Management Effectiveness Management Effectiveness Evaluation in India and NepalEvaluation in India and Nepal

V.B. Mathur, B.C.Chowdhury, S.Singsit, N.K.Vasu, KCA Arun Prasad, Shivraj Bhattavbm@wii.gov.in

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

South Asian Sites :

• Keoladeo National Park

• Kaziranga National Park

• Royal Chitwan National Park

Royal Chitwan NPKeoladeo NP

Kaziranga NP

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

Kaziranga National Park WHS 1985

Royal Chitwan National Park WHS 1984

Keoladeo National Park WHS 1985

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

Kaziranga National Park

Satellite image of Kaziranga National Park and adjoining areas

Focal Management TargetsFocal Management Targets

World Heritage Values Additional Attributes Information on status

One-horned Indian Rhinoceros

World’s largest population A ‘keystone’ species of the wet grassland habitat in mainly the Brahmaputra river flood plains.

Very Good

Wild Buffalo, Eastern Swamp Deer

World’s largest population Two obligate species mainly confined to the site.

Very Good

Asian Elephant, Large population Approximately 30% of north east Indian population confined to the site

Very Good

Tiger Highest density in any protected area

The site is under consideration to be given a project tiger site

Raptors, Turtles, High diversity Significant breeding habitat of 13 species of turtle and several species of Raptors

Good

Resident and migratory waterfowl

High density Already identified as IBA site Good

River floodplains and wetlands

Large diversity of aquatic fauna, Important Bird Area (IBA), important waterfowl flyway and wintering ground

Breeding habitat for a large number of fish species and Gangetic river Dolphins (30% of the Indian river dolphin population)

Good

Bio

dive

rsity

Val

ues

more…

Kaziranga NP

Stresses & ThreatsThreats to World Heritage Values

Key threat-related factor to be assessed Focal ManagementTarget affected

Attributes for consideration in status measurement

Current Threats

STRESS: PoachingSOURCE: (i) High demand in international market.(ii) Poor economic condition of local communities

One horned Indian Rhinoceros

Protection measures, population trends and rate of mortality

STRESS: Habitat degradationSOURCE: (i) Siltation caused by deforestation in catchments areas(ii) Unmonitored practice of grassland management using fire as a tool.(iii) Exotic weed invasion(iv) Livestock grazing in fringe areas

Grassland and wetland flora and fauna

Loss of resources (e.g. food, shelter) as well as decimation of slow moving non target species due to intense fire requires monitoring

STRESS: Habitat fragmentationSOURCES: National Highway, surrounding land use pattern

Terrestrial vertebrates- particularly migratory fauna

Interferes in animal movement particularly during floods

STRESS: Habitat lossSOURCE: Erosion due to change in river courses and breach in embankments

All species and habitats Possible change in riverfront ecosystem and decline in Park area.

STRESS: Pollution and contamination SOURCE: (i) Use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers in the tea gardens near the Park

Aquatic and grassland & wetland species and habitat

Harmful effects on fishes, birds, plants and others as well as enhanced eutrophication of wetlands.

….more

Kaziranga NP

Stakeholder Engagement & Partners in Management

Factor Surrounding Villagers

Tourism Industry Govt. Departments (Excluding Tourism

Department)

Media

Understanding Stakeholders

Economic dependency Moderate High Low Low

Negative Impacts Moderate Low Low Low

Positive Impacts Moderate High Low Moderate

Willingness to engage High High Moderate Moderate

Political / Social Influence Low Moderate High Moderate

Organization of stakeholders

Not organized Partly organized Not organized Partly organized at individual levels

Assessment of Stakeholder Engagement

What opportunities do stakeholders have to contribute to management?

Tourist guides, small shops and ancillary to tourism industry such as home stay provisions and transport

Promotion of tourism, publicity, generation of revenue

Infrastructure development Education and awareness, publicity

What is the level of engagement of the stakeholder?

Low Moderate Moderate Moderate

Summary Overall adequacy of stakeholder engagement (Very good, Good, Fair, Poor)

Low Good Fair Fair

Main Issues Criteria Maximum score

Current score Effectiveness (percentage)

