unesco- iucn enhancing our heritage project€¦ · unesco- iucn enhancing our heritage project:...
TRANSCRIPT
UNESCO- IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage Project: Monitoring and Managing for Success in Natural World Heritage Sites
Final Management Effectiveness Evaluation Report Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India
November 2007
Table of Content
Project Background 1 How the Evaluation was carried out 2 The Project Workbook and Tool Kits 3
Section 1: Introduction 4-7
Section 2: Context and Planning Assessment 8-36 Tool 1: Identifying Site Values and Management Objectives 11 Tool 2: Identifying Threats 14 Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholder/Partners 28 Tool 4: Review of National Context 35 Section 3: Planning 37-48 Tool 5: Assessment of Management Planning 37 Tool 6: Design Assessment 44 Section 4: Inputs and Process Assessment 49-51 Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs 49 Section 5: Assessment of Management Process 52-64 Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes 52 Section 6: Outputs 65-69 Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation 66 Tool 10: Assessment of Work/Site Output Indicators 67 Section 7: Outcomes 70-78 Tool 11: Assessing the Outcomes of Management – Ecological Integrity 70 Tool 12: Assessing the Outcomes of Management – Achievement of Principal Objectives 75
List of Boxes Box 1: Kaziranga National Park ~ 100 Years of Success Story 5 Box 2: IUCN-WCPA framework for Management Effectiveness Evaluation 7 Box 3: Protection Strategy 17 Box 4: Conservation of Beels for Waterbirds in Kaziranga National Park, Assam 20 Box 5: Management of Invasive Species in Kaziranga National Park, Assam 24 Box 6: Declaration of Kaziranga Tiger Reserve in 2007 46 Box 7 Raptor community of Kaziranga National Park, Assam 72 Box 8: Kaziranga Centenary Celebrations (1905-2005) 77 References 79 List of Annexures
Annexure-I: List of water birds recorded during 2005-2006 from Kaziranga National Park. 80-82 Annexure-II: List of raptor species recorded from the Kaziranga National Park during 2005-2006. 83-84 List of Figure Figure 1: Location Map of Kaziranga National Park, Assam 8 Figure 2: Number of Rhinos Lost Due to Poaching Since 1965 17 Figure 3: Patrolling camps in Kaziranga National Park 18 Figure 4: Beels of Kaziranga National Park (1970-2001) 20 Figure 5: GIS Locations of Mimosa patch in Kaziranga National Park, Assam 24
1
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 Kaziranga 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 November, 2007 and the results are presented in this report.
2
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 November ’07. The core team comprised of the following: Site Officers : Mr. Buragohain, Director
Mr. Utpal Bora, Divisional Forest Officer Mr. Rajendra Garawad, Assistant Conservator of Forest Mr. R. Sharma , Wild Life Research Officer
Mr. Boro, Range Officer Assam Forest Department : Mr. M. C. Malakar Mr. B. S. Bonal WII Scientist and Coordinators : Dr. V.B. Mathur Mr. B.C. Choudhary Mr. N. K. Vasu Civil Society Representative : Mr. Anwaruddin Choudhari
Mr. Gautam Narayan WII UNESCO Project Leaders : 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 8 Boxes.
3
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.
4
Section 1: Introduction
Kaziranga National Park (KNP) got inscription on the World Heritage list in the 9th Session of the World Heritage Committee on 6/12/1985. Kaziranga National Park, known worldwide for its success in the conservation of one horned Indian Rhinoceros, also provides habitat for a number of threatened species and migratory birds. A symbol of dedication for the conservation of wildlife and their habitat, Kaziranga, with a National Park status represents single largest established protected area within the North-east Brahamputra Valley (9A) Biogeographical Province (Rodgers et al 2002) that supports the wide range of flora from microscopic aquatic plants to lofty moist deciduous trees and fauna ranging from the soil invertebrates to mega fauna such as the Rhino and the elephant.
Examples of riverine and fluvial processes representing the ongoing ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of the riverine flood plain ecosystems results from the annual flooding of mighty Brahmaputra River. In this regard, Kaziranga in the Brahmaputra valley floodplains offers an important refuge to a rich biological heritage.
The landscape formed by complex of sprawling grasslands, numerous water bodies and woodlands provide an ideal mix of habitats for a variety of flora and fauna. With adequate protection and in-situ conservation efforts that date back to almost a century, the grasslands and the mega fauna have been able to sustain in such a manner that one of the largest assemblages of these can be seen today in the wild. Prominent among them are the charismatic ‘BIG FIVE’-The Great Indian One horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) The Asiatic Wild Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) The Asiatic Elephant (Elephas maximus), The Swamp deer, (Cervus duvauvceli ranjitsinghi),The Tiger (Panthera tigris).
The area also falls at the junction of the Australasia and Indo-Asian flyway thus providing an important migrating, breeding and nesting site for over 480 species of avifauna and has been recognised as an Important Bird Area (IBA). Significant diversity in herpetofauna and other lesser-known life forms thus provide considerable Conservation, Research, Education and Recreation values.
LOCATION:
Kaziranga National Park located is situated in the civil districts of Golaghat and Nagaon in Assam State of India.
Geographic Coordinates to the nearest second are :
Centre point: N 260 40.246’ ; E 930 21.605’
North-west corner: N 260 35.026’ ; E 930 08.784’
South-east corner: N 260 41.518’ ; E 930 35.251’
5
Box 1: Kaziranga National Park ~ 100 Years of Success Story
• 1904 : Visit of Lady Curzon, wife of the then British Viceroy,
• June 01, 1905 : Proposal for Kaziranga Reserve Forest ( 57,273.6 acre).
• January 03, 1908 : Declared Kaziranga Reserve Forest (56,544 acres).
• January 28, 1913 : An area of 13,509 acres of R.F. added.
• November 10, 1916 : Declared as a Game Sanctuary.
• 1937 : Opened for Visitors
• 1950 : Renamed as Kaziranga Game Sanctuary.
• 1966 : First census of large mammals.
• February 11, 1974 : Renamed as Kaziranga National Park
• December 06, 1985 : Inscribed on the World Heritage Site.
• 2005 : Centenary Celebrations
7
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 Kaziranga National Park was included as one of three pilot sites in South Asia. The other two sites are Keoladeo National Park, Rajasthan and Chitwan National Park, Nepal. An Initial Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) as per the IUCN MEE Framework (see Box 2) 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 Kaziranga National Park has been
conducted through a series of stakeholders’ consultations organized between February
2007 and November 2007. The results of the evaluation are presented in the subsequent
sections.
Box 2. IUCN-WCPA framework for
Management Effectiveness Evaluation
8
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 Kaziranga National Park
• Kaziranga National Park (859.42 km2) is situated in the flood plains of the Brahmaputra River and the entire area has been formed by silt
deposition carried by the different river systems flowing through it. It is the largest undivided and representative protected area of
Bramhaputra Valley flood plain grassland and forest habitats. The floristic composition of the Kaziranga National Park comprises of
following forest types and biomes (Champion and Seth, 1968):
• Eastern Wet alluvial grasslands 4D / 2S2
• Assam Alluvial plains Semi-evergreen forests 2B/C1a
• Tropical moist mixed deciduous forests 3C3
• Eastern Dillenia Swamp forests 4D/SS5
• Wetlands
• Sandy “chaurs”
9
Area under different land cover types in Kaziranga Natioanl Park excluding additions and eroded area (Kushwaha, 1997)
Sl. No. Land Cover Type Area km2 % Area
1 Woodland 114.01 27.95
2 Short grass 12.30 3.01
3 Tall Grass 248.85 61.01
4 Beels 24.32 5.96
5 Jiya Daphlu 3.96 0.97
6 Mora Diphlu 2.84 0.70
7 Sand 1.62 0.40
Total 407.90 100.00
Biodiversity values:
Assemblage of rare, endangered, threatened flora and fauna :
• World’s largest population of The Great Indian One horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis),
• Significant populations of Asiatic Wild Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), Asiatic Elephant (Elephas maximus), Swamp deer, (Cervus duvauvceli
ranjitsinghi), Tiger (Panthera tigris).
• Resident and migratory avifauna of over 490 species, junction of Australasia and Indo-Asian flyway, 25 globally threatened spp. including
Bengal florican
10
Other natural values:
• Tropical floodplain grassland
• Functional ecological floodplain ecosystem
Cultural values:
• Unique secular worship of ‘Kakomai’-forest deity
• Unique lifestyle of Mishing, Karbi and other tribes
Economic Values:
• Employment generation for local people (Forest department and tourism related)
• Tourism revenue for Forest and Tourism Departments
Educational values:
• Education and research values about tropical biodiversity and ecological processes.
• Significant diversity in herpetofauna and other lesser-known life forms thus provide considerable Conservation, Research, Education and
Recreation values.
11
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
Great Indian one horned rhinoceros Yes (ix) Nomination document and IUCN evaluation Management plan (2003-2013) + older mgmt plan
Asiatic wild buffalo
Yes (ix) Nomination document and IUCN evaluation Management plan (2003-2013) + older mgmt plan
Tiger Yes(ix) -do-
Eastern swamp deer
Yes(ix) Management plan
Asiatic elephant Yes (ix) Management plan
Bengal Florican Yes(ix) Management plan
Resident and migratory avifauna (includes 25 globally threatened spp.)
No Management plan and other publications* reference
Biodiversity Values
Assemblage of rare, endangered, threatened flora and fauna
Yes(ix) -do-
Tropical floodplain grassland
Yes (x) Management plan, Nomination document and IUCN evaluation
Functional ecological floodplain ecosystem
Yes (x) -do-
Other Natural Values
12
List the major site values Is this a World Heritage value? Information sources used for determining the values
Cultural Values
Unique secular worship of ‘Kakomai’-forest deity
No
Management plan and other popular publication
Unique lifestyle of Mishing, Karbi and other tribes in the Zone of Influence
No
Management plan and other documents
Employment generation for local people No Management Plan Economic
Values
Tourism revenue for the Forest and Tourism Depts.
No Management Plan, Annual Plan of OperationsAPO
Educational Values
Considerable education and research values about tropical biodiversity and ecological processes.
No
Management Plan
Ecodevelopment activities for the socio-economic improvement of the villages around the park provide tangible and non-tangible benefits
No
Management Plan Other Social Values
Recreation opportunities
13
Worksheet 1b for Tool 1: Documenting management objectives and their relationship to site values
The current Management Plan (2003-04 to 20012-13) has formulated management objectives for species, habitat requirements, research, recreation and resource dependence of communities.
