacking a buffer zone and surrounded by agricultural fields and villages with high

population density, stress on this PA is high and is a manifestation of weakness in design.

Worksheet for Tool 6: Design Assessment

1. Ecological integrity List major biodiversity and other natural values:

1. Wintering area for massive congregation of over 140 spp. of waterfowl

2. Only wintering area for Central population of Siberian Carnes

3. One of the most important heronry sites in North India

4. Supports about 40 spp. of raptors including globally threatened Greater Spotted Eagle

5. Last remaining natural grassland in the Yammuna floodplains

6. Largest patch of Mitragyna parvifolia in semi-arid biogeographical zone

46

Design aspect Strengths of World Heritage site design in relation to this aspect

Weaknesses of World Heritage site design in relation to this aspect

Comments and management action to be taken if required

Key habitats

Mosaic of wetland, grassland and woodland habitats

No contiguity and is surrounded by agricultural habitats

Size

Small size with no buffer zone Landscape level conservation approach should be adopted

External interactions

Agricultural fields and satellite wetlands provide feeding and foraging areas

Agricultural fields and catchment pose a threat through chemical fertilizers and pesticide poisoning

Coordination with department of agriculture

Connectivity

The region has satellite wetlands which are utilized by birds that do not need physical connectivity

Absence of physical connectivity in terms of drainage with wild habitats may speed up regional extinction.

Monitoring of satellite wetlands and management intervention as and when necessary. The process initiated under the project needs to be sustained. Conservation needs of satellite wetlands should be addressed in the management plan of KNP (see Box 5)

2. Community well-being




Key area

All of the PA-provides excellent livelihood opportunities in form of employment and tourism related activities

Lack of buffer zone that could have provided area where resource sharing could be provided under the legal provisions

Size

Being small and approachable all of the area is utilised

PA is too small and is surrounded on all sides by human habitations and agricultural fields

Under a State government initiative an ‘eco-zone’ around all protected areas is being designated in a radius of about 5km.

47




External interactions

High biotic pressure and disturbance

Legal status and tenure

Strong legal provisions for protection Resource sharing is not possible under law Resource utilisation- that the communities perceive as their traditional right, is illegal and this often leads to conflict.

3. Management factors




Legal status and tenure

Strong legal provisions As this is a national park, resource sharing is not permitted, leading to accumulation of biomass with in the wetlands and grasslands. Traditionally these were removed by local communities.

The park has initated a community-based Prosopis juliflora removal programme (see Box 6)

Access points Several access points- all well gaurded

Neighbours Completed surrounded by human habitation and agricultural fields

48

# #

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

# #

##

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

ALWAR

MATHURA

BHARATPUR AGRA

KARAULI

DAUSAJAIPUR

Agra canalRuparel River

Banganga River

Gambhir River

Ajan BundTerahmori

Chiksana

Yamuna Barrage

Panchana

Sankhi

Mansarovar

Ramsagar

Talabshahi

Parvati

Ghumna

Sursarover

Pattharpur

NoneraNari

Anjnokh

Lalpurbund

Redia

Kot

Jamwa RamgarhSailthal

Lalpur Lake

Kanwar

Rupbas

JalsenJagartal

Jasora

Kalakoh

Bhatawali

Sikri

Hulwana

Bhandor

Sagar Tal

Babula

Keoladeo

Bundh baretha

DHOLPUR

Motijhil

S

N

EW

20 0 20 40 Kilometers

RajasthanUttar Pradesh

Haryana

GIS Cell - October 2007 Plate 1. Location of satellite wetlands around Keoladeo National Park

Box 6: Satellite wetlands for non breeding water birds

A unique feature of the wetland ecosystem of KNP is its origin from a natural depression and subsequent modifications through human interventions. It is mainly dependent on rains and waters in its catchments especially in Ajan Dam, from where it is later released to the park. The two Rivers, namely Banganga and Gambhir which have been traditionally supplying water to the park have increasingly become undependable. Supply from the River Banganga has decreased in the last 20 years because of the growing demand for water for irrigation and other human uses. Hence, the River Gambhir is the only source at present. Getting water from this river also is becoming increasingly difficult as a large quantum of it is being utilized along its course for irrigation. Construction of Panchana Dam has contributed to this difficulty which has been further compounded, when its height was raised in 2003. Similar is the fate of River Ruparel, which though does not contribute directly to the park but forms catchments of it and attracts lots of migratory birds.

Keeping the above scenario in mind and considering that wetland ecosystem cannot function in isolation, a study was initiated in 2005 under this project to locate satellite wetlands of high significance value to both migratory and resident waterbirds. The KNP owing to its fully protected area status serves as a large staging, moulting and roosting grounds besides being foraging sites for many of waterbird species. However, since it is only ca 29 km2 in area, waterfowls have to largely meet their food requirements from aquatic habitats scattered around it. Previous studies have suggested that once the surrounding wetland habitats dry up or are heavily disturbed, birds take refuge in the park. During the study, a total of 76 water bird species were recorded from the KNP whereas 94 species were observed (Annexure-II) in 34 satellite wetlands (Plate 1). Common Shelduck Tadorna tadorna, Sociable Plover Vanellus gregarious and White-eyed Pochard Aythya nyroca could only be recorded from KNP while Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta, Lesser Flamingo Phoenicopterus minor, Maskfinfoot Heliopais personata, Great Thick-knee Esacus recurvirostris, River Lapwing Vanellus duvaucelii and Indian Skimmer Rynchops albicollis were observed in satellite wetlands only.

contd…

49

Wetlands July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March Apr May June Species ≈Size (km2) Ajan Bundh 21 12 Motijhil 25 7 Bhandor 16 1 Babula 14 2 Chiksana 10 8 Bhatawali 6 3 Rupbas 19 2 Pattharpura 18 0.5 Anjnokh 17 2 Sankhi 20 4 Yamuna barrage 43 6 Nari 37 3 Lalpurbandh 20 2 Baretha Bundh 63 12 Kot 57 5 Jasora 37 1 Sursarover 48 5 Sagartal 22 3 Nonera 55 1 Jagartal 48 10 Jalsen 9 4 Kanwar 12 1 Lalpur 24 5 Hulwana 15 2 Ghumna 20 5 Ramsagar 35 6 Parvati 40 70 Talabshahi 36 2 kalakhoh 54 10 Panchana 32 14 Senthal 24 7 Redia bundh 45 8 Jamwa Ramgarh 17 12 Mansarover 45 10

Plate 2. Availability of water, approximate size and number of waterbird species in satellite wetlands located between 1-200 km in order of their increasing distance from KNP.