Legal status 1. Legislation 3 2 67%

2. Law enforcement 3 1.5 50%

Information availability and Planning ability

3. Planning system 3 2 67%

4. Ecosystem inventory 3 2 67%

Ecosystem management and Vulnerability control

5. Ecosystem managementa. Monitoring & Evaluationb. Researchc. Restoration

3 2 67%

6. Control over access/use of KNP 3 1.5 50%

Management systems 7. Facility development 3 1.5 50%

8. Maintenance 3 1.5 50%

9. Staffing and staff training 3 1.5 50%

10. Personnel management 3 1.5 50%

11. Communication 3 1.5 50%

Finance and budgets 12. Financial sustainability 3 1.5 50%

13. Budget control and record keeping 3 1.5 50%

Partnership 14. Communication with stakeholders / partners

3 1.5 50%

15. Communication with neighbors 3 1.5 50%

16. Benefits to surrounding community 3 1.5 50%

Visitors and nature-conservation tourism

17. Control over visitor access 3 2 67%

18. Visitor opportunities 3 2 67%

19. Visitor facilities 3 1.5 50%

Management Process Assessment

Focal Management

Target

Size Rating Condition Rating Landscape Overall Biodiversity Health Rating

Rhinoceros Good Good Fair Good

Wild-Buffalo Fair Good Fair Fair

Swamp-Deer Fair Fair Fair Fair

Tiger Very Good Good Fair Good

BengalFlorican

Fair Fair Fair Fair

AquaticHabitats

Good Good Good Good

Grassland Very Good Good Good Good

Biodiversity Health Assessment

Plug in the gaps identified through WCPA management effectiveness evaluation framework

Implement the recommendations made in the initial management effectiveness evaluation

Seek funding support for major management interventions

The Path Ahead

Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur (India)

Design aspect Strengths of reserve design in relation to this aspect Weaknesses of reserve design in relation to this aspect

A. Ecological integrity

Key areas Mosaic of habitats inside the NP helps in supporting high species diversity.

Refuge area/ satellite key resource are not in the WH site design.

Size Small area has unique mosaic of habitats whose boundary is clearly defined.

Absence of buffer zone around the park makes PA vulnerable to all forms of biotic pressures.

External interactions Presence of mosaic of habitat helps in limiting and controlling direct external interaction. Regulations & governance by allied departments helps in maintaining refuge areas.

Adjacent land use particularly subsistence agriculture, leads to increased dependency on the park resources mainly water and fodder often causing conflict.

Connectivity Seeds of primary and secondary producers flow in with water inflow from watershed, particularly fish fry that sustain the heronry.

Seeds of certain weeds enter the same way.

B. Community well-being

Key areas Direct economic benefits through tourism, water and fodder availability.

There are no legal provisions for physical utilization of resources inside a NP.

Size Small size provides easy accessibility for park managers to the villagers.

Occasionally crop damage by wild herbivores is high. Small size limits resource availability.

External interactions Providing opportunities for multi cultural exchange due to influx of large number of foreign tourist.

Loss of cultural values.

Legal status Stringent legal provisions provide high integrity to the park. No resources sharing can be legally permitted within the NP.

C. Management factors

Legal status Legal status is clear which helps in better management. No resource sharing possible.

Access points Controlled few access points. The large interface between PA & villages facilitates easy access at times by breaching of boundary wall.

Neighbours The park has a well defined demarcation of boundary through a 5’ high stone masonry wall.

Deliberate breach of wall at many places to facilitate the entry of livestock defeats the purpose.

Design Assessment

Criteria habitat management Score action wise Max score Current score %

Veg. Management (9 actions)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 94, NR, NR, 4, 0, 3, NR, NR, NR

20 11 55%

Water management(10 actions)

NA, 4, 4, 4, 0, NR, NR, 4, 4, 4 28 24 85.68%

Protection General (14 actions)Fire protection (6 actions)

3, 2, 0, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 0, 3, 3, 0, 04, 0, NR, NR, NR, 3

56 33 58.74%

Tourism facilities(22 actions)

NR, 4, NR, 0, NA, NR, NR, NR, 0, 0, 4, 4, 4, 30, NA, 0, NA, NA, 3, 4, 2

52 28 69.3%

Ecodevelopment(14 action)

0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 56 6 10.71%

Monitoring & Research (8 actions)

0, 0, 4, 0, 2, 0, 0 32 6 18.75%

Assessment of Current Management Plan Implementation

Focal Management Target

Size rating Condition rating Landscape context rating

Overall Biodiversity Health Rating

Heronry Poor Good Poor Poor

Management of wetland & ecological succession

Poor Fair Poor Poor

Biodiversity Health Assessment

Focal Management Target

Indicator to be Measured

Key Factor / Biodiversity Health Category Informed

Methods to be Employed

Frequency Timing Who will Measure

Cost Funding Source

Heronry

No. of species Species abundance

Direct count Monthly count from July through October

Any time of day

Park staff & volunteers

Included in administ-rative cost

State / Central Govern-ment

Nesting success

Annual recruitment

-do- -do-

Meteorological data

Conditions suitable for nesting

Standard methodology

Everyday Park administration & Researchers

-do- -do-

Abundance of trees

-do Ocular observation for abundance of mounds

Once a year Any time in July

Park staff -do- -do-

Terrestrial habitats

Extent of wetland area

Extent & stage of succession

Ocular estimation of vegetation

Once a year Draw down phase

Park staff -do- -do-

Monitoring Plan Template

Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal

Focal Management Targets World Heritage Values Additional Attributes Information on status