Principal Management Objectives Major values that are related to this objective
To maintain and wherever necessary restore the demographic features relating to the populations of all endangered, endemic, vulnerable, rare species of animals and plants with special focus on Rhino, Tiger and their habitat.
Biodiversity values
To maintain and wherever necessary restore the physical integrity of the area with special considerations to the flooding pattern.
Biodiversity and Other Natural values
To enhance the quality of educational, recreational and wilderness experience given to the general public.
Educational and recreational values
To identify research priorities and implement such programmes to establish and create opportunities for enhancing management capabilities and knowledge of wildlife science
Educational values
Consistent with the above four objectives , in the zone of influence with sensitivity to cultural and economic well being of the communities and reduce the dependence on forest based resources.
Economic and Cultural values
14
Worksheet for Tool 2: Identifying Threats
Current threats that Kaziranga National Park and the wildlife face include poaching, floods and infrastructure damage, disruption of connectivity to the Karbi Anglong Hills and anthropogenic pressures for resource(s). Potential threats include habitat degradation, upstream infrastructure development and pollution.
Threats to Biodiversity Values Impact of threat Management response List Threats
Is it a Current or Potential Threat?
Identify major sources of threat Extent Severity Action Urgency of action
Data source
List all important
threats to the value indicated
at the top of the table
Current threats are already taking place, potential threats are
known threats which have not yet impacted the value
- Activities which are causing destruction, degradation or other
negative impacts to the value - Each threat has at least one, and may
have several, sources.
Indicate the extent of the value being, or
likely to be, impacted, i.e. area, habitat type,
cultural value and rate as low; medium;
high or very high
Indicate whether the threat will completely destroy the value or
cause only minor changes and rate as low; medium; high or
very high
Describe what actions are planned or have taken place
to manage the threat
Indicate as low (i.e. management action
is not urgent); medium, high or very high (i.e. immediate action is needed to
stop serious or irreversible damage)
Record whether the assessment has been made through expert
workshop or from using the results of
monitoring or research, etc.
Illegal International market. Large High Management Plan (2003) and Workshop Poaching of
Rhinoceros Current
Source(s) Poachers within the country or region coupled with poor economic condition.
Large High Stringent anti-poaching actions are taken (see Box 3).
Very urgent
High mortality and infrastructure damage during monsoon
Current
Source(s) High flood of River Brahmaputra
Medium Medium Artificial high grounds have been built. Rescue and rehabilitation works are done.
Urgent Department Records
Demand in illegal market Poaching of Tiger
Potential Source(s) Poor livelihood conditions of
local communities
Large Medium Regular anti poaching actions are taken.
Department Records
Disruption of habitat connectivities with adjoining forested areas
Current Source(s) Haphazard and extensive settlements Extensive stone quarrying, illegal felling of trees, overexploitation of bamboo
Entire stretch of southern boundary including designated corridors with Karbi Anglong hills and along Bramhaputra.
High Medium
Action on eco-sensitive Zone initiated Sensitization of other line departments
Urgent Urgent
Threats to Biodiversity Values
15
Impact of threat Management response List Threats
Is it a Current or Potential Threat?
Identify major sources of threat Extent Severity Action Urgency of action
Data source
List all important
threats to the value indicated
at the top of the table
Current threats are already taking place, potential threats are
known threats which have not yet impacted the value
- Activities which are causing destruction, degradation or other
negative impacts to the value - Each threat has at least one, and may
have several, sources.
Indicate the extent of the value being, or
likely to be, impacted, i.e. area, habitat type,
cultural value and rate as low; medium;
high or very high
Indicate whether the threat will completely destroy the value or
cause only minor changes and rate as low; medium; high or
very high
Describe what actions are planned or have taken place
to manage the threat
Indicate as low (i.e. management action
is not urgent); medium, high or very high (i.e. immediate action is needed to
stop serious or irreversible damage)
Record whether the assessment has been made through expert
workshop or from using the results of
monitoring or research, etc.
Intermingling of wild and domestic buffalo
Current Source(s) Cattle camps in the 6th addition area
Northern areas of the NP
Medium Legal process for clearing of existing cattle camps underway
Very urgent Muley (2001)
Illegal fishing Current Source(s) Fishing operations in the adjacent areas
Confined to specific localities
Medium Patrolling, protection and communication with concerned line agencies
Urgent
Exotic weeds, water hyacinth
Medium Very severe Eradication and control measures being taken (see Box 4).
Very urgent (Kushwaha, 1997) (Vattakkavan et al., 2002)
Biotic pressure in 6th Addition area
Medium Medium Legal proceedings are underway.
Very urgent
Sedimentation of wetlands
Medium Medium Removal of silt is undertaken on a small scale (see Box 5.
Urgent See Box 4.
Habitat degradation
Current
Source(s)
Livestock grazing in some fringe areas Overuse of short grass areas by wild buffalo.
Restricted Restricted
Medium High
Preventive action taken Detailed study required
Urgent Urgent
Disruption of annual flooding cycles
Potential Source(s) Construction of upstream mega
dams
Entire ecosystem Very severe Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) is required
Urgent
Increased pollution of Bramhaputra waters
Potential Source(s)
Upstream effluent discharge by industrial units
Entire ecosystem Medium Sensitization and coordination with other scientific institutions
Urgent The Department currently has no monitoring programme
16
Threats to Biodiversity Values
Impact of threat Management response List Threats
Is it a Current or Potential Threat?
Identify major sources of threat Extent Severity Action Urgency of action
Data source
List all important
threats to the value indicated
at the top of the table
Current threats are already taking place, potential threats are
known threats which have not yet impacted the value
- Activities which are causing destruction, degradation or other
negative impacts to the value - Each threat has at least one, and may
have several, sources.
Indicate the extent of the value being, or
likely to be, impacted, i.e. area, habitat type,
cultural value and rate as low; medium;
high or very high
Indicate whether the threat will completely destroy the value or
cause only minor changes and rate as low; medium; high or
very high
Describe what actions are planned or have taken place
to manage the threat
Indicate as low (i.e. management action
is not urgent); medium, high or very high (i.e. immediate action is needed to
stop serious or irreversible damage)
Record whether the assessment has been made through expert
workshop or from using the results of
monitoring or research, etc.
Changing demographic and economic profile
Current Source(s)
Land alienation and monetization of subsistence economy
In the Zone of Influence High Coordination with other line agencies
Urgent Census Data
Large scale hoteliers (no ploughing back of resources in the community)
In the Zone of Influence Medium Policy enabling plough back of certain share of profits required
Urgent Progressive alienation of local people from tourism opportunities and benefits
Current
Source(s)
Lack of financial capabilities among local villagers
In the Zone of Influence Medium Develop micro finance schemes
Urgent
Source(s) Unregulated and lopsided vehicular traffic
Tourism Zone (four routes)
Severe Tourism policy formulation and appropriate regulation of vehicles
Very Urgent Department Records Manifold increase in tourism
Current
Lack of interpretation facility Tourism Zone (four routes)
Steps for interpretation services initiated
Very urgent
17
Box 3: Protection Strategy Poaching of rhinos is a significant threat to Kaziranga National Park. To address this issue the park has set up an intensive protection mechanism by way of extensive intelligence network, inter departmental coordination and establishment of a large number of antipoaching camps manned by highly dedicated frontline staff, which has helped to significantly curtail the poaching incidents (Figure 2). Kaziranga National Park has 125 anti poaching camps scattered throughout the park at strategic locations (Figure 3). Field camps are the mainstay of the protection activity in the park. The location of these camps is determined by considering the vulnerability of rhinoceros in the area. During last five years, the conditions of these camps have been improved and many have been reconstructed using support from various schemes of Govt. of India, Rhino and Elephant Conservation Projects from US Fish and Wildlife Service, Oil India etc.
18
5
1210
8
2
8
0
3 35
10
32
11
25
37
28
45
33
24
44
35
23
48
40
14
2726
12
8
4
8
4
75
13
4
3
4
44
24
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Year
Num
bers
Figure 2. Number of Rhinos Lost Due to Poaching Since 1965 (Source: KNP records)
18
The anti-poaching activities in Kaziranga National Park can be divided into three phases: Pre-entry: The main activity in this phase is proactive action that includes intelligence gathering on the activities of poachers in the vicinity of the park. The intelligence providers are usually local villagers or poachers turned informers. Efforts are also made by the park authorities to involve the local people in furnishing information on the movements of poachers through implementation of ecodevelopment activities as well as through education and awareness drives in the fringe villages of the National Park. Post entry: This calls for reactive action, which denotes the activities undertaken by the staff to track down and apprehend the poachers inside the park, once such information has been received or evidences thereof have been found by the park authorities. Post exit: This is the investigative and prosecutive phase after the poachers escape from the park, after committing an offence inside the park. This phase mainly consists of co-ordination with other law-enforcing agencies like Police to keep track of the poachers and to nab them.
Figure 3. Patrolling camps in Kaziranga National Park
19
The Wireless Communication Network in the park has been recently upgraded through building partnerships with Aaranayak, a local NGO with support from David Shephard Wildlife Foundation, UK. All Fixed Stations and mobile handsets have been replaced by new Motorala equipment. New transport vehicles to increase mobility of the protection staff have been provided through schemes of the Government of India, four Maruty Gypsy vehicles by US Fish and Wildlife Service.
As part of the UNESCO EoH Project a study on ‘Improving Protection and Capacity building requirements of staff’ was undertaken in the park. This study ((http://www.enhancingheritage.net/docs_public.asp) has recommended:
(i) While the park’s legal boundaries have been well defined by various notifications (including the 6 additions to the park), a detailed survey and demarcation and fixing of boundary pillars is needed.
(ii) A new range needs to be established with its full complement of staff to manage the park affairs in the sixth addition area (Brahmaputra river and chapories etc).
An interactive session with the park staff resulted in their identification of the skills that they wished to acquire: These are (i) Handling firearms; (ii) Social interaction skills; (iii) Driving, swimming; (iv) Wireless system management; (v) Wildlife management; (vi) Language; (vii) First aid and (viii) Intelligence gathering.
A focussed group discussion during the SWOT workshop on the staff’s expectations regarding welfare and amenities revealed the following: (i) Provide more facilities (uniform, housing, school etc) to staff; (ii) Improve roads in the park; (iii) Provide modern equipments including weapons and vehicles to staff for patrolling; (iv) Improve communication facilities; (v) Recruit more staff; (vi) Create good camps on boundary and (vii) Improve infrastructure like temporary roads, bridges etc.