Many of these wetlands hold high conservation value for several water bird species, both migratory and resident by providing them wintering, staging and roosting grounds (Plate 2). Nonera in Bharatpur, Sankhi and Yamuna River barrage in Mathura within 75 km radius of KNP provided wintering ground for both Lesser and Greater Flamingos (maximum birds 150) and communal roosting grounds for globally threatened Sarus Cranes with maximum population of 45 birds. The Masked Finfoot Heliopais personata was recorded first time for northern India from Nonera wetland. The Mansarover (Alwar) and Kalakhoh supported about 1000 Bar-headed Geese and Parvati reservoir supported over 3000 Cormorants. The other important satellite wetlands are Sursarover Wildlife sanctuary, Dam Baretha Wildlife Sanctuary, Kot, Ramsagar Wildlife Sanctuary, Senthal Damh and Jagartal.

The study indicates that the entire ecosystem consisting of the national park and its surrounding satellite wetlands have to be protected, if long term survival of waterfowls both resident and migratory water birds is to be accomplished. During 2006, when drought prevailed in the area, a sudden increase was observed in the numbers and species of waterbirds in many of these satellite wetlands. There are a host of threats (Plate 3) associated with these satellite wetlands ranging from high commercial fish farming, reclamation, draining water for irrigation, water-hyacinth infestation, pesticides run off, factory effluents to bird trapping, which need to be mitigated by participatory conservation approach .

50

Over fishing Reclamation Draining of water for irrigation

Water hyacinth Pesticide use Bird trapping

Plate 3. Major threats to satellite wetlands. Photo credit Ashok Verma

51

Box 7: Managing invasive alien species – Prosopis juliflora

Prosopis juliflora – an evergreen shrub or small tree native to Mexico, South America, Central America and the Caribbean has done havoc to the native flora and fauna in other parts of the world, wherever it was introduced between late 1970s and early 1980s. Invasive Species Specialist Group of the IUCN (2004) rated this as one of the world’s top 100 least wanted species. On account of its fast growing, nitrogen-fixing and tolerance to arid conditions and saline soils and capability to colonize to new environments across the world, it has been used to combat problems like deforestation, desertification and fuelwood shortages. Ever since it was brought to the park, this mesquite has been threatening the fragile ecosystem of the Keoladeo National Park by reducing its wetland characters. In KNP, during unfavourable periods of scanty rainfalls and droughts the Prosopis juliflora due to its enormous coppicing power, has grown fast and has spread to almost all habitat types viz. grassland, woodland and wetlands, covering a large extent of this semi arid patch of 29 km2. Besides, the wild animals present in the park like Blue bull, Spotted deer, Wild pig and feral cattle also act as seed dispersal agents of this plant. To address the issue of spread of Prosopis, the KNP management initiated the process of its eradication, using a participatory approach. Eco development Committees (EDC) in 15 villages were entrusted the responsibility of removing the species. Each family was allotted a 10x100 m plot and were asked to remove the P.juliflora trees including new seedlings and saplings by root. The material was allowed to be taken away by villagers for their bonafide use free of cost. By June end 2007, a total of 1378 people belonging to 338 families under 14 EDCs had come forword to help park management. By 31st August 2005, with the help of 15 Village EDCs about 71351 Quintal (INR 7,135,100 @ INR 100/Quintal or 179,522 USD) of Prosopis wood had been removed clearing off about 4.5 km2 of park’s area infested with Prosopis juliflora. This approach of participatory conservation of involving the local communities and adopting the ‘cut and carry’ approach is a good example of ‘win-win’ situation. However, the task of containing the spread and proliferation of Prosopis juliflora is daunting and needs continuous effort to maintain the wetland characteristics of KNP.

P. Juliflora infestation in KNP P. Juliflora eradication in KNP

52

Section 4: Inputs and Process Assessment This section deals with management needs assessment, i.e., requirements of management in terms of resources- human resource, financial

resource as well as technical resources. It further assesses whether the inputs available match the management needs. In case of Keoladeo

National Park it is realised that adequate number of well trained staff are present, however, the frontline staff may be imparted some physical

fitness training.

Staff category Location Required

no. of staff

Current no. of staff

No. of trained

staff Type of training required

Level of Training Comments/ Responses Poor Fair Good Very good

Director

Inside park 1 1 1 Wildlife management, office management, personal management, motivational skills, environmental and wildlife law, communication skill, public relations and conflict resolution.

Very good The present incumbent is a wildlife trained officer with extensive wildlife management experience.

Assistant Conservator of Forests

Inside park 1 1 1 All of the above Very good

Rangers

Within National Park

3 3 3 Wildlife management training and special training in Law Enforcement

Very good

Foresters/Asst. Foresters

Within National park

7+3 7+3 7+3 Wildlife management training Very good

53

Staff category Location Required

no. of staff

Current no. of staff

No. of trained

staff Type of training required

Level of Training Comments/ Responses Poor Fair Good Very good

Research Officer (currently looked after by the ACF)

Within National park

1 1 0 Research methodology and data collection and presentation, wildlife research methods, biological statistics.

Poor

Forest guards Within the park 25 25 0 Physical fitness training Regular physical fitness training should be provided as they are part of Frontline Staff.

Cattle guards Within the park at designated sites

16 16 0 Physical fitness training Regular physical fitness training should be provided as they are part of Frontline Staff.

54

Worksheet 7b for Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs for Budget (2006-07)

Expenditure category Budget required Actual budget available Funding source(s) Comments

1. Protection

2. Habitat management

3. Tourism

4. Research monitoring

5. Education & awareness

6. Ecodevelopment

4.54 million INR

1.73 million INR

1.45 million INR

0.68 million INR

0.12 million INR

0.188 million INR

0.225 million INR

Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) and State Forest Department

1. The park never receives the desired budget as per the requisition raised in the Annual Plan of Operation.

2. Wetland Conservation division of MoEF has also not provided park.

3. This is a Ramsar site but does not receive any budgetary support from any international conservation bodies.

55

Section 5: Assessment of Management Process The objectives of the management plan have been framed with long term conservation of the park. An appropriate policy environment exist at

the State and the National level, the planning process is framed under the State and National policies. Initiatives have been taken to encourage

the State government to formulate specific policies for the wetlands so as to address the present water crisis that adversely affects

conservation of the PA. Information base, research and monitoring requirements are adequate to strengthen the planning process and improve

management practices.