Biodiversity Values

Maintenance of natural ecosystems of RCNP

The biological richness of the park is outstanding with 8 ecosystem types, which include 7 forest types, 6 grassland types, 5 wetland and 3 main river system habitats.

Only viable corridor linking tropical to temperate ecosystems.

Very Good

Management of critical and viable habitat for rare and endangered species

The park harbors the rare tree fern, Cycas, screw pine and many critical and viable habitats for rare and endangered species.

Links Parsa WLR, Balmiki tiger Reserve (India) providing biggest viable habitat for tiger.One of the Global 200 eco-region site.

Very Good

Rare and endangered species conservation

RCNP harbors second largest population of Asiatic Rhino (544), Tiger (more than 120) with 60 breeding individuals, Gaur (above 200), Sloth Bear (above 200), viable population of Gharial and many others endangered mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.

Provide breeding habitat for 526 species including endangered migratory birds, other mammals, reptiles, amphibians, insects including more than 156 species of butterflies.Successful captive breeding site for endangered wildlife like Gharial, Mugger, Turtle, Elephant etc.

Very Good

More……

Focal Management Targets

Threats to World Heritage Values

Key threat-related factor to be assessed Focal Management Target affected

Attributes for consideration in status measurement

Current threats Stress: Alternation of habitat due to soil erosion and flood

All FMT Annual measure of selected habitats

Source: Improper management of the upper catchments of Rapti and Narayani rivers: fragile geo-morphology.

Management of upper catchments area.

Stress: Reduction in habitat availability due to proliferation of invasive species

FMT 1 Habitat lossChange in species compositionLoss of endemic taxa

Source: Change in microclimatic condition, organic matter in flow with water

Extent of area infested with weed

Stress: Contamination of water bodies FMT 1 Water quality monitoringCensus of aquatic fauna

Source: Industrial pollution, intensive agriculture using organic chemicals

Monitoring of industrial effluents

Stress: Decrease in wildlife population of key species

FMT 1, 2 Census of key speciesMonitoring of offences

Source: Wildlife poaching Official records and publication

Stress: Rising antagonism of local communities towards park

FMT 3 Amount of compensationCompensation process

Source: Livestock and crop depredation Regular monitoring More…..

Stresses & Threats

Focal Management Target / Management Objective

Local people

Local hote-liers

Tourist Nature guides

NGOs Scientific Research Organizations

Govt. Organizations

RNA Overall Stakeholders Engagement for Target/ Objective

Biodiversity Values

Fair Poor Good Good Good Good Good Good Good

Other Natural Values

Fair X X X Good Good Good Good Good

Cultural/Social Values

Good Good Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good

Stakeholder Engagement & Partners in Management

Design aspect Strengths of reserve design in relation to this aspect Weaknesses of reserve design in relation to this aspect

A. Ecological integrity

Key areas Outstanding biological richness supporting 8 ecosystems and different species.

Size In addition to 932 sq. km. core zone, 750 sq. km of has been added as buffer zone.

External interactions

Parsa WL in the east and Balmiki Tiger Reserve in the south provides additional habitat.

Connectivity The park includes inner Terai, Churia, Terai, which are connected to Mahabharat ranges through various corridors.

B. Community well-being

Key areas Direct benefit by sharing 50% of park revenue, providing livelihood essentials (thatch grass) to local people.

Size 750 sq. km. buffer zone through community forestry provides the opportunity to meet the demand of NR to local people. It ultimately reduces pressure to park. The BZ forests also provide additional habitat for wildlife.

Requires lot of financial and human resources.

External interactions

Enhances the cross-cultural exchange, which supports different economic, and management skill enhancement opportunities.

Increased inflation causing difficulty for local people.

Legal status Strong Acts and Regulations with efficient implementation mechanism. More…..

Design Assessment

WCPA Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) Framework requires a comprehensive understanding for successful implementation

WCPA MEE Framework requires appropriate adjustments to suit the varying site attributes

Outcomes Assessment Process comprising Biodiversity Health Assessment and Threat

Assessment requires modification and harmonization with other similar assessment tools in use

Lessons Learnt from Project Implementation in South Asia

T H A N K S