Under the new sponsored UNF-UNESCO ‘World Heritage Biodiversity Programme for India (WHBPI) (2007-11) measures to strengthen park infrastructure and to provide staff welfare amenities would be undertaken.
20
Box 4: Conservation of Beels for Waterbirds in Kaziranga National Park, Assam
Waterbodies, locally called ‘beels’ in the Kaziranga National Park (KNP) are the most important refuges for water birds both resident and migratory. During 2005-2006, monitoring of various ‘beels’ in all the four ranges of KNP was initiated under UNESCO-IUCN Project ‘Enhancing Our Heritage’. The objective was to document water bird species richness, relative abundance and threats associated to these beels.
In all, 34 beels were surveyed; 10 in Kohora Range (Central) i.e. Kathphora, Mihibeel, Navbhangi, Borbeel, Laodubi, Daphlang, Ajgor, Monabeel, Karasing and Sukhani were surveyed, 11 in Agratoli Range (Eastern) i.e. Sohola, Mohamari, Tinibeel, Bhalukmari, Rongamatia, Koladuar, Kilakili, Kapurkhosa, Borbeel, Amora, and Notun, 8 in Bagori Range (Western) 8 i.e. Donga, Raumari, Diphlumori, Moorphuloni, Ghorakati, Sapekati, Gendamari, and Bimoli, and 5 in Burapahar Range (further Western) i.e. Kotahi, Borguph, Tunikati, Baghbeel, and Jhaubeel. A total of 49 species of water birds were identified from all 34 beels with the most dominant species being Common Teal Anas crecca (1613), followed by Northern Pintail Anas acuta (1566), Bar-headed Goose Anser indicus (1000), Greylag Goose Anser anser (900), Gadwall Anas strepera (655) and Lesser Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna javanica (645) (See Annexure 1). Of these, 9 species are globally threatened; 2 Vulnerable i.e. Lesser Adjutant Stork Leptoptilos javanicus and Swamp Francolin Francolinus gularis and 7 Near-threatened i.e. Falcated Teal Anas falcata, Ferruginous Pochard Aythya nyroca, Black-necked Stork Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus, Oriental White Ibis Threskiornis melanocephalus, Spot-billed Pelican Pelecanus philippensis and Darter Anhinga melanogaster which took shelter in many of these beels.
Figure 4. Beels of Kaziranga National Park (1970-2001)
21
The highest number of water bird species especially migratory was recorded from Agratoli (44 spp.) followed by Bagori (32 spp.), Burapahar (28 spp.) and Kohora (25 spp.) Ranges. From Agratoli Range, a maximum of 7862 water birds were recorded of which 5687 were counted from Sohola beel belonging to 31 species and 1158 from Bhalukmari beel of 15 species. From Kohora Range, a maximum of 2486 birds were recorded of which 512 from Navbhangi beel (13 spp.) and 410 from Mihibeel (8 spp.). From Bagori Range, about 2101 birds were recorded of which 678 from Gendamari (12 spp.) and 321 from Moorpholoni (24 spp.) beels. The Burapahar Range showed a maximum of 1497 water birds of which 978 were recorded at Tunikati (22 spp.) and 408 at Kotahi beels (6 spp.). Maximum number of water birds species were recorded from Sohola beel of Agratoli Range i.e. 31 followed by Moorpholoni and Donga beels of Bagori Range i.e. 24 and 22 respectively and 22 species from Tunikati beel from Burapahar Range. Of the 8 globally threatened water bird species recorded in the KNP, Bimoli beel of Bagori Range, and Sohola beel of Agratoli Range provide shelter to many of these IUCN Red listed species (Table 1). A pair of Falcated Teal, globally threatened species could only be observed at Baghbeel of Burapahar Range. A large rookery of Spot-billed Pelican (150 individuals, 60 nests) was located during December 2005 along Koladuar beel largely on Semul trees Bombax ceiba (Plate 1).
Plate 1. Agratoli Range of Kaziranga National Park is an important Rookery of globally threatened Spot-billed Pelicans
22
Regular flooding in the KNP is important to make these beels free of water-hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes which otherwise choke the large extent of waterbodies and thereby adversely affecting activities of many water birds especially ducks (Plate 2). About 40% of beels surveyed were found infested with this weed. Another threat facing the beels is that they are becoming shallow and shallow year after year due to heavy load of silts and their size is decreasing and some are even disappearing (Plate 3).
Plate 2. Water hyacinth choking beel, a serious concern for migratory water birds
Plate 3. Due to siltation and water hyacinth infestation many water birds are losing their habitats
23
S.No Name of
Beel Area (approx) km2
Maximum count
Total species
Threatened spp.
1 Kathphora 0.15 78 15 3 2 Mihibeel 0.3 410 8 2 3 Navbhangi 1 512 13 4 4 Borbeel 10 248 8 2 5 Laodubi 8 156 16 3 6 Daphlang 0.3 52 9 2 7 Ajgor 6 65 11 4 8 Monabeel 6 150 16 3 9 Karasing 0.6 251 18 3 10 Sukhani 6 564 17 4 11 Donga 1 254 22 4 12 Raumari 3 191 15 2 13 Diphlumori 0.8 199 14 1 14 Moorphuloni 1 321 24 4 15 Ghorakati 0.075 104 8 2 16 Sapekati 4 256 12 3 17 Gendamari 0.25 678 12 3
S.No Name of Beel
Area (approx) km2
Maximum count
Total species
Threatened spp.
18 Bimoli 0.3 98 17 6 19 Sohola 7.5 5687 31 5 20 Mohamari 0.375 53 12 1 21 Tinibeel 0.032 70 15 4 22 Bhalukmari 0.75 1158 15 3 23 Rongamatia 0.75 103 11 2 24 Koladuar 0.5 10 3 1 25 Kilakili 1 305 9 2 26 Kapurkhosa 0.45 101 14 2 27 Borbeel 0.5 306 16 3 28 Amora 1 30 10 1 29 Notun 3.75 39 13 1 30 Kotahi 0.75 408 6 0 31 Borguph 1.5 4 3 0 32 Tunikati 1.8 978 22 3 33 Baghbeel 0.4 97 13 2 34 Jhaubeel 0.04 10 6 2
Table1. Characteristics of various beels monitored during 2005-2006 in Kaziranga National Park for waterbirds.
24
Box 5: Management of Invasive Species in Kaziranga National Park, Assam
The grasslands of Kaziranga are threatened by a number of plant invasive species, prominent among them are: Mimosa invisia (thorny) and Mimosa invisia inermis (thornless). A native of Brazil, this plant was introduced into tea gardens in the late 1960s for fixing atmospheric nitrogen and was first detected at KNP in 1987. It is an erect, climbing shrub, biennial or perennial depending on the climate, often forming dense thickets, strong root systems and often becoming woody at the base, stem and branches with many recurved spines or thorns. The negative impacts of Mimosa proliferation are:
(a) Grasslands are being invaded by Mimosa out-competing existing plants, causing substantial loss of the prime short grassland habitats.
(b) Mimosa hampers free movement of the wild animals especially smaller herbivores like barking and hog deer.
(c) Indications are that Mimosin, a non-protein amino acid in Mimosa is hazardous to animals and hence could harm rhinos and other herbivores when ingested.
The Wildlife Institute of India provided technical support in spatial mapping of the outcomes of a survey that was conducted by Wildlife Trust of India in 2003 in collaboration with the Assam Forest Department and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) to study various aspects of Mimosa distribution and extent of area infested (http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/html/reports/reports.htm). Mimosa was observed to be distributed more along the boundaries of Kaziranga National Park. The survey determined that due to the prompt action of the park authorities, assisted by WTI and IFAW, the extent of Mimosa in the park was limited to about 0.5 per cent (2.13 km2) within the tall grassland areas while the weed had not yet taken root in the short grassland areas (which is one of the main food sources for megaherbivores of the park). Of the four Ranges of the park, the study observed that Baguri Range was the most infested (58 per cent of the total infested area), followed by Kohora (39 per cent) and Agratoli (3 per cent) and priority action (effort, time and funds) for control measures was needed in the Baguri Range. The seedling germination density was the highest in Baguri with 55 seedlings/m2, Kohora with 20 seedlings/m2 and Agratoli with 12 seedlings/m2.
Figure 5. GIS Locations of Mimosa patch in
Kaziranga National Park, Assam
25
The following measures have been suggested for aiding in the eradication of Mimosa from KNP: (a) The Mimosa control measures should be carried on annually for at least three years continuously to ensure complete eradication from the
park. (b) The plant should be completely uprooted and not cut at the base and this has to be followed by burning to achieve the best results. (c) Eradication should be done
twice a year: once in October - November and early December before the seeds are mature and once in May-June, when young regenerated plants carpet the ground.
(d) An integrated management plan involving biological control, herbicide application, mechanical removal, controlled burning and pasture management should be put in place to ensure that further infestation does not occur from the tea gardens and that complete eradication is achieved in the Park.
(e) A targeted awareness campaign should be conducted among tea- related organizations and other planter's bodies to educate them about the menace of Mimosa.
(f) Interruptions in the control program to be avoided, since this allows Mimosa to recover from the past treatment.
Plate 4. Mimosa control measures
26
Worksheet 3a for Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholders/Partners
The major stakeholders identified and issues pertaining to each of these are listed below Department of Environment and Forest • Conservation of biodiversity through protection and other management practices • Effective management interventions leading to enhanced biodiversity values • Positive image enhancement, showcasing replicable conservation management capabilities • Generation of skilled and motivated staff Local people • Emotional attachment to conservation success of Kaziranga. • Resource dependency (fishing) leading to disturbance • Denial of traditional access to resources • Less poaching through information to the management helps enhancement of biodiversity values • Employment opportunities and added income for fringe area communities • Enhanced awareness about wildlife Other government agencies • Policy formulation and liaison with forest dept. and direct/indirect involvement in various conservation measures • Linear infrastructure development (potential threat), Road widening (potential impact) • Information sharing, antipoaching, • Flood monitoring and control thereby aiding conservation. Educational Institutions • Education and research opportunities and study tours from universities, colleges and schools • Generation of data about biodiversity values • Positive social influence
27
UNESCO & other International Agencies • Help enhance management capabilities • Maintaining site integrity for protecting outstanding universal values • Augmentation of infrastructure and training • Capacity building for management NGOs • Conservation of biodiversity through research, help to management to fill the gaps etc. • Community awareness initiatives • Advocacy on larger environmental issues • Assistance in improvement of infrastructure and training of personnel • Formal and informal, issue specific participation Tourist and wildlife lovers • Wildlife conservation awareness, Increased conservation awareness and public support for the site • Provision of recreational and educational opportunities.