Through the present project, research and monitoring initiatives have been taken. Monitoring of avifaunal species, raptors in particular, water

quality in and around the PA as well as detailed documentation and monitoring of avifauna in the satellite wetlands that are an integral part of

the design of the area has been established and is on going.

The plan addresses primary stresses and issues facing the park and through an instrument of ‘annual plans’ has provisions for mitigating crisis

situation if one arises. Although there are no legal provision for communities to be part of decision making process, the plan takes into

consideration needs of communities.

56

Worksheet 8a for Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes

Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment

Next steps

Management Structures and Systems 1. World Heritage values Have values been identified and are these linked to management objectives?

The World Heritage site has agreed and documented values and the management objectives fully reflect them

Very good Fair Although the objectives have been framed with long term conservation of all biodiversity and other values, World Heritage values are not specifically addressed to.

During the upcoming review of the management plan, the world heritage values should be clearly documented and addressed.

The World Heritage site has agreed and documented values, but these are only partially reflected in the management objectives

Good

The World Heritage site has agreed and documented values, but these are not reflected in the management objectives

Fair

No values have been agreed for the World Heritage site Poor

2. Management planning Is there a plan and is it being implemented?

An approved management plan exists and is being fully implemented

Very good Good Include details of the type of planning instrument being used (i.e. 10 year management)

The current management plan has been extended by a year and the revision of the plan will be taken up in 2008.

An approved management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented because of funding constraints or other problems (please state)

Good

A plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being implemented

Fair

There is no plan for managing the World Heritage site

Poor

57


Next steps

3. Planning systems Are the planning systems appropriate i.e. participation, consultation, review and updating?

Planning and decision making processes are excellent Very good Good Planning process considers opportunities for adjacent landholders and stakeholders to influence management planning.

There are some planning and decision making processes in place but they could be better, either in terms of improved processes or actions completed

Good

There are some planning and decision making processes in place but they are either inadequate or they are not carried out

Fair

Planning and decision making processes are deficient in most aspects

Poor

4. Regular work plans Are there annual work plans or other planning tools?

Regular work plans exist, actions are monitored against planned targets and most or all prescribed activities are completed

Very good Good A system of preparation of Annual Plan of Operation (APO) exists. This plan prescribes all activities identified in the management plan, these are budgeted and audited as well.

The system is effective and further elaboration is not required.

Regular work plans exist and actions are monitored against planned targets, but many activities are not completed what if only limited activities are suggested or break up of broad activity is not given. Comments without reading Management Plan.

Good

Regular work plans exist but activities are not monitored against the plan’s targets

Fair

No regular work plans exist

Poor

58


Next steps

5. Monitoring and evaluation Are management activities monitored against performance?

A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented and used for adaptive management

Very good Fair Some monitoring is done in form of annual census and waterfowl count but monitoring protocols have not been incorporated in the Management Plan.

Incorporation of monitoring and evaluation system as part of the management plan is needed and will be done at the time of plan revision in 2008.

There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system of management activities but results are not systematically used for management

Good

There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation of management activities, but no overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results

Fair

There is no monitoring and evaluation of management activities in the World Heritage site

Poor

6. Reporting Are all the reporting requirements of the World Heritage site fulfilled?

Site managers can fully comply with all reporting needs and have all the necessary information for full and informative reporting

Very good Very good

Site managers can fully comply with all reporting needs but do not have all the necessary information for full and informative reporting

Good

There is some reporting, but all reporting needs are not fulfilled and managers do not have all the necessary information on the site to allow full and informative reporting

Fair

There is no reporting on the World Heritage site Poor

59


Next steps

7. Maintenance of equipment Is equipment adequately maintained?

Equipment and facilities are well maintained and an equipment maintenance plan is being implemented

Very good Good

There is basic maintenance of equipment and facilities. If a maintenance plan exists it is not fully implemented.

Good

There is some ad hoc maintenance but a maintenance plan does not exist or is not implemented

Fair

There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities, and no maintenance plan

Poor

8. Management Infrastructure Is management infrastructure (eg fire trails and fire towers) adequate for the needs of the site?

Management infrastructure is excellent and appropriate for managing the site

Very good Fair

Management infrastructure is mostly adequate for the needs of the site

Management infrastructure is adequate and generally appropriate for the site

Good

Management infrastructure is often inadequate and/or inappropriate for the site

Fair

Management infrastructure is inadequate and/or inappropriate for the site

Poor

9. Staff facilities Are the available facilities suitable for the management requirements of the site?

Staff facilities at the World Heritage site are good and aid the achievement of the objectives of the site

Very good Good

Staff facilities are not significantly constraining achievement of major objectives

Good

Inadequate staff facilities constrain achievement of some management objectives

Fair

Inadequate staff facilities mean that achievement of major objectives is constrained

Poor

60


Next steps

10. Staff/ management communication Do staff have the opportunity to feed into management decisions?

Staff directly participate in making decisions relating to management of the site at both site and management authority level

Very good Good Organisational framework in forest department facilitates identification and management of site related issues through a feedback system wherein frontline staff report to their seniors.

Staff directly contribute to some decisions relating to management

Good

Staff have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in the resulting decisions

Fair

There are no mechanisms for staff to have input into decisions relating to the management of the World Heritage site

Poor

11. Personnel management How well are staff managed?

Provisions to ensure good personnel management are in place

Very good Good

Although some provisions for personnel management are in place these could be improved

Good

There are minimal provisions for good personnel management

Fair

There are no provisions to ensure good personnel management (e.g. staff appraisals, grievance procedures, promotion plans, insurance)

Poor

12. Staff training Is staff adequately trained?

Staff training and skills are appropriate for the management needs of the site, and with anticipated future needs

Very good Good Refresher courses could be introduced

Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to fully achieve the objectives of management

Good

Staff training and skills are low relative to the management needs of the site

Fair

Staff lack the skills/training needed for effective site management

Poor

61


Next steps

13. Law enforcement Does staff have the capacity to enforce legislation?

The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations

Very good Good

1. Staff needs proper practical training to deal with the offenders, so that they do not lack in following procedures while implementing the legal provisions. 2. There is no women protection staff personnel to deal with the female offenders. 3. Lack of young staff to deal with the offenders. 4. Lack of vehicular support.

