Transcript Vinod Mathur_2e

Management Effectiveness
Evaluation in India and Nepal
V.B. Mathur, B.C.Chowdhury, S.Singsit,
N.K.Vasu, KCA Arun Prasad, Shivraj Bhatta
[email protected]
: tcejorP egatireH ruO gnicnahnE NCUI – OCSENU
setiS egatireH dlroW larutaN ni sseccuS rof gniganaM dna gnirotinoM
: setiS naisA htuoS
PN nawtihC layoR
PN agnarizaK
kraP lanoitaN oedaloeK •
kraP lanoitaN agnarizaK •
kraP lanoitaN nawtihC layoR •
PN oedaloeK
UNESCO – IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage Project :
Monitoring and Managing for Success in Natural World Heritage Sites
Kaziranga National Park
WHS 1985
Keoladeo National Park
WHS 1985
Royal Chitwan National Park
WHS 1984
UNESCO – IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage Project :
Monitoring and Managing for Success in Natural World Heritage Sites
Kaziranga National Park
Satellite image of Kaziranga National Park and
adjoining areas
Biodiversity Values
Focal Management Targets
Kaziranga NP
Focal
Management
Targets
World Heritage Values
Additional Attributes
Information on
status
One-horned
Indian Rhinoceros
World’s largest population
A ‘keystone’ species of the wet grassland
habitat in mainly the Brahmaputra river
flood plains.
Very Good
Wild Buffalo,
Eastern Swamp
Deer
World’s largest population
Two obligate species mainly confined to the
site.
Very Good
Asian Elephant,
Large population
Approximately 30% of north east Indian
population confined to the site
Very Good
Tiger
Highest density in any protected
area
The site is under consideration to be given
a project tiger site
Raptors, Turtles,
High diversity
Significant breeding habitat of 13 species
of turtle and several species of Raptors
Good
Resident and
migratory
waterfowl
High density
Already identified as IBA site
Good
River floodplains
and wetlands
Large diversity of aquatic fauna,
Important Bird Area (IBA),
important waterfowl flyway and
wintering ground
Breeding habitat for a large number of fish
species and Gangetic river Dolphins (30%
of the Indian river dolphin population)
Good
more…
Stresses & Threats
Threats to
World Heritage
Values
Current Threats
Key threat-related factor to be assessed
Focal Management
Target affected
Kaziranga NP
Attributes for consideration in status
measurement
STRESS: Poaching
SOURCE: (i) High demand in international
market.
(ii) Poor economic condition of local
communities
One horned Indian
Rhinoceros
Protection measures, population trends and rate of
mortality
STRESS: Habitat degradation
SOURCE: (i) Siltation caused by
deforestation in catchments areas
(ii) Unmonitored practice of grassland
management using fire as a tool.
(iii) Exotic weed invasion
(iv) Livestock grazing in fringe areas
Grassland and wetland
flora and fauna
Loss of resources (e.g. food, shelter) as well as
decimation of slow moving non target species due
to intense fire requires monitoring
STRESS: Habitat fragmentation
SOURCES: National Highway, surrounding
land use pattern
Terrestrial vertebratesparticularly migratory
fauna
Interferes in animal movement particularly during
floods
STRESS: Habitat loss
SOURCE: Erosion due to change in river
courses and breach in embankments
All species and habitats
Possible change in riverfront ecosystem and
decline in Park area.
STRESS: Pollution and contamination
Aquatic and grassland &
wetland species and
habitat
Harmful effects on fishes, birds, plants and
others as well as enhanced eutrophication of
wetlands.
SOURCE:
(i) Use of pesticides and chemical
fertilizers in the tea gardens near the
Park
….more
Stakeholder Engagement & Partners in Management
Factor
Understanding
Stakeholders
Surrounding
Villagers
Tourism Industry
Govt. Departments
(Excluding Tourism
Department)
Media
Economic dependency
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Negative Impacts
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Positive Impacts
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
Willingness to engage
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Political / Social Influence
Low
Moderate
High
Moderate
Not organized
Partly organized
Not organized
Partly organized at
individual levels
Tourist guides,
small shops and
ancillary to tourism
industry such as
home stay
provisions and
transport
Promotion of
tourism, publicity,
generation of
revenue
Infrastructure development
Education and
awareness, publicity
What is the level of
engagement of the
stakeholder?
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Overall adequacy of
stakeholder engagement
(Very good, Good, Fair,
Poor)
Low
Good
Fair
Fair
Organization of
stakeholders
Assessment of
Stakeholder
Engagement
Summary
What opportunities do
stakeholders have to
contribute to management?
Management Process Assessment
Main Issues
Legal status
Criteria
Maximum
score
Current score
Effectiveness
(percentage)
1. Legislation
3
2
67%
2. Law enforcement
3
1.5
50%
Information availability and Planning
ability
3. Planning system
3
2
67%
4. Ecosystem inventory
3
2
67%
Ecosystem management and
Vulnerability control
5. Ecosystem management
a.