28
Worksheet 3a for Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholder/Partners
Major Values: Biodiversity
Name of Stakeholder Department of Environment and Forest
Local people Other government agencies
Educational Institutions
UNESCO & other International Agencies.
NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers
Main issues associated with this stakeholder
Conservation of biodiversity through protection and other management practices
Emotional attachment to conservation success of the biodiversity.
Policy formulation and Liason with forest dept. and direct/indirect involvement in various conservation measures
Education and research opportunities (study tours and academic curriculum activities in universities, colleges and schools)
Maintaining site integrity for protecting outstanding universal values. Capacity building for management
Conservation of biodiversity through research, help to management to fill the gaps etc. Community awareness initiatives.Advocacy on larger environmental issues
Wildlife viewing opportunities and visitor experience
Economic dependency
Substantial
Considerable. Negligible except for tourism dept.
- - Ecotourism initiatives being developed by select NGOs.
Wildlife photography, videography and nature guides
Und
erst
andi
ng S
take
hold
ers
List negative impacts of stakeholders on site
None
Resource dependency (fishing, poaching) leading to disturbance and degradation
Linear infrastructure development (potential threat),
None None NGOs with vested interests cause conflicts through misinformation campaigns
Littering, irresponsible behaviour
29
Name of Stakeholder Department of Environment and Forest
Local people Other government agencies
Educational Institutions
UNESCO & other International Agencies.
NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers
List negative impacts of site management on stakeholders
None Denial of traditional access to resources
None None None None None
List positive impacts of stakeholders on site
Effective management interventions leading to enhanced biodiversity values
Less poaching through information to the management helps enhancement of biodiversity values.
Information sharing, antipoaching, flood control thereby aiding conservation.
Generation of data about biodiversity values.
augmentation of infrastructure and training
Assistance in improvement of infrastructure and training of personnel
Increased conservation awareness and public support for the site
List positive impacts of site management on stakeholders
Positive image enhancement. Showcasing replicable conservation management capabilities. Generation of skilled and motivated staff.
Employment opportunities and added income for fringe area communities. Enhanced awareness about wildlife
Building partnership for management.
Provision of suitable education and research opportunities
Supporting UNESCO’s initiatives for WH conservation through reporting and other requirement
Supporting of NGO initiatives for conservation through involvement in management interventions
Provision of recreational and educational opportunities. Wildlife conservation awareness
Willingness/capacity of stakeholders to engage with site management
Obligate and dedicated
Very much willing
Willing Considerable capacity exists.
Willing and capable (directly and through advisory bodies)
Willing and capable in specific aspects
Willing
30
Name of Stakeholder Department of Environment and Forest
Local people Other government agencies
Educational Institutions
UNESCO & other International Agencies.
NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers
Willingness/capacity of site management to engage with stakeholders
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Political/Social influence
Not applicable
Varying according to specific situation
Not applicable Positive social influence
Not applicable
Issue specific Favourable and considerable
Favourable
Organisation of stakeholders
Well organised
Not organised Organised Organised
Well organised
Organised
Not organised
What opportunities do stakeholders have to contribute to management?
All aspects of site management are contributed to by the stakeholder. Formal and comprehensive
Informal and formally in varying degrees for anti-poaching, flood management, tourism
Formal and specific: Anti-poaching, flood management, tourism
Formal in varying degree relevant data and information generation.
Formal for enhanced management capacity.
Formal and informal, issue specific participation
Informal to a large extent
Ass
essm
ent o
f St
akeh
olde
r Eng
agem
ent
What is the level of engagement of the stakeholder?
Very high
Moderate Moderate Low Moderate High Negligible
Sum
mar
y Describe the overall adequacy of stakeholder engagement
Very Good
Fair
Fair Fair
Fair
Good
Poor
31
Name of Stakeholder Department of Environment and Forest
Local people Other government agencies
Educational Institutions
UNESCO & other International Agencies.
NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers
Rat
ing
Rate the overall adequacy of stakeholder engagement, as either very good; good; fair or poor
Very Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Poor
Major Values: Other Natural Values
Name of Stakeholder Department of Environment and Forest
Local people Other government agencies
Educational Institute
UNESCO & other International Agencies.
NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers
Main issues associated with this stakeholder
Protection Not specific Not specific Education and Research
Help to management to fill the gaps etc.
Research, help to management to fill the gaps etc.
Economic dependency
Substantial
Considerable. None None None None Medium
List negative impacts of stakeholders on site
None
None Road widening (potential impact)
None None None Resource Degradation
Und
erst
andi
ng S
take
hold
ers
List negative impacts of site management on stakeholders
None Some people are residing in 6th Addition areas.
None None None None None
32
Name of Stakeholder Department of Environment and Forest
Local people Other government agencies
Educational Institute
UNESCO & other International Agencies.
NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers
List positive impacts of stakeholders on site
High level of protection.
Less poaching through information to the management
Information sharing, antipoaching, flood control thereby aiding conservation.
Generation of data about biodiversity values
Enhancement of management capability.
Enhancement of management capability.
Enhancing the profile of the park
List positive impacts of site management on stakeholders
Good model of park management
Enhanced awareness about wildlife.
Information sharing particularly with law enforcement agencies
Good site for research and education
Good model for WHS management
Good model for park-public partnership
High visitor satisfaction
Willingness/capacity of stakeholders to engage with site management
Obligate
Very much willing
Capable Considerable capacity exists.
Sufficient Sufficient Yes
Willingness/capacity of site management to engage with stakeholders
Obligate Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Political/Social influence
-
Considerable Considerable Considerable
Organisation of stakeholders
Well organised
Not organised Organised (scope for coordination)
Well organised
Well organised
Well organised
Reasonably organised
33
Name of Stakeholder Department of Environment and Forest
Local people Other government agencies
Educational Institute
UNESCO & other International Agencies.
NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers
What opportunities do stakeholders have to contribute to management?
-
Anti-poaching, flood management, tourism
Information sharing, Anti-poaching, flood management
Management relevant data and information generation.
Enhance management capacity.
Enhance management capacity. Awareness generation.
-
Ass
essm
ent o
f St
akeh
olde
r En
gage
men
t
What is the level of engagement of the stakeholder?
Very high
High Moderate High High High Moderate
Sum
mar
y Describe the overall adequacy of stakeholder engagement
Adequate
Inadequate
Inadequate
Inadequate
Inadequate
Adequate
Inadequate
Rat
ing
Rate the overall adequacy of stakeholder engagement, as either very good; good; fair or poor
Very Good Good Fair Fair Good Good Fair
34
Worksheet 3b for Tool 3: Engagement of Stakeholders/Partners - Summary Table
Major Values Department of Environment and Forest
Local people Other government agencies
Educational Institute
UNESCO & other International Agencies.
NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers
Overall Stakeholder Engagement for
major values
Name of stakeholder
Department of Environment and Forest
Local people Other Government Agencies
Educational Institute
UNESCO & other International Agencies.
NGOs Tourist and wildlife lovers
Biodiversity Very Good Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Other Natural Values
Very Good Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good
Overall Engagement of the Stakeholder
Very Good Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good
35
Worksheet for Tool 4: 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 the 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.
Criteria Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations/Comments World Heritage Site and protected area legislation
Wildlife (Protection) Act together other forest and environment acts of India provide a very strong base for conservation of overall wildlife values. [Adequate, useful, Yes]
The Act is robust, no significant weaknesses are mentionable.
Punishment terms may be made more stringent
Conservation within broader government policy
There is a separate department at State level and separate ministry at national level. Attempts to integrate conservation within the broader government policy
Some policies of local self government(LSG) contradict conservation policy/practices
Suitable amendments required to LSG policy/practices
36
Criteria Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations/Comments International conservation conventions and treaties
Government of India is a signatory to almost all international conventions like CITES, CBD etc. Awareness of the WH status among all stakeholders is a matter of prestige
None Increased awareness on CITES, WH convention
Government support for the World Heritage site
Government support is substantial but scope for enhancing support for effective management of the site exists
Inconsistency in support Delay in release of funds at the State level.
Comprehensive support on a sustained basis needs to be maintained
National Protected Area Agency and the World Heritage site
Engagement is satisfactory. Centrally Sponsored Schemes provide adequate support.
Site visits by Central agencies infrequent
Streamlining of Central and State Govt resource provision.
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
Kaziranga National Park Management Plan (2003-2013)
G 2002 2009 Serious attempts to consider conservation concerns in the larger development strategies need to be made
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.
38
Worksheet 5b for Tool 5: Adequacy of Primary Planning Document
The current management plan clearly articulates the need for managing wildlife species populations and habitat through its objectives and theme plans and prescriptions that together give the desired future conditions of the populations and their habitat. A mid term review of the Plan is expected to be undertaken in 2009 that will enable stock taking and opportunities for course corrections. Though wider consultations with the stakeholders was not made during plan preparation, the needs and requirements of local communities have been kept into consideration throughout. The plan being the first one prepared on the basis of the Management Plan preparation guidelines provides a clear basis for developing work programmes and budgets within the various theme plans that have been put forth.
Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps Decision making framework
Desired future is explicitly articulated as a decision making reference point
VG
Desired future is reasonably articulated G Desired future is not clearly articulated but is implied or can be inferred from plan objectives
F
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)
Plan focuses more on present issues and actions and doesn’t indicate a desired future for the site
P
Will be considered at the time of review.
Desired future is expressed in a way that provides clear guidance for addressing new issues and opportunities
VG
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
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?
The plan focuses more on present issues and actions and doesn’t indicate any desired future for the site
P
De-sedimentation of wetlands, plan for addition areas, ecodevelopment plan, tourism plan etc provide guidance about future implied from the objectives.
Will be considered at the time of review
39
Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps Plan provides a clear, explicit and appropriate process for monitoring, review and adjustment
VG
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
3. Does the plan provide for a process of monitoring, review and adjustment during the life of the plan?
Plan does not address the need for monitoring, review and adjustment
P
- Will be considered at the time of review
Planning context 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
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
4. Does the plan provide an adequate and appropriate policy environment for management of the World Heritage site?
Plan either doesn’t establish policies for the area or the policies are inadequate or inappropriate in major respects
P
Policy requirement about total integration of the additional areas are not adequate.
Will be considered at the time of review.