The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain

Good

There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills, no patrol budget, staff management problems)

Fair

The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations

Poor

14. Financial management Does the financial management system meet the critical management needs?

Financial management is excellent and contributes to effective management of the site

Very good Good

Financial management is adequate but could be improved

Good

Financial management is poor and constrains effectiveness Fair

Financial management is poor and significantly undermines effectiveness of the World Heritage site (eg late release of funds for the financial year)

Poor

Resource Management

62


Next steps

15. Managing resources Are there management mechanisms in place to control inappropriate land uses and activities (e.g. poaching)?

Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist and are being effectively implemented

Very good Very good The park management has no control over the use of pesticides in the adjacent agricultural fields and satellite wetlands.

Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist but there are some problems in effectively implementing them

Good

Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist but there are major problems in implementing them effectively

Fair

There are no management mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the World Heritage site

Poor

16. Resource inventory Is there enough information to manage the World Heritage site?

Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the World Heritage site is sufficient to support planning and decision making and is being updated

Very good Good

Review of management plan should take into consideration a wider information base Information on the critical habitats, species and cultural

values of the protected area is sufficient for some areas of planning/decision making but further data gathering is not being carried out

Good

Some information is available on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the WH site, but this is insufficient to support planning and decision making

Fair

There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the World Heritage site

Poor

17. Research

There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of surveys and research, which is relevant to management needs

Very good Good

Further integration of research into

63


Next steps

Is there a programme of management-orientated survey and research work?

There is considerable survey and research work but this needs improvement---(added by the Director) it is not directed towards the needs of World Heritage site management

Good management is required.

There is some ad hoc survey and research work but it is not directed towards the needs of World Heritage site management.

Fair

There is no research taking place in the World Heritage site

Poor

18. Ecosystems and species Is the biodiversity of the World Heritage site adequately managed?

Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species are being fully implemented

Very good Good

Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species are only being partially implemented

Good

Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species are known but are not being implemented

Fair

Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species have not been assessed

Poor

19. Cultural/ historical resource

Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values are being substantially or fully implemented

Very good Good -Due to shortage of water supply in recent past, the culturally

64


Next steps

management Are the site’s cultural resources adequately managed?

Many requirements for management of cultural/ historical values are being implemented but some key issues may not be addressed

Good important Kadam groves were under threat due to drought like situations. -Prosopis juliflora which has been suppressing Kadam is being removed. -Mentionable progress has been achieved and several kadam groves have been freed from aggressive invasion of P juliflora. (see box 7)

Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values are known but very few are being implemented

Fair

Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values have not been assessed and/or active management is not being undertaken

Poor

Management and Tourism 20. Visitor facilities Are visitor facilities (for tourists, pilgrims etc) adequate?

Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of visitation

Very good Good Physical infrastructure is in place- capacity in form of trained staff to provide service is lacking

Toilets in park, car parking or vehicle parking and Watch tower for bird viewers facilities are being developed.

Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of visitation but could be improved

Good

Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of visitation

Fair

There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need

Poor

21. Commercial tourism

There is good co-operation between managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, and protect site values

Very good Fair

65


Next steps

Do commercial tour operators contribute to protected area management?

There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences and maintain site values

Good

There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is largely confined to administrative or regulatory matters

Fair

There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators using the protected area

Poor

22. Visitor opportunities Have plans been developed to provide visitors with the most appropriate access and diversity of experience when visiting the World Heritage site?

Implementation of visitor management policies and programmes is based on research into visitors’ needs and wants and the carrying capacity of the World Heritage site

Very good Good

Although an Interpretation Centre has been recently commissioned, a proper interpretation programme plan needs to be put in place including complete information on all nature trails.

Consideration has been given to the provision of visitor opportunities and policies and programmes to enhance visitor opportunities are being implemented

Good

Consideration has been given to the provision of visitor opportunities in terms of access to the World Heritage site or the diversity of available experiences but little or no action has been taken

Fair

No consideration has been given to the provision of visitor opportunities in terms of access to the World Heritage site or the diversity of available experiences

Poor

23. Education and awareness programme

There is a planned, implemented and effective education and awareness programme fully linked to the objectives and needs of the World Heritage site

Very good Fair Activities for school children are usually organised during the

Though visitors are being provided the required education on wildlife and environment

66


Next steps

Is there a planned education programme?

There is a planned education and awareness programme but there are still serious gaps either in the plan or in implementation

Good Wildlife week in October, but, proper awareness/ educational programme is not in place. leaflets should be distributed to students visiting the centre and participating the programme.

conservation through the interpretation centre, signages displayed on various walking trails and relevant literature and being made available to them on payment but still there is a scope of further improvement. Target group oriented awareness programmes should be planned in partnership with stakeholders e.g., local NGOs, colleges, research communities.

There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness programme, but no overall planning for this

Fair

There is no education and awareness programme

Poor

24. Access

Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives

Very good Good

-Number of visitors vary to a considerable extent over the entire year. The number goes up to 4000

Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives

Good

67


Next steps

Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives

Fair visitors a day during X-mas day/New Year and Republic day vacations which is beyond the carrying capacity of he main track. Efforts are being done to divert this pressure on to over walk trails especially during these pressure days.

Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) are ineffective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives

Poor

Management and Communities/Neighbours 25. Local communities Do local communities resident in or near the World Heritage site have input to management decisions?

Local communities directly participate in all relevant management decisions for the site

Very good Fair

Meetings are organised with local communities from time to time and there inputs are considered. Local communities directly contribute to some relevant

management decisions but their involvement could be improved

Good

Local communities have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in decision-making

Fair

Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management of the World Heritage site

Poor

68


Next steps

26. Indigenous people Do indigenous and traditional peoples resident in or regularly using the site have input to management decisions?

Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant management decisions for the site

Very good Not applicable because there is no habitations of indigenous and traditional tribes in the reserve.

Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to making some relevant management decisions but their involvement could be improved

Good

Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct involvement in decision-making

Fair

Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating to the management of the site

Poor

69


Next steps

27. Local, peoples welfare Are there programmes developed by the World Heritage managers which consider local people’s welfare whilst conserving the sites resources?

Programmes to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare, while conserving World Heritage site resources, are being implemented successfully

Very good -Good

The neighbouring villages are being provided opportunities of employment in seasonal labour orientated jobs by employing them in various development works inside the park. Several nature guides and rickshaw pullers are earning their livelihood through tourism inside the park. -Some communities works have been taken up in the adjoining villages such as construction of headpumps, shallow borewells and LPG gas connections on subsidised basis. More such works can be taken if adequate financial assistance is provided by government/other national and international agencies.

Programmes to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare, while conserving World Heritage site resources, are being implemented but could be improved

Good

Programmes to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare, while conserving World Heritage site resources, exist but are either inadequate or are not being implemented

Fair

There are no programmes in place which aim to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare

Poor

70


Next steps

28. State and commercial neighbours (Director: state means line agencies.) Is there co-operation with neighbouring land/sea owners and users?

There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users, and substantial co-operation on management

Very good Good

Coordination with other government departments satellite wetland areas, surrounding areas etc is to be further strengthened.

There is contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users, but only some co-operation

Good

There is contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users but little or no cooperation

Fair

There is no contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users

Poor

29. Conflict resolution If conflicts between the World Heritage site and stakeholders arise, are mechanisms in place to help find solutions?

Conflict resolutions mechanisms exist and are used whenever conflicts arise

Very good Good

-

Conflict resolutions mechanisms exist but are only partially effective

Good

Conflict resolution mechanisms exist, but are largely ineffective

Fair

No conflict resolution mechanisms exist Poor

71

Box 8: Capacity building for effective tourism management

As KNP is a highly visited park, an effective system for tourism management and park interpretation has to be in place. The PA provides livelihood to a large number of guides and rickshaw pullers, hoteliers and tour operators. These are important stakeholders and part of tourism management system. From time to time PA management imparts training in bird identification and values of Keoladeo National Park to guides and rickshaw pullers. However, the PA management invariably lacks funding support to impart regular and varied trainings. As part of the Enhancing our Heritage project a training needs assessment was carried out and training was imparted in communication skills enhancement, flora and fauna identification and tourism management to guides and rickshaw pullers. Training needs for forest department staff were also identified and they were imparted training in communication skills, life skill education and tourism management.

A similar capacity building initiative was taken by WWF- India under ‘Salim Ali Interpretation Centre and Programme ’. Under this initiative, WWF-India has established an Interpretation Centre in the PA, which was completed in January 2006. The programme was established with funding support of approx. $ 450,000 (USD) provided by D. Swarovski & Co., Austria.

contd…

Training Programe for Nature Guides and Rickshaw Pullers

72

This programme is vital for creating awareness, conducting educational programmes and in managing tourists effectively. The programme aims to achieve long-term conservation of the park by increasing awareness and appreciation towards KNP amongst visitors as well as local people. The programme focuses on information dissemination and awareness building through a three pronged approach:

• Establish a functioning environment information and awareness programme.

• Establish infrastructure for the programme

• Build adequate capacity to run the awareness programme

The infrastructure includes an interpretation centre, nature trails, signages etc. Various print and audio-visual resources have been developed for wider dissemination of information.

Exhibit in Interpretation Centre

73

Worksheet 8b for Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes - Summary

Management area Issue and rating Distribution of rating

Management structures and systems

1 Good

2 Good

3 Good

4 Good

5 Fair

6 Fair

7 Good

8 Fair

9 Good

10 Good

11 Good

12 Good

13 Good

14 Good

P 0

F 3

G 11

VG 0

74

Management area Issue and rating Distribution of rating

Resource management

15 Very Good

16 Good

17 Good

18 Good

19 Good

P 0

F 0

G 4

VG 1

Management and Tourism 20 Good

21 Fair

22 Good

23 Fair

24 Good

P 0

F 2

G 3

VG 0

Management and Communities /Neighbours

25 Fair

26 NA

27 Good

28 Good

29 Good

P 0

F 1

G 3

VG 0

75

Section 6: Outputs

Output Assessment This assessment been carried out for the year 2006-07. The system of annual plan of action that is in place is an instrument that strengthens

the management plan process. The activities are planned to achieve objectives of the management plan. As the component on research and

monitoring is now being strengthened these are the new activities that are being taken up and will later become part of the management plan,

leading to process of adaptive management well established in the PA. As the PA has been facing a situation of extreme water crisis, efforts

have been concentrated on water augmentation and control of invasive alien species- Prosopis juliflora in particular. In addition several

activities relating to education and awareness, and ecodevelopment have also been taken up.

76

Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation

Summary of the Output Assessment of the 2003-2007 Annual Plan of Operations (APOs) for KNP

77

Worksheet for Tool 10: Assessing Outputs

Year 2006-07 Indicator Work output target Performance Performance/level in

previous year Notes

Ecorestoration/ removal of weeds

4.5 sq. km. Completed This activity although planned in the previous year was not initiated Planting of 1ha area was initiated

The eradication of Prosopis juliflora was undertaken through Ecodevelopment Committees (EDCs), the work is ongoing.

Construction and raising of boundary wall

At selected points Completed Points identified in the previous year were also completed

Augmentation of water Digging of deep bore wells, desilting of existing wells

Completed Two deep bore wells well were dug

Subsequently an additional canal (Chiksana canal) has been constructed to off take water from Ajan Dam immediately upstream in summer 2007.