Monitoring & Evaluation
b.
Research
c.
Restoration
3
2
67%
6. Control over access/use of KNP
3
1.5
50%
7. Facility development
3
1.5
50%
8. Maintenance
3
1.5
50%
9. Staffing and staff training
3
1.5
50%
10. Personnel management
3
1.5
50%
11. Communication
3
1.5
50%
12. Financial sustainability
3
1.5
50%
13. Budget control and record keeping
3
1.5
50%
14. Communication with stakeholders /
partners
3
1.5
50%
15. Communication with neighbors
3
1.5
50%
16. Benefits to surrounding community
3
1.5
50%
17. Control over visitor access
3
2
67%
18. Visitor opportunities
3
2
67%
19. Visitor facilities
3
1.5
50%
Management systems
Finance and budgets
Partnership
Visitors and nature-conservation
tourism
Biodiversity Health Assessment
Focal
Management
Target
Size Rating
Condition Rating
Landscape
Overall Biodiversity
Health Rating
Rhinoceros
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Wild-Buffalo
Fair
Good
Fair
Fair
Swamp-Deer
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Very Good
Good
Fair
Good
Bengal
Florican
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Aquatic
Habitats
Good
Good
Good
Good
Very Good
Good
Good
Good
Tiger
Grassland
The Path Ahead

Plug in the gaps identified through WCPA
management effectiveness evaluation framework

Implement the recommendations made in the
initial management effectiveness evaluation

Seek funding support for major management
interventions
Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur (India)
Design Assessment
Design aspect
Strengths of reserve design in relation to this aspect
Weaknesses of reserve design in relation to this aspect
Key areas
Mosaic of habitats inside the NP helps in supporting high species
diversity.
Refuge area/ satellite key resource are not in the WH site design.
Size
Small area has unique mosaic of habitats whose boundary is
clearly defined.
Absence of buffer zone around the park makes PA vulnerable to all
forms of biotic pressures.
External interactions
Presence of mosaic of habitat helps in limiting and controlling
direct external interaction. Regulations & governance by allied
departments helps in maintaining refuge areas.
Adjacent land use particularly subsistence agriculture, leads to
increased dependency on the park resources mainly water and fodder
often causing conflict.
Connectivity
Seeds of primary and secondary producers flow in with water
inflow from watershed, particularly fish fry that sustain the
heronry.
Seeds of certain weeds enter the same way.
A. Ecological integrity
B. Community well-being
Key areas
Direct economic benefits through tourism, water and fodder
availability.
There are no legal provisions for physical utilization of resources
inside a NP.
Size
Small size provides easy accessibility for park managers to the
villagers.
Occasionally crop damage by wild herbivores is high. Small size
limits resource availability.
External interactions
Providing opportunities for multi cultural exchange due to influx
of large number of foreign tourist.
Loss of cultural values.
Legal status
Stringent legal provisions provide high integrity to the park.
No resources sharing can be legally permitted within the NP.
Legal status
Legal status is clear which helps in better management.
No resource sharing possible.
Access points
Controlled few access points.
The large interface between PA & villages facilitates easy access at
times by breaching of boundary wall.
Neighbours
The park has a well defined demarcation of boundary through a 5’
high stone masonry wall.
Deliberate breach of wall at many places to facilitate the entry of
livestock defeats the purpose.
C. Management factors
Assessment of Current Management Plan Implementation
Criteria habitat management
Score action wise
Max score
Current score
%
Veg. Management
(9 actions)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
4, NR, NR, 4, 0, 3, NR, NR, NR
20
11
55%
Water management
(10 actions)
NA, 4, 4, 4, 0, NR, NR, 4, 4, 4
28
24
85.68%
Protection
General (14 actions)
Fire protection
(6 actions)
3, 2, 0, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 0, 3, 3, 0, 0
4, 0, NR, NR, NR, 3
56
33
58.74%
Tourism facilities
(22 actions)
NR, 4, NR, 0, NA, NR, NR, NR, 0, 0,
4, 4, 4, 3
0, NA, 0, NA, NA, 3, 4, 2
52
28
69.3%
Ecodevelopment
(14 action)
0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
56
6
10.71%
Monitoring & Research
(8 actions)
0, 0, 4, 0, 2, 0, 0
32
6
18.75%
Biodiversity Health Assessment
Focal Management
Target
Size rating
Condition rating
Landscape context
rating
Overall
Biodiversity
Health Rating
Heronry
Poor
Good
Poor
Poor
Management of
wetland & ecological
succession
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Monitoring Plan Template
Focal
Management
Target
Heronry
Terrestrial
habitats
Indicator to
be Measured
Key Factor /
Biodiversity
Health
Category
Informed
Methods to
be Employed
Frequency
Timing
Who will
Measure
Cost
Funding
Source
No. of
species
Species
abundance
Direct count
Monthly
count from
July
through
October
Any
time of
day
Park staff &
volunteers
Included in
administrative cost
State /
Central
Government
Nesting
success
Annual
recruitment
-do-
-do-
Meteorologic
al data
Conditions
suitable for
nesting
Standard
methodology
Everyday
Park
administration
& Researchers
-do-
-do-
Abundance
of trees
-do
Ocular
observation
for
abundance of
mounds
Once a year
Any
time in
July
Park staff
-do-
-do-
Extent of
wetland area
Extent & stage
of succession
Ocular
estimation of
vegetation
Once a year
Draw
down
phase
Park staff
-do-
-do-
Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal
Focal Management Targets
Information
on status
Focal Management Targets
World Heritage Values
Additional Attributes
Maintenance of natural
ecosystems of RCNP
The biological richness of the
park is outstanding with 8
ecosystem types, which include
7 forest types, 6 grassland
types, 5 wetland and 3 main
river system habitats.