40
Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps 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
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
5. Is the plan integrated/linked to other significant national/regional/sectoral plans that influence management of the World Heritage site?
No account is taken of other plans affecting the site
P
Industrialization in the vicinity of the site, development of roads & agriculture etc. are important issues that need harmonization and integration with PA management
Plan Content 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
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
6. Is the plan based on an adequate and relevant information base?
Very little information relevant to plan decisions is presented
P
Data on effect of flood, erosion, controlled burning, sedimentation, etc are largely experience based and lack strong scientific backing.
Improvement of information base is a priority with site management and this issue is being attended.
41
Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps The site values have been clearly identified and linked to well defined management objectives and desired outcomes for the site.
VG
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
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 not been identified. P
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
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
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?
Many significant issues are not addressed or are inadequately dealt with in the plan
P
Conservation of eastern Swamp deer, Bengal florican etc have not been adequately addressed.
Periodic monitoring protocols and plans are incorporated.
Objectives and actions are adequate and appropriate for all issues
VG
Objectives and actions are adequate and appropriate for most issues
G
Objectives and actions are frequently inadequate or inappropriate
F
9. Are the objectives and actions specified in the plan represented as adequate and appropriate response to the issues?
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 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
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
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 not involved in developing the management plan and setting direction for the WHS
P
Will be considered at the time of review
Plan identifies the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities and has taken these into account in decision making
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
11. Does the plan take account of the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities living in or around the World Heritage site?
No apparent attention has been given to the needs and interests of local and indigenous communities
P
Many of the needs (forest related) of local people are not compatible with prevalent laws.
Will be considered at the time of review.
43
Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps Plan identifies the needs and interests of other stakeholders and has taken these into account in decision making
VG
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
12. Does the plan take account of the needs and interests of other stakeholders involved in the World Heritage site?
No apparent attention has been given to the needs and interests of other stakeholders
P
Though the needs are not clearly identified, park management always gives considerable attention to the needs of stake holders. Needs of visitors and local people etc are clearly mentioned in Tourism and eco development sub-plan
Will be considered at the time of review.
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
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
13. Does the plan provide adequate direction on management actions that should be undertaken in the World Heritage site?
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
Clear priorities are indicated within the plan in a way that supports work programming and allocation of resources
VG
44
Question Criteria Rating Explanation/Comment Next steps 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
facilitates work programming and allocation of resources?
There is no indication of priorities in the plan so that the plan cannot be used for work programming and resource allocation
P
Worksheet for Tool 6: Design Assessment
Kaziranga provides an entire range of habitat from the floodplains to grassland to hill evergreen forest communities and is the largest patch
within the Brahmaputra floodplains. The site is intact enough to provide long term security to all range dependent species that cannot survive
outside the protected area. Also the species populations especially in the case of focal species are fairly large with functional food webs and
micro habitat availability. However, the annual flooding pattern, animal movement to higher areas towards the Karbi- Anglong hills to south and
provision of safe corridors have been an area of concern. The presence of the Highway (NH 37) along the southern boundary, villages and tea
gardens to the south and east impact the ecological integrity of the park adversely. These influences are being addressed through several
measures such as additions to park areas along the Highway to enable connectivity with the Karbi Anglong Hills, ecodevelopment and
awareness generation and special emphasis on anti-poaching camps and patrolling. The Sixth addition area to the north along the
Brahmaputra has added a considerable area to the park compensating for the reduction caused by bank erosion.
45
Ecological integrity
Biodiversity and Other Natural Values:
• Great Indian one horned rhinoceros • Tiger • Eastern swamp deer • Asiatic elephant • Bengal Florican • Resident and migratory avifauna • Assemblage of rare, endangered, threatened flora and fauna • Ongoing ecological process relating to dynamic floodplain activity
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
Very functional tropical flood plain which make complex with deciduous-semi evergreen hill forest make the site as very good habitat for diverse flora and fauna.
Adjacent high grounds which provide key alternate habitat for some important wildlife are out side the site jurisdiction.
Size
Kaziranga National Park with its addition areas is sufficiently large. (859.42 km2)
Few very important adjacent high grounds are outside the site jurisdiction.
External interactions
Adjacent high ground are sparsely populated and under forest. Karbi Anglong WLS
Fringe area of the site is densely populated and most of the areas are under cultivation with considerable livestock population. Moreover, several tea gardens situated in the vicinity of the site pose potential threat of pesticide effects. Existing Chapories in 6th addition are good habitat but have been affected by domestic cattle
Regular livestock immunization programmes are taken by the site management. Judicial intervention is required to vacate the occupation in 6th addition areas. KNP has recently been included in the Tiger Reserve Network (see Box 6).
Connectivity There are few corridors exists which are well marked.
High human population around the corridor is major stress for management.
Regular awareness programmes are organized by the management.
46
Box 6: Declaration of Kaziranga Tiger Reserve in 2007
The Government of Assam declared the Kaziranga National Park along with Laokhowa Wildlife Sanctuary, Burachapori Wildlife Sanctuary, the six additions to Kaziranga National Park and adjoining Kukurakata, Bagser and Panbari Reserved Forests as a single conservation unit. After ‘in principle’ agreement to the proposal by the National Tiger Conservation Authority, Government of India due notification in the Assam Gazette dated 3rd August 2007, Kaziranga Tiger Reserve became the 29th Tiger Reserve of the country. Kaziranga is also a part of the Kaziranga - Meghalaya TCU (16) forms the integral part of a contiguous habitat of 18984 km2 (Wicramanayake et al 1998).
• Satellite imageries show contiguous forest patch from Kaziranga to Karbi- Anglong District to Golaghat Division [Garampani Wildlife Sanctuary & Nambar Wildlife Sanctuary]
• Corridors at Panbari, Kukarata and Haldibari to enter Karbi Anglong.
• Rhino distributed in a constricted grassland habitat vis a vis tiger which has greater home range and adaptability.
Landscape level conservation is possible as per TCU delineation, if restoration of contiguous habitat is done. This will facilitate interaction with tiger populations of Golaghat and Nameri - Pakke Tiger Reserve.
While the management of Kaziranga has been ‘rhino centric’ due emphasis will be given to tigers as they occur in relatively high density (16.8 tigers / 100 km2) (Karanth and Nichols 1998). With the inclusion of Kaziranga and adjoining forested areas as a Tiger Reserve, management of the entire assemblage of herbivores will receive a boost. Addressing the issues outside the Kaziranga National Park as part of the Tiger Reserve will help in maintaining the long term integrity of this World Heritage Site. The need for adopting landscape level conservation approach for maintaining the world heritage values of Kaziranga has also been highlighted in the UNESCO-EoH Project Team Paper “Opportunities and Challenges for Kaziranga National Park, Assam over the next Fifty Years” (http://www.enhancingheritage.net/docs_public.asp).
47
Community well-being
Cultural, economic, educational and other social values and other community/site issues relating to the wellbeing of the community are:
• Unique ‘Kakomai puja’ • Unique lifestyle of Karbi and Mishing tribes • Education, research and recreation opportunities • Reservoir of food and medicinal plant and breeding ground of fishes.
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 area
During flood local wetlands outside the site are replenished with fishes which acts a major sources of protein.
Illegal fishing and collection of food and medicinal plant in some area by the local people.
Regular deterrent actions and awareness campaign are organized. Massive eco-development drive is necessary.
Size
The site is compact with no human habitation inside the park
Nil
External interactions
Tourism provides inflow of new ideas and opportunities for local communities.
Yet to be apparent Impacts of foreign visitors may be assessed through a comprehensive socio-economic survey
Legal status and tenure
Wildlife (protection) Act provides a strong basis.
Lack of clarity and disobedience to wild life laws is a problem.
48
Management factors
Issues related to legal status, access, and boundary issues with neighbours:
• Protection of biodiversity • Habitat preservation and improvement • Livestock grazing control • Weed eradication • Grassland management • Animal health • Man animal conflict
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
Legal status and tenure
Prevalent act is adequate
Access points
Very few access point. Interior areas are connected for management operations.
Existing legal waterways close to the 6th addition areas may provide entry points into the park
Separate administrative unit is required for complete control over the area.
Neighbours
Northern and Western side is marked by natural features.
Southern boundary is common with villages in major part without any buffer area in between
49
Section 4: Inputs and Process Assessment
Worksheet 7a for Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs for Staff
While six personnel have finished formal training in terms of the PG Diploma and Certificate courses in Wildlife Management offered by the Wildlife Institute of India, the rest of the staff have been trained on the job with extensive field experience available to the management. The training requirements for staff includes census techniques, wildlife offence and forensics, GIS and ecodevelopment (See Box 3),
Level of Training Staff category Location
Required no. of staff
Current no. of staff
No. of trained
staff Type of training
required Poor Fair Good Very
good Comments/ Responses
Director Bokakhat 1 1 1 - Good
Divisional Forest Officer
Bokakhat 1 1 1 - Good
Supporting officer at Division Head Quarter
Bokakhat 4 4 3 - Good
Field Officer (Range)
Field HQ 7 7 1 Wildlife management
Good
Supporting Field staff
50
Post Sanctioned Available Total Vacancy Post Sanctioned Available Total Vacancy DCF/ FVO/ WLRO/ ACF 5 5 -- DR/ O.Peon 7 6 1
F. Ranger 7 6 1 Chdr./ G.M. 11 6 5
Dy. Ranger 7 7 -- Paniwalla 1 1 -
Game Keeper 3 2 1 Khansama 2 -- 2
Forester-I 45 37 8 Hd. Asstt. 1 -- 1
Forester-II 19 6 13 Accountant 1 - 1
Hd. G/Watcher 3 2 1 RCIA 1 - 1
Fgd/G.W. 270 217 53 U.D.Asstt. 3 -- 3
Boatman 63 58 5 LDA/R.Asstt. 7 7 ---
Hd. Mahout 1 - 1 St. Asstt. 1 1 -
Mahout 34 29 5 R.Keeper 1 1 -
Grass Cutter 34 13 21 Sweeper 3 -- 3
Tractor Driver 2 2 - Mali 3 2 1
Driver 15 10 5 Vety. F.Asstt. 1 - 1
MLD 6 3 3 Handiman 1 - 1
RT/Electrician 2 2 - Total 562 421 141
51
Worksheet 7b for Tool 7: Assessment of Management Needs and Inputs for Budget (2006-07)
The worksheet presents budgetary requirements for the heads of action given by the Management Plan (2003-2013).