Water Management Renovation of sluice gates, electric connection for deep bore wells

Completed Maintenance of existing bore well and deepening of main and feeder canal

Maintenance of roads Strengthening of road network

Completed Peripheral and feeder roads were strengthened

Relocation of dogs, stray cattle and monkey

Cattle and monkey relocated

Completed Not planned

78

Indicator Work output target Performance Performance/level in previous year

Notes

Organising nature camps Nature camps for school children to impart knowledge about KNP and to provide wilderness experience

Completed Incomplete

Organising cattle health camps

Cattle vaccination camps in the surrounding villages

Not initiated Not planned The activity was planned and funds secured but could not be initiated

Wireless network Strengthening wireless network to aid in communication for protection

Completed Not planned/ required

Research and monitoring Purchase of equipment for research

Completed Planned but not initiated; not completed

Annual Census Annual water hole count during summer

Incomplete Completed

Education and awareness Purchase of publication and publicity material

Completed Planned and initiated; not completed

Construction of watch tower

Construction of one watch tower

Completed Not planned

Construction and renovation of viewing platform

One platform to be renovated and constructed

Completed One viewing platform constructed

79

Section 7: Outcomes Outcomes of effective management are reflected in biodiversity of the site. Monitoring various aspects of biodiversity and key physical factors

that affect it provide a measure for assessing outcomes of management interventions. In Keoladeo National Park regular monitoring of faunal

population is being carried out in form of annual census, waterfowl count and heronry count. However, many aspects that need to be

monitored are now being suggested and will become part of regular monitoring plan.

Worksheet 11a for Tool 11: Plan for Monitoring the Outcomes of Management

Indicator : Waterfowl congregation

Major Site Values assessed by the indicator : Biological diversity

Justification for selection : Number and species diversity is direct indicator of health of habitat

Minimum integrity

thresholds

Confidence level of

threshold Monitoring activity

Monitoring protocol (including frequency of

measurement and person/s responsible)

Cost and funding source

Management implications

20000 waterfowl and number of species

Good Current: annual in January

Waterfowl count By Forest Department Staff & researchers

Budgeted in APO, funds from State

Wetland management; removal of exotic weeds; water quality assessment and treatment

New: not required

80

Indicator : Raptor Abundance



Minimum integrity

thresholds

Confidence level of






Number of threatened species

Good Current:

New: road transect / point count

By Forest Dept staff & researchers


Indicator of health of wetland, grassland and woodland ecosystems as a whole

Globally threatened species - Greater Spotted Eagle, Imperial Eagle, Pallid Harrier, Resident - White Backed, Long Billed, Red Headed Vulture, Lesser Spotted Eagle

81

Indicator : Resident Waterbirds



Minimum integrity

thresholds

Confidence level of






Resident waterfowl count put from checklist

Good Current:

New: census of resident waterfowl during monsoon

Waterfowl Count By Forest Dept staff & researchers

Waterfowl Count By Forest Dept staff & researchers

Wetland management or/and removal of exotic weeds or/and water quality assessment and treatment

82

Indicator : Heronry



Minimum integrity

thresholds

Confidence level of






15 species

Good Current: Total Count

Total count By Forest Department Staff & volunteers


Wetland management or/and removal of exotic weeds or/and water quality assessment and treatment

New: Total Count

Total count twice a year during Aug-Sept. and Nov.- Dec. by Forest Department Staff, NGOs, research institutes & volunteers

Number of nesting trees

Current:

New: during census of waterfowl during monsoon

Waterfowl Count By Forest Dept staff & volunteers


Wetland management

83

Indicator : Species abundance of mammals



Minimum integrity

thresholds

Confidence level of






Species and number of ungulates

Good Current: Annual census

Water hole count in summer By Forest Department Staff & volunteers


Habitat management

New:

84

Indicator : Number of active python holes



Minimum integrity

thresholds

Confidence level of






Number of active holes

Good Current:

Summer and winter By Forest Department Staff & volunteers


New: BNHS count per “beat”

85

Indicator : Floral species abundance and regeneration

Major Site Values assessed by the indicator : Biological diversity (Biodiversity health of Habitats)

Justification for selection : Abundance and regeneration of native species is direct indicator of health of habitat

Minimum integrity

thresholds

Confidence level of


Monitoring protocol (including frequency of measurement and

person/s responsible) Cost and funding source


Species Dominance & Regeneration of native species in woodland

Good Current:

By Forest Department Staff & volunteers

Budgeted in APO, funds from State Government

Assessment of health of the ecosystem

New: random sampling and vegetation mapping

Species Dominance in wetland

Good Current:

New: random sampling & vegetation mapping


Assessment of health of the ecosystem; manage overgrowth of certain macrophytes

86

Minimum integrity

thresholds

Confidence level of


Monitoring protocol (including frequency of measurement and

person/s responsible) Cost and funding source


Recruitment of tree saplings in grassland

Good Current: New: Rapid vegetation assessment method as prescribed by WII

By Forest Dept and volunteers Once

Grassland management

Regeneration of Invasive Alien Species (P. juliflora, Caassia tora, Parthenium, Eichhornia crasipes, Lantana)

Good Current: New: Rapid vegetation assessment method as prescribed by WII

87

Indicator : Flood Pulsing (water level monitoring)

Major Site Values assessed by the indicator : Other natural values

Justification for selection : Flooding and drying of wetland are essential to maintain its ecological character

Minimum integrity

thresholds

Confidence level of






Extent and depth of wetland area

Good Current:

New: water level measurement at selected sites

By Forest Department Staff & volunteers

Water budgeting for wetland management

88

Worksheet 11b for Tool 11: Assessment of Outcomes of Management

Major Site Values : Biodiversity

Indicator Minimum Integrity

Threshold (determined in Worksheet 1)

Status of indicator in relation to threshold Rating

Management interventions: urgency and details of actions

Waterfowl count (number and species)

20000 waterfowl 22 species (see Annexure-III)

Over 13000 in 2005-06; 22 species. During winter of 2006-07, seven species of waterfowls were recorded with a total count of 36 as this was the drought year.

Water augmentation

Heronry 15 species 15 species in 2005 but heronry failed in 2006 due to failure of monsoon (See Box 9)

-do-

Number of globally threatened species of raptors

8 species (See Annexure-I)

8 species in 2005-06 and 6 species were recorded during 2006-07

Water augmentation and grassland management

Significant concern, condition is deteriorating

Significant concern, condition is unchanged

89

Box 9: Monitoring heronry in Keoladeo National Park: A biological indicator of wetland health

Heronry species being high in the trophic pyramid of aquatic ecosystems can play a vital role as indicator species of environmental changes and can indicate problems with species lower in the pyramid. Massive heronries of KNP were described as early as 1943 by Ali (1953). The park ranks among top 10 heronries in India and over 5000 pairs or nests have been recorded in the past decade (Subramanya 2003).