Only viable corridor linking
tropical to temperate ecosystems.
Very Good
Management of critical and
viable habitat for rare and
endangered species
The park harbors the rare tree
fern, Cycas, screw pine and
many critical and viable
habitats for rare and
endangered species.
Links Parsa WLR, Balmiki tiger
Reserve (India) providing biggest
viable habitat for tiger.
One of the Global 200 eco-region
site.
Very Good
Rare and endangered
species conservation
RCNP harbors second largest
population of Asiatic Rhino
(544), Tiger (more than 120)
with 60 breeding individuals,
Gaur (above 200), Sloth Bear
(above 200), viable population
of Gharial and many others
endangered mammals, birds,
reptiles, and amphibians.
Provide breeding habitat for 526
species including endangered
migratory birds, other mammals,
reptiles, amphibians, insects
including more than 156 species of
butterflies.
Successful captive breeding site for
endangered wildlife like Gharial,
Mugger, Turtle, Elephant etc.
Very Good
Biodiversity
Values
More……
Stresses & Threats
Threats to World
Heritage Values
Key threat-related factor to be assessed
Focal Management
Target affected
Attributes for consideration in status
measurement
Current threats
Stress: Alternation of habitat due to soil
erosion and flood
All FMT
Annual measure of selected habitats
Source: Improper management of the upper
catchments of Rapti and Narayani rivers:
fragile geo-morphology.
Stress: Reduction in habitat availability due to
proliferation of invasive species
Management of upper catchments
area.
FMT 1
Source: Change in microclimatic condition,
organic matter in flow with water
Stress: Contamination of water bodies
Extent of area infested with weed
FMT 1
Source: Industrial pollution, intensive
agriculture using organic chemicals
Stress: Decrease in wildlife population of key
species
Source: Livestock and crop depredation
Water quality monitoring
Census of aquatic fauna
Monitoring of industrial effluents
FMT 1, 2
Source: Wildlife poaching
Stress: Rising antagonism of local
communities towards park
Habitat loss
Change in species composition
Loss of endemic taxa
Census of key species
Monitoring of offences
Official records and publication
FMT 3
Amount of compensation
Compensation process
Regular monitoring
More…..
Stakeholder Engagement & Partners in Management
Focal
Management
Target /
Management
Objective
Local
people
Local
hoteliers
Tourist
Nature
guides
NGOs
Scientific
Research
Organizations
Govt.
Organizations
RNA
Overall
Stakeholders
Engagement for
Target/ Objective
Biodiversity
Values
Fair
Poor
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Other Natural
Values
Fair
X
X
X
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Cultural/Social
Values
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Design Assessment
Design aspect
Strengths of reserve design in relation to this aspect
Weaknesses of reserve design in
relation to this aspect
A. Ecological integrity
Key areas
Outstanding biological richness supporting 8 ecosystems and different
species.
Size
In addition to 932 sq. km. core zone, 750 sq. km of has been added as
buffer zone.
External
interactions
Parsa WL in the east and Balmiki Tiger Reserve in the south provides
additional habitat.
Connectivity
The park includes inner Terai, Churia, Terai, which are connected to
Mahabharat ranges through various corridors.
B. Community well-being
Key areas
Direct benefit by sharing 50% of park revenue, providing livelihood
essentials (thatch grass) to local people.
Size
750 sq. km. buffer zone through community forestry provides the
opportunity to meet the demand of NR to local people. It ultimately
reduces pressure to park. The BZ forests also provide additional habitat
for wildlife.
Requires lot of financial and human
resources.
External
interactions
Enhances the cross-cultural exchange, which supports different economic,
and management skill enhancement opportunities.
Increased inflation causing difficulty
for local people.
Legal status
Strong Acts and Regulations with efficient implementation mechanism.
More…..
Lessons Learnt from Project Implementation in
South Asia
 WCPA Management Effectiveness Evaluation
(MEE) Framework requires a comprehensive
understanding for successful implementation
 WCPA MEE Framework requires appropriate
adjustments to suit the varying site attributes
 Outcomes Assessment Process comprising
Biodiversity Health Assessment and Threat
Assessment requires modification and
harmonization with other similar assessment
tools in use
THANKS