Expenditure category Budget required (Rs.) Actual budget available (Rs.) Funding source(s) Comments
Control of Poaching 16780000 1710000 Centre and State Government
Measures during Flood 4510000 300000 --do--
Habitat Interventions 280000 409800 --do--
Infrastructure Development 19950000 900000 --do--
Boundary Demarcation 100000 0 --do--
Departmental Elephants 3000000 300000 --do--
MIS 1000000 0 --do--
Research 2800000 0 --do--
Livestock Immunisation 500000 145000 --do--
Man Animal Conflict 3150000 60000 --do--
Tourism 3100000 50000 --do--
Staff Amenities 10100000 0 --do--
Ecodevelopment 6200000 240000 --do--
Training 700000 0 --do--
Education and Awareness 500000 0 --do--
52
Section 5: Assessment of Management Process The management processes adopted for the site flow from the Management Plan (2003-2013) that follows the prescriptions and design form the Management Plan Manual (Sawarkar 2004). The plan objectives are devised keeping in mind the focal species, key habitat elements, research and recreation and the anthropogenic influences from the fringe village populations. The process of management activity is undertaken on the basis of the Annual Plan of Operation (APO) that provides details of the budgetary heads and activities identified and the quantum of work and resources requisitioned from the Federal and State Governments under several funding schemes. The plan has been approved by due process and is being implemented. Due to problems of funds shortfall some of the activities are partially undertaken as also some contingencies do require immediate measures that may decrease the funds available for plan activities. There are eleven theme plans that detail out activities relating to poaching, flood season measures, grazing and other biotic disturbances control, weed control, ranging patterns of wild animals, wetland management, grassland management, erosion, animal health surveillance, man-animal coexistence and infrastructure and communication.
Worksheet 8a for Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes
Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Management Structures and Systems
The World Heritage site has agreed and documented values and the management objectives fully reflect them
Very good
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
1. World Heritage values Have values been identified and are these linked to management objectives? No values have been agreed for the World Heritage site Poor
53
Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps An approved management plan exists and is being fully implemented
Very good
An approved management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented because of funding constraints or other problems
Good
A plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being implemented
Fair
2. Management planning Is there a plan and is it being implemented?
There is no plan for managing the World Heritage site
Poor
Kaziranga NP management plan (2003-04 to 20012-13) is a Government approved document and being implemented. But due to fund problems some of the activities are partially taken.
Planning and decision making processes are excellent Very good
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
3. Planning systems Are the planning systems appropriate i.e. participation, consultation, review and updating?
Planning and decision making processes are deficient in most aspects
Poor
Considerable opportunities for adjacent landholders and stakeholders to influence management planning; and details of the schedule and process for periodic review and updating of the management plan exists.
Regular work plans exist, actions are monitored against planned targets and most or all prescribed activities are completed
Very good
Regular work plans exist and actions are monitored against planned targets, but many activities are not completed
Good
Regular work plans exist but activities are not monitored against the plan’s targets
Fair
4. Regular work plans Are there annual work plans or other planning tools?
No regular work plans exist Poor
Every year Annual Plan of Operation (APO) is prepared with the help of Management plan.
54
Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented and used for adaptive management
Very good
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
5. Monitoring and evaluation Are management activities monitored against performance?
There is no monitoring and evaluation of management activities in the World Heritage site
Poor
Site managers can fully comply with all reporting needs and have all the necessary information for full and informative reporting
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
6. Reporting Are all the reporting requirements of the World Heritage site fulfilled?
There is no reporting on the World Heritage site Poor
All reporting obligations are complied with
Equipment and facilities are well maintained and an equipment maintenance plan is being implemented
Very 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
7. Maintenance of equipment Is equipment adequately maintained?
There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities, and no maintenance plan
Poor
55
Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Management infrastructure is excellent and appropriate for managing the site
Very good
Management infrastructure is adequate and generally appropriate for the site
Good
Management infrastructure is often inadequate and/or inappropriate for the site
Fair
8. Management Infrastructure Is management infrastructure (eg fire trails and fire towers) adequate for the needs of the site?
Management infrastructure is inadequate and/or inappropriate for the site
Poor
Staff facilities at the World Heritage site are good and aid the achievement of the objectives of the site
Very good
Staff facilities are not significantly constraining achievement of major objectives
Good
Inadequate staff facilities constrain achievement of some management objectives
Fair
9. Staff facilities Are the available facilities suitable for the management requirements of the site? Inadequate staff facilities mean that achievement of major
objectives is constrained Poor
Facilities could range from staff accommodation to offices, guard posts etc Most of the Anti-poaching camps are in dilapidated condition.
Staff directly participate in making decisions relating to management of the site at both site and management authority level
Very good
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
10. Staff/ management communication Do staff have the opportunity to feed into management decisions?
There are no mechanisms for staff to have input into decisions relating to the management of the World Heritage site
Poor
56
Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Provisions to ensure good personnel management are in place
Very good
Although some provisions for personnel management are in place these could be improved
Good
There are minimal provisions for good personnel management
Fair
11. Personnel management How well are staff managed? There are no provisions to ensure good personnel
management (e.g. staff appraisals, grievance procedures, promotion plans, insurance)
Poor
Staff training and skills are appropriate for the management needs of the site, and with anticipated future needs
Very good
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
12. Staff training Is staff adequately trained?
Staff lack the skills/training needed for effective site management
Poor
The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations
Very good
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
13. Law enforcement Does staff have the capacity to enforce legislation?
The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce legislation and regulations
Poor
57
Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Financial management is excellent and contributes to effective management of the site
Very good
Financial management is adequate but could be improved
Good
Financial management is poor and constrains effectiveness
Fair
14. Financial management Does the financial management system meet the critical management needs?
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 Mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the protected area exist and are being effectively implemented
Very good
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
15. Managing resources Are there management mechanisms in place to control inappropriate land uses and activities (e.g. poaching)?
There are no management mechanisms for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the World Heritage site
Poor
58
Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps 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
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
16. Resource inventory Is there enough information to manage the World Heritage site?
There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, species and cultural values of the World Heritage site
Poor
There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of surveys and research, which is relevant to management needs
Very good
There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed towards the needs of World Heritage site management
Good
There is some ad hoc survey and research work but it is not directed towards the needs of World Heritage site management.
Fair
17. Research Is there a programme of management-orientated survey and research work?
There is no research taking place in the World Heritage site Poor
Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and species are being fully implemented
Very 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
18. Ecosystems and species Is the biodiversity of the World Heritage site adequately managed? Requirements for management of critical ecosystems and
species have not been assessed Poor
59
Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values are being substantially or fully implemented
Very good
Many requirements for management of cultural/ historical values are being implemented but some key issues may not be addressed
Good
Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values are known but very few are being implemented
Fair
19. Cultural/ historical resource management Are the site’s cultural resources adequately managed? Requirements for management of cultural/ historical values
have not been assessed and/or active management is not being undertaken
Poor
Management and Tourism Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of visitation
Very good
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
20. Visitor facilities Are visitor facilities (for tourists, pilgrims etc) adequate?
There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need
Poor
There is good co-operation between managers and tourism operators to enhance visitor experiences, and protect site values
Very good
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
21. Commercial tourism Do commercial tour operators contribute to protected area management?
There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators using the protected area
Poor
60
Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps 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
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
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? 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
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
There is a planned education and awareness programme but there are still serious gaps either in the plan or in implementation
Good
There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness programme, but no overall planning for this
Fair
23. Education and awareness programme Is there a planned education programme?
There is no education and awareness programme
Poor
Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives
Very good
Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives
Good
Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives
Fair
24. Access Is visitor access sufficiently controlled?
Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) are ineffective in controlling access to the site in accordance with objectives
Poor
61
Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Management and Communities/Neighbours
Local communities directly participate in all relevant management decisions for the site
Very good
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
25. Local communities Do local communities resident in or near the World Heritage site have input to management decisions?
Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management of the World Heritage site
Poor
Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant management decisions for the site
Very good
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
26. Indigenous people Do indigenous and traditional peoples resident in or regularly using the site have input to management decisions?
Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating to the management of the site
Poor
62
Issue Criteria Rating Explanation/ Comment Next steps Programmes to enhance local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare, while conserving World Heritage site resources, are being implemented successfully
Very good
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
27. Local, peoples welfare Are there programmes developed by the World Heritage managers which consider local people’s welfare whilst conserving the sites resources? There are no programmes in place which aim to enhance
local, indigenous and/or traditional peoples welfare Poor
There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users, and substantial co-operation on management
Very good
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
28. State and commercial neighbours Is there co-operation with neighbouring land/sea owners and users?
There is no contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land/sea users
Poor
Conflict resolutions mechanisms exist and are used whenever conflicts arise
Very good
Conflict resolutions mechanisms exist but are only partially effective
Good
Conflict resolution mechanisms exist, but are largely ineffective
Fair
29. Conflict resolution If conflicts between the World Heritage site and stakeholders arise, are mechanisms in place to help find solutions? No conflict resolution mechanisms exist Poor
Inability to compensate the affected people renders the mechanism partially ineffective.
63
Worksheet 8b for Tool 8: Assessment of Management Processes - Summary
Management area Issue and rating Distribution of rating
Management structures and systems
1 World Heritage Values -VG 2. Management planning- G 3. Planning systems- G 4.Regular work plans- VG 5.Monitoring -VG 6. Reporting-G 7. Maintenance of equipment-G 8. Management infrastructure-G 9. Staff facilities-F 10. Management communication.-F 11. Personnel management-F 12. Staff training-F 13. Law enforcement-G 14. Financial management-G
P= 0
F=4
G=7
VG=3
Resource management
15. Managing resources-G 16. Resource inventory-G 17. Research-F 18. Ecosystem and species-G 19. Cultural management-G
P=0
F=1
G=4
VG=0
64
Management area Issue and rating Distribution of rating
Management and Tourism 20. Visitors facilities-G 21. Commercial tourism-G 22. Visitor opportunities.-G 23. Education and awareness-F 24. Access-VG
P=0
F=1
G=2
VG=1
Management and Communities /Neighbours
25. Local communities-F 26. Indigenous people-F 27. Local people welfare-F 28. State and commercial neighbours-G 29. Conflict resolution-F
P=0
F=4
G=1
VG-0
Total distribution of ranks- P=0 F=10 G=14 VG=4
65
Section 6: Outputs
The assessment undertaken as part of this worksheet is based on the analysis of budgetary requirements projected in the management plan
and the requisitions, sanctions and expenditures based on the theme plan budget heads. In the figure given in worksheet 9 the percentage of
actual expenditure incurred as against the projected Plan requirements are given for the period 2004-2007 indicating an average expenditure of
about 8% of Plan requirements. While funds for the Management of Kaziranga National Park are made available through Centrally Sponsored
Schemes (Development of National Park and Wildlife Sanctuaries, Project Elephant and Special Assistance), the State finances that are
primarily utilised for meeting salary expenditure.