A total of 15 heronry species breed in the park ; 3 species of Cormorants (Large Phalacrocorax carbo, Indian Shag Phalacrocorax fuscicollis, and Little Cormorants Phalacrocorax niger), 1 species of Darter (Anhinga melanogaster), 4 species of Egrets (Large Casmerodius albus, Median Mesophoyx intermedia, and Little Egretta garzetta, and Cattle Egrets Bubulcus ibis,), 3 species of Herons (Black-crowned Night Nycticorax nycticorax, Grey Ardea cinerea, and Purple Herons Ardea purpuria), 2 species of Storks (Painted Mycteria leucocephala, Open-bill Anastomus oscitans, Black-necked Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus and White-necked Storks Ciconia ciconia), 1 species of Ibis (Oriental White Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus) and 1 species of Spoonbill (Eurasian Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia).

As part of the Enhancing Our Heritage Project, herony monitoring was taken up during 2005 to 2007. All, except Black-necked and White-necked Storks which nest solitarily were monitored. During 2005, a total of 13 species (Indian Shag, Little Cormorant, Darter, Large, Median, Little and Cattle Egrets, Black-crowned Night and Grey Herons, Painted and Open-bill Storks, Oriental White Ibis, Eurasian Spoonbill) bred in the park. A total of 1975 nests were recorded with maximum nests being of Indian Shag (495) followed by Painted Storks (450), Little Cormorants (358) and Open-bill Storks (223). Four heronry colonies were set up in 2005 the major being along Ghana canal Block in Block– K, and smaller ones in Blocks- D, B and L (See Keoladeo National Park map). They nested on trees such as Acacia nilotica, Prosopis juliflora and Salvadora persica. Interestingly the mesquite Prosopis juliflora – an alien invasive species was found to be supporting maximum number of nests (62%) than native species. However, the larger heronry species like Painted storks and White Ibis exclusively utilized Acacia trees for nesting.

During 2006 and 2007 no heronry was established although nesting attempts were made in both the years by Open-bill Storks which they later abandoned because of the unavailability of water in the park, due to monsoon failure in these years. The previous studies have shown that the nesting population of the heronry species fluctuates with the time of release of water, the quantum of water and fish that enter the park (Vijayan 1991). The late release of water after July affects breeding success of heronry species in the park. The nest occupancy recorded by BNHS research team between 1982 to 1989 varied from 610 (1986) to 8468 (1988) and in times of droughts and non availability of water in the park, birds did not breed. However, the colony revived in the years of good monsoon again (Vijayan 1991). The feeding requirements of most of these species during breeding season are met from the water bodies scattered outside the park (see box on satellite wetlands) as the major species of fish which are fed to the nestlings are not breeding residents, but are those that enter the park with the water from Ajan Dam. Therefore, if the supply of water to KNP ceases it could mean the end of heronries.

90

Worksheet for Tool 12: Achievement of Principal Management Objectives Assessment

Principal Management Objective : To maintain the ecological seral stages of the this ecosystem for avifaunal diversity in particular and others in general

Desired outcomes : To maintain the wetland habitat

Performance assessment Performance indicators and target

Data and methods of collection

Assessment of indicator in relation to target

Congregation of waterfowl

20000 waterfowl Field survey and bird counts

13000 birds

Species richness in water fowl

22 species Field survey and bird counts

22 species

Protection

No. of cases pending beyond six months

Forest department records

This indicator has been suggested now therefore, has not been assessed presently, but will be done in future

Socio-economic

No. of EDC activity carried out with every EDC


14 EDCs were established in the current year (2006-07) these were involved in eradication of Prosopis juliflora from terrestrial areas, timber extracted was given to communities providing direct benefit

Education and awareness

No. of activities, in form of nature camps, programmes with school children, awareness local residents (villagers, both in surrounding area as well as catchments) no. of interpretation programmes for visitors


Nature camps were organised for school children Organised interpretation programmes are lacking

91

ANNEXURE-I

Raptor species of the Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur (* denotes new record) (1984-2007)

S.No. English Name Species IUCN Threat Category

(2007) 1. Oriental Honey-buzzard Pernis ptilorhyncus 2. Black-winged Kite Elanus caeruleus 3. Brahminy Kite Haliastur indus 4. Red Kite (Extralimital) Milvus milvus NT 5. Black Kite Milvus migrans 6. Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 7. Shikra Accipiter badius 8. Besra Accipiter virgatus 9. Eurasian Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus 10. Long-legged Buzzard Buteo rufinus 11. Common Buzzard* Buteo buteo 12. White-eyed Buzzard Butastur teesa 13. Bonelli's Eagle Hieraaetus fasciatus 14. Booted Eagle Hieraaetus pennatus 15. Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca VU 16. Tawny Eagle Aquila rapax 17. Steppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis 18. Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga VU 19. Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila hestata VU 20. Osprey Pandion haliaetus 21. White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla 22. Pallas's Fish Eagle Haliaeetus leucoryphus VU 23. Red-headed Vulture Sarcogyps catvus CR 24. Cinereous Vulture Aegypius monachus NT 25. Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus EN

92

S.No. English Name Species IUCN Threat Category (2007)

26. Long-billed Vulture Gyps indicus CR 27. White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis CR 28. Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus 29. Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus NT 30. Montagu's Harrier Circus pygargus 31. Pied Harrier Circus meianoieucos 32. Eurasian Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus 33. Short-toed Snake-Eagle Circaetus gallicus 34. Crested Serpent-Eagle Spilornis cheela 35. Laggar Falcon Falco jugger NT 36. Saker Falcon Falco cherrug 37. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 38. Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 39. Red-necked Falcon falco chicquera 40. Eurasian Hobby Falco subbuteo 41. Oriental Hobby Falco severus

93

ANNEXURE-II

Waterfowls and other water dependent birds recorded in the Satellite wetlands during 2005-2007 (# denotes birds sighted in KNP)

S.No. Bird species Scientific name 1. Little Grebe# Tachybaptus ruficollis 2. Red-necked Grebe # Podiceps griseigena 3. Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus 4. Rosy Pelican# Pelecanus onocrotalus 5. Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus 6. Little Cormorant # Phalacrocorax niger 7. Indian Shag # Phalacrocorax fuscicollis 8. Great Cormorant # Phalacrocorax carbo 9. Darter # Anhinga melanogaster 10. Little Egret # Egretta garzetta 11. Grey Heron # Ardea cinerea 12. Purple Heron# Ardea purpurea 13. Large Egret # Casmerodius albus 14. Median Egret# Mesophoyx intermedia 15. Cattle Egret # Bubulcus ibis 16. Indian Pond-Heron# Ardeola grayii 17. Little Green Heron # Butorides striatus 18. Night-Heron # Nycticorax nycticorax 19. Chestnut Bittern Ixobrychus cinnamomeus 20. Painted Stork # Mycteria leucocephala 21. Asian Openbill-Stork# Anastomus oscitans 22. Black Stork # Ciconia nigra 23. White-necked Stork# Ciconia episcopus 24. European White Stork# Ciconia ciconia

94

S.No. Bird species Scientific name 25. Black-neck Stork # Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus 26. Glossy Ibis # Plegadis falcinellus 27. White Ibis # Threskiornis melanocephalus 28. Black Ibis # Pseudibis papillosa 29. Eurasian Spoonbill# Platalea leucorodia 30. Greater Flamingo # Phoenicopterus ruber 31. Lesser Flamingo Phoenicopterus minor 32. Lesser Whistling-Duck# Dendrocygna javanica 33. Greylag Goose # Anser anser 34. Bar-headed Goose# Anser indicus 35. Brahminy Shelduck # Tadorna ferruginea 36. Common Shelduck # Tadorna tadorna 37. Comb Duck # Sarkidiornis melanotos 38. Cotton Teal # Nettapus coromandelianus 39. Gadwall # Anas strepera 40. Eurasian Wigeon# Anas penelope 41. Mallard # Anas platyrhynchos 42. Spot-billed Duck # Anas poecilorhyncha 43. Northern Shoveller Anas clypeata 44. Northern Pintail # Anas acuta 45. Garganey # Anas querquedula 46. Common Teal # Anas crecca 47. Red-crested Pochard # Rhodonessa rufina 48. Common Pochard # Aythya ferina 49. Ferruginous Pochard # Aythya nyroca 50. Tufted Pochard # Aythya fuligula 51. Eurasian Marsh-Harrier# Circus aeruginosus

95

S.No. Bird species Scientific name 52. Greater Spotted Eagle # Aquila clanga 53. Osprey # Pandion haliaetus 54. Sarus Crane# Grus antigone 55. Demoisel Crane Grus virgo 56. Common Crane # Grus grus 57. White-breast Waterhen # Amaurornis phoenicurus 58. Purple Moorhen # Porphyrio porphyrio 59. Common Moorhen # Gallinula chloropus 60. Common Coot # Fulica atra 61. Masked Finfoot Heliopais personata 62. Pheasant-tail Jacana # Hydrophasianus chirurgus 63. Bronze-winged Jacana # Metopidius indicus 64. Greater Painted-Snipe # Rostratula benghalensis 65. Little Ringed Plover # Charadrius dubius 66. Kentish Plover Charadrius alexandrinus 67. River Lapwing # Vanellus duvaucelii 68. Red-wattled Lapwing # Vanellus indicus 69. Sociable Lapwing # Vanellus gregarius 70. White-tailed Lapwing # Vanellus leucurus 71. Common Snipe # Gallinago gallinago 72. Black-tailed Godwit # Limosa limosa 73. Eurasian Curlew # Numenius arquata 74. Common Redshank # Tringa totanus 75. Marsh Sandpiper # Tringa stagnatilis 76. Common Greenshank # Tringa nebularia 77. Green Sandpiper # Tringa ochropus 78. Wood Sandpiper # Tringa glareola

96

S.No. Bird species Scientific name 79. Common Sandpiper # Actitis hypoleucos 80. Little Stint # Calidris minuta 81. Temminck’s Stint Calidris temminckii 82. Ruff # Philomachus pugnax 83. Black-winged Stilt # Himantopus himantopus 84. Pied Avocet # Recurvirostra avosetta 85. Great Thick-knee Esacus recurvirostris 86. Brown-headed Gull Larus brunnicephalus 87. Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus 88. Herring/Yellow-legged Gull Larus cachinnans 89. River Tern # Sterna aurantia 90. Little Tern Sterna albifrons 91. Black-bellied Tern Sterna acuticauda 92. Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybridus 93. Small Indian Pratincole Glareola lactea 94. Indian Skimmer Rynchops albicollis 95. Small Blue Kingfisher Alcedo atthis 96. White-breasted Kingfisher # Halcyon smyrnensis 97. Lesser Pied Kingfisher # Ceryle rudis

97

ANNEXURE-III

Waterfowl species of the Keoladeo National Park (1983-2007) (** denotes stragglers)

SN English Name Scientific Name Status 1. Lesser Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna javanica Resident 2. Lesser White-fronted Goose** Anser erythropus Winter visitor 3. Greylag Goose Anser anser Winter visitor 4. Bar-headed Goose Anser indicus Winter visitor 5. Brahminy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea Winter visitor 6. Common Shelduck** Tadorna tadorna Winter visitor 7. Comb Duck Sarkidiornis melanotos Resident 8. Cotton Teal Nettapus coromandelianus Resident 9. Gadwall Anas strepera Winter visitor 10. Falcated Duck ** Anas falcata Winter visitor 11. Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope Winter visitor 12. Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Winter visitor 13. Spot-billed Duck Anas poecilorhyncha Resident 14. Northern Shoveller Anas clypeata Winter visitor 15. Northern Pintail Anas acuta Winter visitor 16. Garganey Anas querquedula Winter visitor 17. Baikal Teal ** Anas formosa Winter visitor 18. Common Teal Anas crecca Winter visitor 19. Red-crested Pochard Rhodonessa rufina Winter visitor 20. Common Pochard Aythya ferina Winter visitor 21. Ferruginous Pochard Aythya nyroca Winter visitor 22. Baer’s Pochard** Aythya baeri Winter visitor 23. Tufted Pochard Aythya fuligula Winter visitor 24. Greater Scaup** Aythya marila Winter visitor

unesco- iucn enhancing our heritage project

Documents