66
Tool 9: Assessment of Management Plan Implementation
Expenditure % of Plan Projections
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
CNTRLPOC
MDFIN
FRASTRBOUNDRYDELPHNTS
MISRESRCH
LIVIMM
MACNFLTTURSMIN
TPSTAMNTS
ECODEV
TRNGEDUAW
RNS
Budget Items
Perc
enta
ge
2006-07 2005-062004-05 2003-04
CNTRLPOC: Control of Poaching MDF: Measures during Flood INFRASTR: Infrastructure Development BOUNDRY: Boundary Demarcation
DELPHNTS: Departmental Elephants
MIS: Management Information System
RESRCH: Research LIVIMM: Livestock Immunisation
MACNFLT: Man Animal Conflict TURSMINTP: Tourism and Interpretation
STAMNTS: Staff Amenities ECODEV: Ecodevelopment
TRNG: Training EDUAWRNS: Education and Awareness
67
Worksheet for Tool 10: Assessing Outputs (2005-2006)
Indicator Work output target Performance Performance/level in
previous year Notes
Boundary survey and demarcation
Kilometres covered -20
0 km 10 Work has not been progressed due to inadequate availability of funds
Camps (Construction, repair)
Numbers of camps- 10
8 12 Most of the camps are in dilapidated condition.
Equipment Procurement
Rifle-25 Gun-20 Binoculars-40 Search light-20 Solar lighting system-30 Night vision-10 Computer-0 GPS-0
0 0 0 2 0 0 3 2
0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0
Nature and importance of the site require up gradation / new arms. Procurement of important items- Night Vision and Binoculars have not commenced due to fund constraints
Vehicle procurement
Gypsy-4 Country-boat-10 Mechanized boat -2 Mini truck-0
Excavator-1
4 10 1 1 0
0 15 1 0 0
Mobility is one of the important anti-poaching activity.
68
Indicator Work output target Performance Performance/level in previous year
Notes
Construction of high grounds (raised platform and roads)
Number-2.5 km 2.5 0 Old high grounds require repair and construction of more high grounds as per planned activity not commenced.
Construction/repair of Rumble strips/ Barriers
Number-5 5 5 Very important during Monsoon
Construction of Bridges/ Culverts/causeway
Number-16 16 4 This is very important for routine anti-poaching activities. Old wooden bridges should be replaced by RCC, where possible.
Construction of residences for staff and officers
Number-10 51 2 Special grant received for construction of residences
Animal health No. of livestock immunized-12000
9,000 13,000 This includes health maintenance of departmental elephant.
Grassland management No. of fire lines-25 Habitat manipulation-10 ha.
25 2
0 2
Controlled Burning requires more scientific approach for management of grasslands.
69
Indicator Work output target Performance Performance/level in previous year
Notes
Research Vehicle-1 Equipment-Rs,100000
0 0 Presently research activities are confined to some studies carried out by individuals and organizations for academic interest only.
Power-fence
Km-2 0 5 Certain strategic location on the east and west of the site may help in reducing the stray incidents of rhinoceros
Tourism facilities
Bathrooms/Toilet-4 2 1
70
Section 7: Outcomes
Worksheet 11a for Tool 11: Plan for Monitoring the Outcomes of Management
Indicator : Population of rhino, wild buffalo, elephant, tiger, swamp deer, raptors (see Box 7)
Major Site Values assessed by the indicator : Biodiversity
Justification for selection : Assemblage of herbivores is one of the main features of Kaziranga and occupy
most of the habitats available within the park thereby indicating health of the
ecosystem as well as trends with respect to recruitment and mortality.
Indicator : Extent, productivity and structure of short grasslands
Major site Value assessed by the indicator : Other natural values
Justification of selection : Herbivore population and endangered species such as the Bengal Florican are
directly dependent on palatable short grasses for shelter and food resources.
Integrity in terms of invasive species as well as incursion of trees into grasslands
also will be monitored
71
The table below provides an overview of the population of focal species
Population Species
1991 1993 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2005 2006 RHINO 1129 1164 - 1552 - - - -- 1855
ELEPHANT - 1094 945 - - - 1048 1246 --
TIGER - 72 80 - 86 - - -- --
SWAMP DEER - - - 398 468 - - -- --
WILD BUFFALO - - - 1192 - 1431 - -- --
72
Box 7: Raptor community of Kaziranga National Park, Assam
Raptors or Birds of Prey comprise hawks, eagles, vultures, falcons (diurnally active) and owls (mostly nocturnal). Most raptor species exhibit use of large areas and a diversity of habitat types compared with many other animal groups, hence they are links among habitats and they connect ecosystems across the landscapes. They are important components of ecological food webs, where they stand at the top most position. A monitoring of diurnal raptors was initiated to determine relative abundance and diversity in different habitats, under the UNESCO-IUCN Project ‘Enhancing Our Heritage’ during 2005-2006 in Kaziranga National Park (KNP). Road counts were conducted during clear weather conditions. Approximately 800 km of road length in four ranges of KNP i.e. Agratoli, Kohora, Bagori and Burapahar were covered between December 2005 and April 2006. The road counts were made by two person team and the observations were made from 0700 h to near sunset. A total of 27 raptor species were recorded from KNP during 2005-2006 (Annexure 2), 22 species were observed in winter and 13 in summer. The presence of more species of raptors in winter was due to influx of migratory raptors. In winter, Grey-headed Fish Eagle (Plate 1) was the dominant species followed by Pallas's Fish Eagle, Short-toed Eagle, Crested Serpent Eagle, Changeable Hawk Eagle and Osprey whereas in summer Grey-headed Fish Eagle was again the dominant species followed by Crested Serpent Eagle, Changeable Hawk Eagle, Pallas's Fish Eagle, Oriental Honey Buzzard, and Short-toed Eagle. A large communal roost of Short-toed Eagle (20 birds) was located from the Aarimora grassland in Agratoli Range of the park. Of the 8 globally threatened raptors recorded from the park, 6 breed here (Annexure 2). In winter, species richness was recorded to be high in Bagori (16 spp.) followed by Agratoli (15 spp.), Kohora (11 spp.) and Burapahar (6 spp.) whereas in summer the raptor species richness was high again in Bagori (13 spp.) followed by Kohora (12 spp.), Agratoli (10 spp.) and Burapahar (7 spp.).
The mosaic of ecosystems in the Kaziranga National Park is responsible for its rich raptor diversity. In winter, maximum number of raptors were supported by grasslands (54%) followed by wetlands (31%) and woodlands (15%) whereas wetlands supported maximum numbers of raptors in summer (42%) followed by woodland (29%) and grasslands (28%).
As top predators, raptors are key species for enhancing the understanding on ecosystem functioning. 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 an indicator of more subtle detrimental environmental changes such as chemical contamination occurring in the ecosystem.
Plate1. Grey-headed Fish
Eagle is an indicator of the health of wetland ecosystem
73
Minimum integrity
thresholds Confidence level
of threshold Monitoring
activity Monitoring protocol
Cost and
funding source Management implications
Current:
Census-Direct block count for herbivore after every 6 years.
Rs.3,00,000/-, Government
Help the management to take decision for necessary intervention for population declines and monitoring trends
Rhino (946 counted in 1984)
Total count
New:
1.Population estimation after every 3 years 2. yearly for select blocks
Rs.4,00,000/-, Government
Same as above
Current:
Pugmark method Rs.4,00,000/-, Government
Same as above Tiger (80 counted in 1997)
Total count (pugmark)
New:
New 4 stage estimation initiated with the WII and Project Tiger
Rs,4,00,000/- Government
Same as above
Wild buffalo (1192 counted in 1999)
Total count Current: Same as rhino (also proposed for every 3 yrs) Rs 2,00,000/- Government
Same as above
Elephants (1094 counted in 1993)
Total count Current: New:
Every year at local level Every three years for entire area
Rs 3,00,000/- Government
Same as above
Swamp Deer (398 counted in 1998)
Total count Current: New:
Every year at local level Every three years for entire area
Rs 1,50,000/- Government
Same as above
Short grasslands High Regular monitoring for controlled burning and seasonal use by herbivores and Periodic monitoring through Land cover mapping and productivity (every five years)
Rs 5,00,000 (every five years) Government
Worksheet 11b for Tool 11: Assessment of Outcomes of Management
While it has not been possible to acquire age and sex classification details through all the census efforts in the past for all the species it is especially important to monitor the recruitment rates and sex ratios for all the five major species taken up as indicators of biodiversity. However as these are not available at the present for all the species the minimum integrity thresholds are considered as the population closest to the
74
inscription as a world heritage site in 1985. Also regular monitoring of avifaunal elements of the biodiversity including species such as Bengal Florican and water fowl congregations would provide better understanding of the outcomes of management interventions.
Indicator Minimum Integrity
Threshold
Status of indicator in relation to threshold Rating
Management interventions: urgency and details of actions
Rhino 940 1855 counted in 2006
Tiger 80 86 counted in 2000
Wild buffalo
1190
1431 counted in 2001
Elephant
1090
1246 counted in 2005
Swamp deer
390
468 counted in 2000
Regular protection measures, habitat manipulation are being followed. High floods render all wild animals vulnerable and patrolling and antipoaching measures are stepped up during this period. Overall the long term viability of these indicators is ensured in Kaziranga
Good and Condition is improving
Developing concern and Condition is unchanged
Good and Condition is unchanged
75
Worksheet for Tool 12: Achievement of Principal Management Objectives Assessment
Principal Management Objective: To maintain and wherever necessary restore the demographic features relating to the populations of all
endangered , endemic, vulnerable, rare species of animals and plants with special focus on Rhino, Tiger and their habitat
Desired outcomes: Increase or maintenance of all wild animal to optimal level and maintenance and improvement of the habitat.
Performance assessment Performance indicators and target Data and methods of collection Assessment of indicator in relation to target
Breeding success of
herbivores.
Recruitment of young and
population from last
census.
Direct or block count method for
most of the herbivores.
All major herbivore populations have shown an
increase in numbers in the subsequent census
Breeding success of
carnivores.
Recruitment of young and
population from last
census.
Pugmark census and new
method initiated by WII and
Project Tiger.
All major carnivore populations have shown an
increase in subsequent census
76
Principal Management Objective: To maintain and wherever necessary restore the physical integrity of the area with special considerations to the flooding pattern. Desired outcomes: losses accruing from bank erosion along the Brahmaputra are compensated for by incorporating areas containing suitable habitat
Performance assessment Performance indicators and target Data and methods of collection Assessment of indicator in relation to target
Area available to wild animals
Increase in effective area available for wild animals
Departmental records 1st and 6th Addition areas (totalling 420.29 km2) included within park and available for wild animals. 2nd-5th Additions are in the process of finalization (totalling 9.2 km2)
Principal Management Objective: To enhance the quality of educational, recreational and wilderness experience given to the general public. Desired outcomes: Park visitors are provided with quality educational, recreational and interpretation facilities and opportunities
Performance assessment Performance indicators and target Data and methods of collection Assessment of indicator in relation to target
Visitor satisfaction Higher level of reported satisfaction with wildlife viewing opportunities and interpretation facilities
Questionnaire surveys administered to tourists
The number of tourists visiting Kaziranga has shown a steady increase over the years, however a continuous programme of monitoring visitor satisfaction is not currently in place. A new interpretation facility that was inaugurated during the Centenary Celebrations in 2005 is being upgraded (see Box 8).
77
Box 8: Kaziranga Centenary Celebrations (1905-2005)
Kaziranga National Park situated in the floodplains of mighty river Brahamaputra in central Assam, is renowned world over and epitomises the richness of biodiversity of not only Assam but the whole of the North-Eastern India. The Park has a long and luminous history of conservation, and right from its inception in 1905 till date, it has become a symbol of dedication and commitment of the people who protect and preserve its rich biological heritage.
A mega event named “Kaziranga Centenary Celebration” was organized from 11th to 17th February 2005 for showcasing the rich natural and cultural heritage of the region. The objective was to organize a series of consultations, debates, exhibitions, studies and exchanges with Kaziranga acting as a gateway for conservation of the unique bio-diversity of North East India.
The event witnessed a large assemblage of diverse group of participants including apex government functionaries representing legislature, executive and judiciary both from the state government as well as the Union of India, wildlife conservationists, travel writers, nature lovers and scientific community from across the globe. They examined persistent challenges, emerging concerns and fresh insights on wildlife protection initiatives along with traditional bonding between man and animal to engender understanding for nature conservation.
Apart from cultural events, the national and international experts had brainstorming sessions covering: (i) Grassland Management; (ii) Man-Animal coexistence; (iii) Nature-Tourism; (iv) Avifaunal diversity and its conservation and (v) Vision Kaziranga: Beyond 2005.
The UNESCO-IUCN Project Team presented papers on “Opportunities and Challenges for Kaziranga National Park, Assam over the next Fifty Years” and “Tall all Grasslands in Kaziranga National Park: Management Concerns and Conservation Perspective”.
A special tribute function Shraddharghya - ‘A salute to the Sentinels of Kaziranga’ was organized at Centenary Convention Center, Kaziranga, remembering and felicitating all those starting from Lady Curzon to the present pioneers from civil society, local communities, frontline forest staff making Kaziranga a safe Park for wild animals.
78
Principal Management Objective: To identify research priorities and implement such programmes to establish and create opportunities for enhancing management capabilities and knowledge of wildlife science Desired outcomes: Higher number of studies relating to various aspects of species diversity, abundance and habitat availability and use and enhanced information and training for the park staff.
Performance assessment
Performance indicators and target
Data and methods of collection Assessment of indicator in relation to target
Research Number of research studies undertaken within park
Departmental records and research reports
Over 15 research studies have been undertaken within the park including one doctoral study and two MSc dissertations. The park has a full time Research Officer appointed, however research facilities such as GIS based facilities and lab equipment are not available
Training Number of personnel receiving training
Departmental records While six persons among the existing staff have received formal training in wildlife management the rest of the staff have been exposed intermittently to several aspects of population and habitat management.
Principal Management Objective: Consistent with the above four objectives, in the zone of influence with sensitivity to cultural and economic well being of the communities and reduce the dependence on forest based resources. Desired outcomes:
Performance assessment
Performance indicators and target
Data and methods of collection Assessment of indicator in relation to target
Dependence of local communities on forest based resources among the 41 adjoining villages
Reduced dependence on forest based resources and increased access to alternatives
Departmental records and surveys
The marginal dependency on fish, fuel wood, fodder and NTFPs has not declined significantly due to lack of access to purchased fuels and other alternatives. However additional income sources have been developed from income generation from tourism by way of home stay programmes and vehicles engaged in tourism activities.
79
References Barua, M. & P. Sharma (1999), Birds of Kaziranga National Park, India, Forktail 15: 47–60. Champion H. G., Seth H. K., (1968) Forest Types of India, Manager of Publications, Government Press, New Delhi. Kushwaha, S.P.S. (1997) Land Mass Dynamics and Rhino habitat suitability in Kaziranga National Park. Indian Institute of Remote Sensing.
Dehra Dun. Muley Parag D. (2001) Genetic and Morphometric Studies to Differentiate between wild and domestic Asian Water Buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis)
and their hybrids in Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Sawarkar V. B., (1995) A manual for Planning Wildlife Management in Protected Areas and Managed Forests, Wildlife Institute of India,
DehraDun. Vattakkavan J., Vasu, N.K., Varma, S. Gureja, N. and Aiyadurai, A. (2002). Silent Stranglers: Eradication of Mimosa in Kaziranga National
Park, Assam. Wildlife Trust of India. New Delhi.
80
ANNEXURE 1 List of water birds recorded during 2005-2006 from Kaziranga National Park. (* denotes globally threatened species according to
IUCN 2007 and √ denotes presence of species in the respective Range of KNP)
S.No. Common name Scientific name Bagori Range
Kohora Range
Agratoli Range
Burapahar Range
1 Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis √2 Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus √ 3 Spot-billed Pelican* Pelecanus philippensis √ √ √4 Little Cormorant Phalacrocorax niger √ √ √ √5 Indian Shag Phalacrocorax
fuscicollis √ √ √
6 Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo √ √ √7 Darter * Anhinga melanogaster √ √ √ √8 Little Egret Egretta garzetta √ √ √ √9 Purple Heron Ardea purpurea √ √ √
10 Grey Heron Ardea cinerea √ √ √11 Large Egret Casmerodius albus √ √ √ √12 Median Egret Mesophoyx intermedia √ √ √ √13 Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis √ √14 Indian Pond-Heron Ardeola grayii √ √ √ √15 Asian Openbill-Stork Anastomus oscitans √ √ √ √16 White-necked Stork Ciconia episcopus √17 Black-necked Stork* Ephippiorhynchus
asiaticus √ √ √ √
18 Lesser Adjutant-Stork* Leptoptilos javanicus √ √ √ √19 Oriental White Ibis* Threskiornis
melanocephalus √
81
S.No. Common name Scientific name Bagori Range
Kohora Range
Agratoli Range
Burapahar Range
20 Lesser Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna javanica √ √ √ √21 Greylag Goose Anser anser √22 Bar-headed Goose Anser indicus √23 Brahminy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea √ √ √24 Cotton Teal Nettapus
coromandelianus √
25 Gadwall Anas strepera √ √ √ √26 Falcated Duck* Anas falcata √27 Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope √ √ √28 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos √ √ √ √29 Spot-billed Duck Anas poecilorhyncha √ √ √ √30 Northern Shoveller Anas clypeata √ √31 Northern Pintail Anas acuta √ √ √ √32 Common Teal Anas crecca √ √ √ √33 Common Pochard Aythya ferina √ √ √34 Ferruginous Pochard* Aythya nyroca √ √35 Red-crested Pochard Rhodonessa rufina √36 Tufted Pochard Aythya fuligula √37 Swamp Francolin* Francolinus gularis √ √ √ √38 Purple Moorhen Porphyrio porphyrio √39 Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus √ √40 Common Coot Fulica atra √41 Pheasant-tailed Jacana Hydrophasianus
chirurgus √ √
42 Bronze-winged Jacana Metopidius indicus √ √ √43 Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus √ √ √
82
S.No. Common name Scientific name Bagori Range
Kohora Range
Agratoli Range
Burapahar Range
44 River Lapwing Vanellus duvaucelii √45 Grey-headed Lapwing Vanellus cinereus √ √46 Red-wattled Lapwing Vanellus indicus √ √ √47 Little Tern Sterna albifrons √ 48 River Tern Sterna aurantia √ √ √49 Stork-billed Kingfisher Halcyon capensis √ √ √
83
Annexure 2 List of raptor species recorded from the Kaziranga National Park during 2005-2006.
SN Species Name Scientific Name Status IUCN Category
1 Osprey Pandion haliaetus Local migratory
2 Pallas's Fish Eagle Haliaeetus leucoryphus Resident Vulnerable 3 Grey-headed Fish Eagle Ichthyophaga ichthyaetus Resident Near Threatened
4 White-rumped Vulture Gyps bengalensis Resident Critically Endangered
5 Slender-billed Vulture Gyps tenuirostris Resident Critically Endangered
6 Euraisn Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus Local Migratory
7 Red-headed Vulture Sarcogyps calvus Resident Critically Endangered
8 Short-toed Snake Eagle Circaetus gallicus Resident 9 Crested Serpent Eagle Spilornis cheela Resident
10 Black Eagle Ictinaetus malayensis Local migratory
11 Eurasian Marsh Harrier C. aeruginosus Migratory 12 Eastern Marsh Harrier Circus spilonotus Migratory 13 Pied Harrier C. melanoleucos Migratory 14 Hen Harrier C. cyaneus Migratory 15 Montagu's Harrier C. pygargus Migratory 16 Shikra Accipiter badius Resident 17 Oriental Honey Buzzard Pernis ptilohyncus Resident
84
SN Species Name Scientific Name Status IUCN Category 18 Common Buzzard Buteo buteo Migratory 19 Indian Spotted Eagle Aquila hestata Resident Vulnerable 20 Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga Migratory Vulnerable 21 Steppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis Migratory 22 Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca Migratory Vulnerable 23 Rufous-bellied Eagle Hieraaetus kienerii Resident 24 Changeable Hawk Eagle Spizaetus cirrhatus Resident 25 Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Migratory 26 Peregrine Falco peregrinus Migratory 27 Pied Falconet Microhierax melanoleucos Resident